Re: [microsound] podcasting site?

["nathan c. dickerson" <ndickerson@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 7/20/05, info@xxxxxxxxx <failsafedefault@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>  it's the same difference as saying "get the hoover luv" when really one
> should say "be a dear and fetch the vaccum cleaner"
> or "i need a kleenex" when really one should say "i need a tissue"

I am tired of the pollution of language. Why accept this? Theres
really no reason to.
 
 > ok ok enough of the sarcasm, look at it this way - if you make music and
> you want it to be heard, and someone else is doing all the expensive bit
> of marketing their product to play your music is that so much of a
> problem?  the <itunes> tags are arbitrary, thats just something
> generated by their web-serving technology. you can still have a feed to
> itunes or any other player/browser without these tags.

But, ideally, wouldn't you want your music to be heard in open formats
and decentrally distributed by a content syndication system thats goal
is interoperability?

> i agree apple are the mc-daddies of marketing. whilst people who don't
> know any better will always associate podcasts with ipods, those who
> bother to learn more about the technology involved might want to learn
> more.
> what i am trying to say is that yes it's bad for competition (for an
> internet (music) service provider) , but it's not so bad for music and
> it's not so bad for people who don't have the technical knowledge or
> will to learn the difference. i guess it's down to the priorities of the
> individual...

I wonder about the future of content syndication implementing
advertising as well as DRM. Apple has a commercial interest in such
things. There has been alot of work into figuring out business models
based on syndicated advertising embedded into syndicated content.. 
This abuse of technology is coming, and will be integrated into the
most popular commercial aggregators which redistribute feeds in time.

As someone who has built an aggregation engine (not a difficult task),
I know that this is incredibly simple to implement.

I wouldn't want my feeds replicated on commercial aggregators which
serve up audio advertisements -- just to have my music heard by the
masses.

Apple is in a damn good position to implement such things the same way
google and microsoft will have this ability with their blog systems.

These days its all about user base, not technlogy, which is why
websites and site networks like myspace.com sell for 540 billion US
dollars!

I would rather work towards an alternative then to passive accept
these likely possibilities.

> 
> and aren't these tags specfic to itunes not rss feeds in general? e.g.
> itunes is an apple product  to make the most of itunes these additional
> tags are itunes specific and it gives you the opprtunity to exploit it
> to you own ends, which i assume is music (or microsound)

That was just an example of the creation of a defacto standard.

> In other words is Steve Jobs is the new Satan?

It takes more then one man to run an empire.

> nathan c. dickerson wrote:
> 
> >Look at the format of a podcast RSS feed and you will find the following tags:
> >
> ><itunes:explicit></itunes:explicit>
> ><itunes:author></itunes:author>
> ><itunes:summary></itunes:summary>
> >
> >This technology existed before itunes. There is no reason to name tags
> >this way in any kind of open standard.
> >
> >Apple created a stylized version of a product that already existed;
> >Understood the trend of content syndication, exploited it, and
> >produced a defacto standard, which they now control.
> >
> >Even the RSS community has a problem with this -- Apple didn't even
> >consult the RSS community about format standards.
> >
> >Upon hearing 'podcast', 'ipod' immediatly comes to mind. This is wrong
> >for any kind of open standard -- this is associative trademark
> >branding!
> >
> >This is Apples game -- Apple's habits of branding in public spaces
> >(renting/buying ALL the advertising space in transportation hubs such
> >as subways and public transit systems) and virtual spaces is
> >unethical.
> >
> >Are there really only a few people here who see a problem with this?
> >
> >On 7/20/05, Guillaume Grenier <grenier.g@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>On 20/07/05 10:08, { brad brace } said in living color:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>wouldn't simple downloads of mp3s(or oggs) be more
> >>>egalitarian than becoming dependent on proprietary ipod
> >>>hard/software?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>There's nothing proprietary in podcasts.
> >>
> >>It's just a RSS 2.0 feed (using an XML file) with a MP3 enclosure.
> >>
> >>As for aggregators (the software that checks and downloads new content),
> >>there are a shitload of them: some free/some not free (in the $ sense), some
> >>developed by companies/developed by a community/developed by just one guy,
> >>some open-source/some closed, etc. Just choose whatever works best for you.
> >>
> >>Actually, the only proprietary aspect of the whole thing is the MP3. And of
> >>course, you're not obligated to use this format -- you could use an Ogg file
> >>or whatever else audio format you see fit to use.
> >>
> >>You can then listen to these "podcasts" on whichever device you want.
> >>
> >>g.
> >>
> >>--
> >>Guillaume Grenier - grenier.g@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>
> >>"Things are more like they are now than they ever were before."
> >>
> >>(Dwight Eisenhower)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>website: http://www.microsound.org
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 


-- 
contact: nathan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
pattern media - http://patternmedia.com/
pattern records - http://patternrecords.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
website: http://www.microsound.org