This analysis does not surprise me. Podcasting is an excellent idea, but no one has yet made it easy enough for the casual computer user to subscribe.

In this regard, content producers, NPR for example, are far ahead of the curve. The adoption of MP3 over Real Audio provided an actual file that can be played to a user – that is a significant upgrade. Automatically updating a subscription is fantastic, but the subscription via iTunes is simply not reliable enough. I have several podcasts that don’t refresh properly; that means I need to go to the site, and download it. Any steps that get in the way of acquiring the podcast means that the podcast lose users. Casual users will have an even more dramatic drop-off.

Podcasts tend to be very long by internet standards. People online are fickle. They scan articles, and move extremely quickly from one site to another. Podcasts require an investment of time. My hypothesis is that podcasts are most often listened to when people are doing something else. You may listen to at work in the background. That’s what I do, at least. I ain’t hip with the ‘pod, but I imagine generally people who listen to podcasts on their iPod will listen while exercising, shopping or something similar. This may impact loyalty.

Another issue is the quality of podcasts.  Sometimes this is content, sometimes it is presentation.  A blogger who happens to podcast his or her thoughts is unappealing to me. Just because I like what a person writes does not mean he or she will translate to audio nor give me anything beyond text does.
I agree with Li that podcasts will find a niche for things like language instruction, quarterly analysis, earnings calls, etc. These are places where periodically updated audio makes a lot of sense. I frequently miss shows on WNYC that I would like listen to, and podcasts allow me to catch up on my own time. Audio blogs have introduced me to a wealth of new music I would have never been exposed to otherwise. And nothing quite like finding an audio kin out in the wilds of cyberspace.

Compare the predominance of online video like youtube and google video versus relative success of podcasts. Videos are easy to play, pretty short, and easy to send to friends if you like it. You don’t need to figure out how to subscribe. Videos seem to quickly becoming the equivalent of forwards in 1999. With the added juice of broadband and big media players coming on board quickly, video will continue to dominate over podcasts.

btw, thank you to the hip-hopping Federated Media for making it even easier to keep up with all the fun technology trends out there. I smell blogroll!

Discussion on O'Reilly about why Google Maps has spawned so many more mash-ups than Yahoo or Mapquest, both of which now offer their APIs for free.

Google gave their API first. Getting there first is a big deal for tech especially in the world of del.icio.us and digg. People see a mash-up of all the best pizzerias in New York and google maps on digg, and are tempted to top it.  Google Maps is extremely easy to read – techies are suckers for a good-looker.  

Via techcrunch, intriguing idea.  I am very curious to see how users adjust to the new features.   Will they rewrite stories?  How will tagging evolve?  How many passive users will there be versus active users? 

For example, Newsvine is a really good idea, but I've really not been interested thus far in taking an active role.  Thus far, apparently, I prefer to get my news on a given site, through my RSS reader or, heaven forbid, from the paper itself.  I thought I'd be more into tagging articles, but thus far, I've been sticking with del.icio.us.  Any other experiences out there?

Atrios may not like it, but I like the new NY Times site.  The site makes much better use of the whole screen.  As soon as a user brings up the site, you can get more headlines.  The variable size of fonts and multiple columns allow readability.   It’s also more consistent with the physical paper which helps branding.  Seeing entries that have been most blogged about is a nice touch that hopefully will introduce new readers to the blogs.  The top nav, geared towards users gives options about different ways to approach the content on the site.  It reminds me a bit of CJR Daily, but NY Times is easier to read.

del.icio.us/url

Harnesses the power of del.icio.us to give users a “history” of a given URL at del.icio.us.  Plug in a URL and get back related sites, common tags, and a list of who has tagged the site and the notes users annotated the site with.  One thing I’ve always wanted to see on the internet was a way of surfing laterally.  If I like a site, say atrios, what other sites are the people who like atrios looking at?

And we’re back. Apologies for the delay. Back to the fray!

YouTube has been at the center of every viral video epidemic since Lazy Sunday exploded with the help of its servers. Doff your cap to them for it. YouTube has far outdistanced yahoo, and google video is lagging behind too. Flash’s video compression is the clearly superior product since its release, both in performance and ease of integration. YouTube capitalized on FLV along with increased broadband penetration to make the site the place online for videos. Community uploads keep the content liquid and plentiful. And the best part: each video has its own unique URL unique enabling better viral transmission than a fishnet condom.

So what do they have planned? I’ve been curious how they plan on making money, and on their strategy in general. Thankfully Newsweek asked this question before I did.

As far as I can suss it out, the YouTube strategy comes down to this:

Keep the offering free for now. YouTube has at least 3.5 million in start-up funds, so the company is set for the time being. Make YouTube become the place for video on the web and back that up with usage numbers (which essentially is already the case). Then, you can start charging for ads in the videos. I have no idea if that’s viable – that article made a good point that Google and Yahoo! can keep their services free by supplementing the losses with revenue from elsewhere. Advertising would open YouTube up to a bunch of legal issues. Presumably, there are other possible revenue streams – take for example, an iTunes model – make exclusive deals with NBC or 20th century Fox to show pilots or trailers or exclusive interviews.

Also inherent to this strategy is YouTube building a very cozy relationship with corporate sponsors. A novel approach, but one certainly warranted by the hostility that the web has generated in the past.

(Aside: My mind jumps back the magical WWW, around 10 years ago, where you could still find fantastic fansites for the Simpsons replete with images, wav’s, avi’s, etc. Then came the cease and desist orders from Fox. Undoubtedly readers will have their own bitter experience regarding the squelching of their favorite online places. Please feel free to include diatribes below.)
Following the unbelievable success of Lazy Sunday, NBC requested that YouTube take it off their site. They obliged:

YouTube execs point out that, unlike Napster, they control what’s on their site and can boot users who are breaking the law. “This is not 1999. Those guys [Napster] were renegades. They thought no one could touch them,” says Kevin Donahue, YouTube’s VP of marketing and programming. “We want to be in business with content owners, not in conflict.”

(Aside 2: Who is NBC kidding? Without YouTube, Lazy Sunday would have died a quick, lonely death as another piece of SNL filler. YouTube enabled quick transmission all over the shop.)

By cozying up to the big media companies, YouTube is a “good corporate citizen� – it’s not rattling cages or swords. It’s not trying to destroy old media. YouTube’s policy allows them to play the role to a tee.  YouTube can excise videos which don’t appease the media masters without the backlash of selling out because it sold out from the beginning.  Of course, as soon as YouTube takes something down, the community can respond by throwing the nasty clip right back up there.  YouTube gets to take the cake and eat it too.
YouTube also reaps an additional benefit every time it pulls a video: free publicity. A press release that announces the deal between NBC, for example, legitimizes YouTube as a (if not the) major player in online video. And YouTube gets its name all across the media. You can’t buy advertising that good.

Even if YouTube’s strategy isn’t viable, or if google video or a new offering surpasses YouTube altogether, by the end of ’06, YouTube is set up perfectly as an acquisition for a major player who is currently watching from the sidelines. AOL maybe? Seems like something they’d do when not charging for email.

These mofos are grabbing the electronic means of production and starting the revolution in Flash!

1.5.0.1 came out.  This provided an opportunity to demonstrate the much improved automatic update function for firefox.  Huzzah!