Pages

Amherst Bytes #32: On Podcasts v. Netcasts

Since its inception, I’ve always felt that the term “podcast” has done a horrendous job of explaining what podcasts really are. Podcasts, as loyal readers will remember, are subscription-based feeds that deliver audio and video content to your computer, which can then be automatically synchronized with your portable audio player. While it’s easy enough to parse the union of “iPod” and “broadcast”, that alone doesn’t exactly fit the definition I just gave. It also feeds the misconception that podcasts can only be used with iPods. In my travels, I’ve come across many that make this mistake as well. Honestly, the next time I recommend a podcast to someone and they give me the “But I don’t have an iPod!” excuse, I may just have to hunt down that Mac guy from the Mac vs. PC commercials and beat him senseless.

Of course it would be wrong to take my anger out on Justin Long, especially since he and the Apple marketing department aren’t actually at fault. Surprisingly enough, Apple had very little to do with the development of the word “podcast”. For that, we can thank British journalist Ben Hammersley who fathered the term in a February 2004 Guardian article where he declared the new technology the next big thing in media content. “Podcast” was just one of many terms that Hammersley suggested, others included “AudioBlogging” (as it was often referred to in tech circles years before) and “GuerillaMedia.” Even though it was only two years ago, podcasting was new and different enough to warrant serious thought on how to sell it. The name was important, as it could literally make or break the technology.

After Hammersley’s article, the name “podcast” eventually came into favor with its original developers, which then trickled down to the tech community. As 2004 progressed, podcasting began to generate the buzz it needed to become a phenomenon. First generation podcast aggregator iPodder became the application of choice for early adopters, and sites like Podcast.net made it easy for anyone to find something to listen to. In June 2005, Apple added podcasting aggregation functionality to iTunes. In addition, they set up their own podcast directory which was easily searchable within iTunes. The combination of these two moves by Apple spurred on further interest in podcasts by casual end users and effectively brought podcasting to the mainstream.

So I suppose Apple is still sort of to blame for the “podcast” moniker: The success of the iPod made it synonomous with portable audio, which led Ben Hammersley to suggest it originally. In addition, their well-timed integration of podcasting as an integral feature of iTunes pushed it to the common user. All of this doesn’t assuage my original worry though. I still believe “podcast” is an inherently misleading name for the technology. But if “podcast” is unsuitable, what else is there?

Taking a queue from Leo Laporte, former host of “The Screen Savers” on Tech TV, and current podcast celeb at “This Week in Tech” (www.twit.tv), it seems like the best possible replacement of “podcast” is “netcast.” Now there’s a name that represents the technology for what it actually is–a broadcast over the Internet! This can include any sort of media on any portable audio player, so it should be less confusing to new users. Most importantly it’s platform agnostic, which gets that sticky iPod aftertaste out of the equation.

Then again, as with any battle, we have to ask ourselves: Is this one worth fighting? I definitely see the benefit of making a stand for “netcast” now while the medium is still only a few years old. If we were to try this further down the line it would be like trying to change “car” to “electric wagon” today. Then again, podcasting has matured at an incredible pace, and it may actually be detrimental to the technology to change its identity at this point. If this were the case, then fighting for the name change would be a pointless struggle.

Whenever I come to crossroads such as this I always try to make the more principled choice, and in this case it’s fighting for “netcast” so that we can remove the technologies baseless association with iPods and Apple. This may ultimately lead nowhere, but there’s always something to be said for fighting the good fight.


Similar Posts

Trackbacks

blog comments powered by Disqus