1. I'm interested in hearing more about why the videoblog didn't work. (b/c i'm skeptical of their present incarnation as well.) Why was the videoblog useless? Would it have been different had it been a plain ol' text blog?

Posted at 4:21AM on Dec 19th 2005 by kc

2. I'm obviously someone who buys into the videoblog concept, except with much reservation on the technology. That's not to say it's not inevitable that videoblogs are viable. However, getting video publishing to a point that is no harder to produce than using iMovie is the sweet spot. What's the format? Real? Windows Media? Flash? Quicktime? MPEG? Plenty of questions.

This video had some good production quality to it... crisp and sharp and took no time at all to download. Just multiply it on a grand scale and voila! Chaos ensues.

For those that are instant-pundits on the notion of videoblogs, remember: We have existed in a world that has three major types of media: newspaper, radio, and television. The nature of each of those forms of content are inherently different. Such is the same for the weblog, audioblog, and videoblog.

Posted at 4:21AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Eric Rice

3. Well, Tony had nothing to say. Also, watching the video takes five minutes and a short blog post takes 30 to 60 seconds. I just find words are quicker.

Now, if this was Charlie Rose interviewing someone interesting I would be interested.

Posted at 4:21AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Jason McCabe Calacanis

4. ...in as much as it is that Jason, like the rest of us, is trying to figure out: when is it appropriate to text blog and when is it appropriate to author an audio/video blog?

Audio/video blogs are linear and require a lot more time to digest the presentation of an idea when compared to text blogs. In the case of video blogs, they require your full attention. So if an idea takes 4:38 of a visitor's time to express in A/V but it only takes 60 seconds for the visitor to scan the same info as text, audio/video blogging doesn't make much sense. Blogging, for the most part, is for ideas expressed in shorthand (like it's very name!)

But even so, there are plenty of ways in which video/audio blogging makes a lot of sense. Want to provide a way for people to see/hear your ideas in situations where they cannot read? Like driving a car or when communicating with the text-illiterate? Give them an audio version of your post. Want to present a well-crafted, nuanced story? A/V blogging could work. Want to interview someone and present it to your audience? An A/V blog will capture the timing of the conversation better than text can. Need to do live, on the spot event coverage? Use an A/V blog.

I'm a big proponent of rich media blogging. That's why I'm working on creating and disseminating tools for the task (http://mnntv.com/tech/projects/laika/ and http://www.unmediated.org). But I also think that we need to think about and possibly change the general expectations of what widespread A/V blogging is(will be) good for. Otherwise our audiences will still be stuck with zero.

Posted at 4:21AM on Dec 19th 2005 by kc

5. Are you mad? Video Blogs will reign surpeme when video cell phones arrive. Can you imagine what will happen in a few years when everyone has a cell phone that can record high-quality video and audio? The content may still be terrible, but the demand for this new form of reality "TV" will be unparalleled.

Text blogs are pretty boring to generations that grew up with MTV and American Idol. Imagine if all those kids could produce their own little reality show?

I see a huge untapped market on the horizon.

Posted at 4:21AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Marcus

6. If you want to see a different sort of video blogs, check out my site. This phenomenon will get huge!

Posted at 4:21AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Justin

7. Final Cut Pro

Posted at 4:21AM on Dec 19th 2005 by AW

8. I'm interested in hearing more about why the videoblog didn't work. (b/c i'm skeptical of their present incarnation as well.) Why was the videoblog useless? Would it have been different had it been a plain ol' text blog?

Posted at 4:21AM on Dec 19th 2005 by kc

9. I'm obviously someone who buys into the videoblog concept, except with much reservation on the technology. That's not to say it's not inevitable that videoblogs are viable. However, getting video publishing to a point that is no harder to produce than using iMovie is the sweet spot. What's the format? Real? Windows Media? Flash? Quicktime? MPEG? Plenty of questions.

This video had some good production quality to it... crisp and sharp and took no time at all to download. Just multiply it on a grand scale and voila! Chaos ensues.

For those that are instant-pundits on the notion of videoblogs, remember: We have existed in a world that has three major types of media: newspaper, radio, and television. The nature of each of those forms of content are inherently different. Such is the same for the weblog, audioblog, and videoblog.

Posted at 4:21AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Eric Rice

10. Well, Tony had nothing to say. Also, watching the video takes five minutes and a short blog post takes 30 to 60 seconds. I just find words are quicker.

Now, if this was Charlie Rose interviewing someone interesting I would be interested.

Posted at 4:21AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Jason McCabe Calacanis

11. ...in as much as it is that Jason, like the rest of us, is trying to figure out: when is it appropriate to text blog and when is it appropriate to author an audio/video blog?

Audio/video blogs are linear and require a lot more time to digest the presentation of an idea when compared to text blogs. In the case of video blogs, they require your full attention. So if an idea takes 4:38 of a visitor's time to express in A/V but it only takes 60 seconds for the visitor to scan the same info as text, audio/video blogging doesn't make much sense. Blogging, for the most part, is for ideas expressed in shorthand (like it's very name!)

But even so, there are plenty of ways in which video/audio blogging makes a lot of sense. Want to provide a way for people to see/hear your ideas in situations where they cannot read? Like driving a car or when communicating with the text-illiterate? Give them an audio version of your post. Want to present a well-crafted, nuanced story? A/V blogging could work. Want to interview someone and present it to your audience? An A/V blog will capture the timing of the conversation better than text can. Need to do live, on the spot event coverage? Use an A/V blog.

I'm a big proponent of rich media blogging. That's why I'm working on creating and disseminating tools for the task (http://mnntv.com/tech/projects/laika/ and http://www.unmediated.org). But I also think that we need to think about and possibly change the general expectations of what widespread A/V blogging is(will be) good for. Otherwise our audiences will still be stuck with zero.

Posted at 4:21AM on Dec 19th 2005 by kc

12. Are you mad? Video Blogs will reign surpeme when video cell phones arrive. Can you imagine what will happen in a few years when everyone has a cell phone that can record high-quality video and audio? The content may still be terrible, but the demand for this new form of reality "TV" will be unparalleled.

Text blogs are pretty boring to generations that grew up with MTV and American Idol. Imagine if all those kids could produce their own little reality show?

I see a huge untapped market on the horizon.

Posted at 4:21AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Marcus

13. If you want to see a different sort of video blogs, check out my site. This phenomenon will get huge!

Posted at 4:21AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Justin

14. Final Cut Pro

Posted at 4:21AM on Dec 19th 2005 by AW