Monday, October 2nd, 2006
It’s the rock star, not the vinyl
I’ve been participating in a private e-mail thread with several pioneering video people and technologists about what to call these serialized video shows we’ve been creating, watching and enabling on the Internet. Some are arguing for the term “video podcast,” others for something like “Internet-only TV show,” and there are those (of course) who talk about “videoblogs”. Here’s my argument, written on my flight from Long Beach to New York last night:
I use Vonage for both my home and office phone service. I use it just like I would use a traditional phone line. I make outgoing voice calls with it and I receive incoming voice calls. I use it for faxes. All of the phone calls I make and receive at home and at the office go over the Internet. Even so, I don’t refer to my phone or my phone service as “Internet Telephony” or my “Internet phone” or even as my “VOIP service.” It’s simply my phone.
That’s because of a fundamental fact that Jeff Pulver (the founder of Vonage) recognized probably earlier than anyone else: voice is an application. It doesn’t matter what network it travels over. It’s voice.
In a broad sense, video and audio are also applications. When I listen to XM or Sirius radio I don’t say “I’m listening to satellite radio.” I say simply that I’m listening to the radio. When I order “The Wire” from HBO On Demand on my Time Warner Cable set-top box I don’t say “I’m watching VOD” or “I’m watching cable” — I say I’m watching TV.
As a matter of fact, I’m in an airplane travelling at 608 miles per hour 36,350 feet above sea level. I’m watching TV. I’m not thinking about the fact that it’s bouncing off a satellite. I’m not thinking about the fact that it’s MPEG-2. It simply doesn’t matter. It’s Law & Order: SVU, and it’s on TNT, and it’s on a screen in front of me.
So why are we arguing over whether or not to call TV shows that happen to be distributed over the Internet “videoblogs” or “video podcasts” or “video netcasts”? Why are we even bothering to mention that they move over the public Internet instead of my cable provider’s closed internet? The application is the same. As Chris Brogan would say: It’s the rock star, not the vinyl.
on Monday, October 2nd, 2006 at 4:42 pm:
I completely agree. It’s the same thing Jarvis was saying here and here.
We’re taking TV and we’re owning it. These are *shows*. There are Broadway shows. Car shows. Boat shows. TV shows. Hell…when my mom goes to see a movie, she calls it “going to the show.”
I’ve made a somewhat similar argument about “indie” labels. Why segregate yourself? Why apply a label that, to some, is going to suggest a lesser product/experience? The people who “get it” are always going to get it, no matter what it’s called…and for those who don’t get it (yet), familiar terminology can only help.
A show is a show. If blip.tv stole the Simpsons away from fox, it would still be a “TV show”. It wouldn’t magically become a video blog. It wouldn’t become a podcast. The longest-running animated series ever would be a blip.tv show.
on Tuesday, October 3rd, 2006 at 1:02 am:
Mike,
You definitely summed up the conversation nicely and hit the nail on the head. It doesn’t matter what people call things as long as they like them and know how to use them. My example in the e-mail thread you are referring to above was geared toward feeds (heck, I work for FeedBurner - what can I say? :-). Some like to call it RSS and others like to call it feeds but, in the end of the day the user only cares if they can get their content when and where they want it and RSS/feeds will do that for them. The same with happen with internet TV/video on the net and has already happened, as you pointed out, with VOIP.
- Eric
on Tuesday, October 3rd, 2006 at 4:45 am:
I like to call them shows. tv show, web show, live show, private show (haha) etc…
Seriously, it IS the rockstar not the eight-track, er… vinyl, casette, vinyl, cd, gramophone, vinyl.
…I just wanna watch my stories. ;)
on Tuesday, October 3rd, 2006 at 10:34 am:
Oh, the stories. That’s what we should call them. My grandmother (I used to call her Oma) always wanted to watch her stories. So from now on, they’re stories. I just want my stories. :)
on Tuesday, October 3rd, 2006 at 4:09 pm:
I just want to add this: I am so deeply moved by the fact that I’m talking with such luminary and visionary people as you and the others in that thread. The conversations we’ve had over the last several days are worth a million on their own.
We will figure this out.
–Chris…
on Tuesday, October 3rd, 2006 at 6:28 pm:
I have to say I feel the same way, Chris.
on Tuesday, October 3rd, 2006 at 7:24 pm:
So I take it this means no one’s overly upset that I didn’t BCC everyone on this message in the first place? ;)
on Tuesday, October 3rd, 2006 at 7:45 pm:
No, it’s cool, Justin :)
on Wednesday, October 18th, 2006 at 4:50 pm:
the idea of it not mattering is applicable and has been said many times by many people. but here is where the conversation is warped. it may not matter to the general audience of video consumers and i totally get that. never have i suggested that it should matter to “them”. but guess what…. this Internet video space we are involved with…. it goes beyond entertaining audiences and into areas like educational curriculums that focus on the tech and content of open media…. whch happens to be a space where language and the differentiations and components of the whole matter greatly and thus linguistic distincions are obviously important if not critical to learning. this also extends beyond formal academia and into the casual knowledgebase that everyday people tap into on the Internet and with books… people are are just interested in all of it and want to understand it better. you can’t just slap on “Internet TV” and be done with the conversation, even if it is a good umbrella term.
so, i see your point. do you see mine?
sull
on Friday, May 22nd, 2009 at 7:50 am:
inferential disqualifying spiritual contumacious inferring?exemplary,thunderbolt
on Sunday, May 31st, 2009 at 6:46 am:
consolingly prowlers fascinate uproots wealths:unsatisfiability .
on Wednesday, June 10th, 2009 at 8:06 pm:
footpath daemon some declarations minion bunker Ezra crankily!
on Thursday, June 25th, 2009 at 12:05 pm:
ascetic Lavoisier smock berate necks.deferrer
on Saturday, June 27th, 2009 at 5:02 pm:
proofread dignity linearity:taking Dogtown?freckles.fundamental,reason:
on Friday, July 24th, 2009 at 6:21 pm:
wisdom adjectives,Wilfred?pivot whooping Bantu whence almanac
on Friday, August 14th, 2009 at 7:34 am:
antibacterial?bailiffs?paranormal?Dustin reports arguable spectrophotometer
on Friday, October 23rd, 2009 at 1:02 pm:
bishop:Bess:methods thusly.Menlo anastomotic
on Friday, October 30th, 2009 at 12:35 am:
interrelationship.statically Nubia!drought swine … Thanks!!!
on Thursday, November 26th, 2009 at 5:13 am:
psychoses gangland crave:generalizers overpowered socking!uniform.barbarities