What is Digg?47 Comments
- chesterton, on 10/12/2007, -1/+46Wow... Journalism that actually digs into some of the details. Well done!
- RubberbandLN6, on 10/12/2007, -8/+36A netcast.
- happyyellowbug, on 10/12/2007, -0/+24Hmmm. It appears like the Xerox thing. The podcast name has become generic (fast!) -- it is an action after all. Xerox this, podcast that...
But if a person can't call what they are creating, "a podcast," what are they supposed to call it? - davidod87, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17Whatever.
- Matrixsjd, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18"iPod has been around for two years, and "podcast" for almost as long, so why is Apple doing this now?"
iPod's have been around since 2001, which is actually 5 years, not two. - corser, on 10/12/2007, -7/+20I don't recall the term "podcast" being used until iPods were released. I think somebody ( or many people ) came up with the term to appeal to the popularity of the iPod brand. Podcasts used to go by the less fancy buzz-wordy term "streaming audio"
- wisedude, on 10/12/2007, -17/+30Apple wasn't even the one to name them podcasts, they're just greedy pieces of crap
- betterth, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11@Corser
"Podcasts used to go by the less fancy buzz-wordy term "streaming audio""
I don't know what kind of podcasts you listen to, but mine are all singular audio files available for download and served to me through RSS, and in no way streamed.
As far as I'm concered, "streaming audio" is still "streaming audio", or maybe "internet radio", not "podcasts". - inkswamp, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9I think you spend too much time thinking about this stuff. Go outside.
- geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Google's in the dictionary too, as a verb even, yet Google retains the trademark and discourages the use of google as a verb.
Apple's doing the same thing here to try to maintain the iPod trademark, even if they're being brash about it. Xerox did the same thing when their name became synonymous with copying, Kleenex with tissues, etc. - inkswamp, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Podcast sounds similar to "broadcast" which is why it sounds so natural and really took off with everyone.
Zunecast? Yeah, that sounds just great. [/sarcasm] - inkswamp, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I agree wholeheartedly. There's enough lazy journalism in the world, especially in tech reporting where pulling biased opinions out of one's ass usually for the sake of reactions seems to be the standard approach. It's a refreshing change to see someone actually do some research to find out what's going on. Kudos to the author.
- smeager, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4**Fixed**... applied (not Granted) for the trademark term in Sep 2005 dating usage back to March 2005.
- zephc, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@gromnie:
'netcast' implies network access, whereas 'podcast' implies shifting the media onto an iPod. As a generic term, what would you suggest - 'portacast'? Clunky. iPod has almost (but not quite) become a generic term like 'Kleenex' for facial tissue. - Atomic1fire, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2netcast is to diverse a term
how bout mp3cast - SniperGX1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The term Podcasts is similar to the term Javascript. Javascript has nothing to do with Java other than Java was a popular term around the time Javascript was developed. Similar to Podcasts when iPod was the new buzterm to use to gain popularity.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This is all a big joke, the only people who really care are the stake holders in Apple and Microsoft. I personally prefer podcast because it was coined that way from the beginning. Its something I know. I mean, the ipod filled a market void and picked up on the whole audio casting phenomenon, I didn't see anyone else filling that void. So podcasting was appropriate at the time.
And I'm not worried. New technology will come along, and new name will be given, like interacticast or mediacast or some *****, and podcasting will fade away.
But only when A NEW TECHNOLOGY MAKES THE CHANGE APPROPRIATE. - MikeCerm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1... BUT, Apple only attempted to trademark the term "iPodcast" after the word podcast entered the vernacular. There's no way that they should be capable of enforcing a trademark on the word iPodcast. They can, however, exclusively use the term "iPodcast", but can't prevent anyone else from using podcast.
- jimthetaff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Well, in my mind we have audiocast, videocast and collectively they are webcasts. Much more acccurate, given that you may listen on any device, not just an ipod, than "podcast".
- MikeCerm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Maybe Leo Laporte could call them portcasts, but other than that, portcasts is not a particularly good name.
- MikeCerm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Audcast is too homophonically similar to Oddcast (TM).
- kiantech, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5screw apple everybody still use podcast and wait for them to sue everybody, then watch all this bad pr and they will stop.
- felchdonkey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's basically the same thing Digg is going through with having to protect their own trademark for Digg. Like Kevin Rose pointed out, just having the trademark isn't enough - you have to actively protect it, or it can be lost.
It sucks that Apple is having to go through this whole thing, but it would be worse for them if legal arcana caused them to lose the iPod trademark altogether. - Jim.Foreman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1My question: What will this do to other up-and-coming outfits like Podshow? Are they going to change their name to NetShow?
Netcast is too generic, I think. There's got to be a better name out there. - jeffyjones, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You can claim a trademark without ever filing with the USPTO, but in order to defend it, you have to demonstrate its use in commerce and mark it with "TM." Having "iPod" as a registered trademark may not be good enough either. You also need to demonstrate that you've defended it, and in this case, after several years, they haven't defended it. To wake up and do so now, I think they'd lose any actual court case.
- Phoenixfury, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3I definatly saw this one coming when I first heard that the format was being called "podcast". Personally I resented them being called that and felt it caused confusion which it does. I certainly agree with Leo Laporte about calling them something else other than Podcast. To be honest I'm not much more wild about calling them netcasts although that name does get right to the point. I'd like to throw out there that I nominate echo-cast, and byte-cast. (pronounced like bit or bite) For those wondering why byte-cast? When you get down to it, it's all 0's and 1's anyway. I could even see it be RSS-Cast, but I doubt anyone would go for that one.
- thoughtout, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0They have been trying for the the trade name registration "iPodcast" every since the killed our iPed and having a hard time getting it, I heard. (now just "PED"....and thank god, I rather not confuse people like they said it would)
- d7415, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1hmm...well looks like there's at least some debate on the issue (really bad source, but i'm lazy) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podcasting#What.27s_in_a_Name.3F
- dist0rti0n, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1You should always pick your battles, and I'm not sure this is one Apple should fight. Everybody gets that they want to control their brand and protect their trademark, but why stop the assimilation of your product into popular culture? Just make sure nobody makes a music player with the word "pod" in the name and the average consumer will always think that you need an iPod to listed to podcasts, whether you download them from iTunes or elsewhere (meaning Apple will just sell that many more units)
- LocalH, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1So call them "audcasts". Almost sounds the same, and it's clear that it's an audio file, not a video file (which is already referred to as "vidcasts").
- geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Fighting the USPTO is always a losing battle. Pissing them off just makes the situation worse.
- dragons5, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Apple wants to protect "podcast" not that the word will be used much anymore when users begin migrating to Zune and other devices. I believe netcast is an appropriate term for us to use instead. Screw Apple and their crappy iPod.
- epall, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Well, I guess it's time to start calling them ZuneCasts.
- inferno10, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Not to go off on a tangent, but did anyone else notice the trademark "IPODPILLOW"?
- menneke, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0I think it was Adam Curry who first coined the term "podcast"...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Apple's already lost on "podcast," haven't they? The word is in the OED now, fer chrissakes.
If they haven't lost, I'm trademarking the word "the." Got to be some money in that somewhere... - m3mn0n, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Wow, talk about investigative journalism. Good work!
- smeager, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2@d7415
The term Podcast first came around in 2004 and was a portmanteau of iPod and broadcasting -- iPod-i + broadcasting-broad = Podcasting. The idea of Podcast came as a direct result of the success of the iPod.
You have to remember that the iPod was released in 2001 and while there was downloadable/streaming content it wasn't know as Podcasting. Why do you think the "Year of the Podcast" was in 2005.
Apple also tradmarked the term iPodcast in March 2005(?). Shortly after they, June 2005, added Podcast capabilities to iTunes 4.9. - ryansac, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1Call them PortCasts.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2I've always preferred calling them "netcasts" anyway. "Podcast" just sounds clunky and stupid to me.
- Pyroteq, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=banish
"But if a person can't call what they are creating, "a podcast," what are they supposed to call it?"
What we've been calling compressed audio files for years: MP3's or WMA's. - enanogrande1, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2Actually, Podcasts do not predate the iPod (at least in practice; the concept has been around for a while)(asuming by 'podcast' you refer specifically to delivering audio content via RSS feeds) and DEFINITELY NOT their inclusion in iTunes either. They were introduced in Version 4 I believe, just over a year ago.
- unimatrixZxero, on 10/12/2007, -14/+4What a boaring read. Very dull imho.
- Escamillo, on 10/12/2007, -18/+7LOL
I remember when Mac fanboys cheered the use of "podcast" because it cemented iPods into the lexicon. But they didn't foresee that such cementing can waterdown the trademark to the point where it becomes geneirc ("xerox", "kleenex", "band-aid", "asprin", etc all started as brand names, but since became generic to the point that the companies who own those names aren't dominant in their fields anymore (and in some cases aren't even #1 in those fields)). "Podcast" is already the generic term for RSS feeds with audio (and video) attachments (80% of which are listened to on the computer that downloaded them, 20% are transferred to portable players, not always iPods). Apple doesn't want the genericness of "Podcast" to infect "iPod", or else "iPod" becomes generic (which is good in the short term, but bad in the long term, as people go to stores to get "iPods" and come out with some other player and still think they got an "iPod" if "iPod" is generic for mp3 player).
That being said, it will be interesting to see where Apple fanboys come down on this.
The term "blogcast" was invented to mean "podcasts originating from blogs" (see wikipedia), but Apple fanboys ridiculed the term, saying that it was invented by makers of other mp3 players or Microsoft or whoever was afraid that the term "podcast" would help iPod's dominance. It was said that these entities should just accept that we live in an "iPod" world and accept the term "podcast". Now Apple themselves doesn't like others using th term "podcast", which puts Apple fanboys in a tough spot. LOL
I think the term "podcast" was stupid to begin with.
It's confusing (those new to "podcasting" think that an iPod is *required* to listen to podcasts; even I thought that when I first heard the term). And it's misleading, as it associates RSS feeds with multimedia attachments to a particular brand of mp3 player, which is wrong in multiple ways (non-iPod players can be used, and 80% of podcasts are listened to on computers rather than portable players). But those of us that thought "podcast" was a stupid term were lectured by the likes of Scoble.
Well now that Apple is using legal threats to prevent "podcast" being used as a generic term (which should open the eyes of Scoble, et al), it's high time that a new *brand-neutral* term be invented to apply to this tech. - wshalo, on 10/12/2007, -13/+1ZuneCast!
Screw Apple, ZuneCast is sounding great right now. - joshjoneswas, on 10/12/2007, -16/+3WTF is this guy talking about in the article? Can anyone else read this?
It was like reading a run on sentence. - d7415, on 10/12/2007, -30/+4May be wrong, but i'm fairly sure podcasts predate the ipod...definitely predates their inclusion in itunes
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is