My grand total of 9 listeners is at least a valid statistic. In the panel itself you admitted that your listener count is skewed by web bots to an unknown amount, and you have NO way of knowing how many people are listening to you at any given time. Scoff all you want, but 9 simultaneous listeners is still greater than ZERO.Wow. This kid has some serious issues.
Statistical analysis can tell us quite a bit about our listenership. While we can't say for certain EXACTLY how many listners we have, we can derive a great deal of information. For example, the raw downlods give us the maximum number of listeners we could possibly have (barring public playings and file sharing).
I can say with certainty that we have at least five hundred people who regularly listen to most if not all of our episodes. I can say with certainty that we have between one and two thousand regular and semi-regular listeners currently. I can say with certainty that we have between one and three thousand casual listeners. We err on the low end of those possibilities when claiming numbers to be on the safe side. I'd much rather UNDERestimate our listenership than OVERestimate.
Davek has made up his own criteria for what constitutes a "listener" in order to justify to himself his internal sense of superiority over other content producers. He doesn't appear capable of addressing the real concerns all of you have brought up with his model. He's lying to us in order to bolster the lies he tells to himself.
Davek, you can stream all you want and try to make it big, but you have to understand that the reason people like us don't talk about streaming is that it's largely useless and unpopular. You demanding that we bother talking about it at our live shows is like demanding that Michael Jackson talk about your hometown garage band at his concert.
I just finished listening to the pair arguing like an old married couple in their recent spudcast. At least I have the rocks to stand on my own three legs.
But first, the dog's bullocks:
Wow. This kid has some serious issues.
Rym enjoys showing his lameness by insulting people in the third person. This is actually relevant to the argument. As I stated before, I'm broadcasting mostly to my own hood. If I lead with my weak foot like that up here in upstate, I can be sure of a beatdown. I thought you guys were based in NYC and could actually spar with me...
I can say with certainty that we have between one and two thousand regular and semi-regular listeners currently. I can say with certainty that we have between one and three thousand casual listeners.
Well la dee da. I can play guitar. I used to make my living with it in Paris. I'd bet that I could record a CD, and if given enough time, I could get about 3 thousand people to listen to my CD. It doesn't matter than I'm a useless tool compared to the street musicians that trained me. That I can't hold a candle to the power they have to stand up and any given time, in the middle of a crowded subway, command attention and gain an audience who will then give these musicians money; what matters is the summation of listeners over a random period of time.
Yea... Right.
You have ZERO listeners. You can dismiss my work as useless and irrelevant, I can do the same to you.
Davek has made up his own criteria for what constitutes a "listener" in order to justify to himself his internal sense of superiority over other content producers. He doesn't appear capable of addressing the real concerns all of you have brought up with his model. He's lying to us in order to bolster the lies he tells to himself.
The lie that radio isn't going away? The lie that people enjoy being part of a timed event? The lie that there is no sense of "belonging" to a uploaded, pre-recorded rant? Recorded media has been around for a long long time, but somehow, live broadcast has managed to survive. Do me a favor: next time you host a panel, just walk in and put a wireless machine on the desk and say "you can download and listen to our panel whenever you want! Isn't that better than actually talking to us?" See how many people stick around. (In fact, that's an old professor trick, and I'm sure you know how well it works.)
Let me say this once again: if all you want Geek Nights to be is a hobby, through which you can achieve a minor amount of geek fame and garner some sliver of respect among a limited audience, then by all means! go ahead. I still don't know exactly what you guys want to do. Back in the RIT days, I was surrounded by geniuses. All of which could efficiently manage several different worlds with immense precision and become very popular and powerful in a short time, and then drop them at a moment's notice because it no longer amused them. If that is what Geek Nights is, then great! Have fun with your board and I'll still be around when you get a real job.
On the other hand, if you're trying to turn your broadcast into a nation-changing -- if not world-changing -- phenomenon, then I will also be here to help you syndicate your spudcast into a global media sledgehammer. Its evolution, baby.
You have ZERO listeners. You can dismiss my work as useless and irrelevant, I can do the same to you.
But Rym's not saying "You have 0 listeners". He's arguing against your statement that GeekNights has 0 listeners. Which is wrong, by the way. I know i listen, so there's one right there.
Recorded media has been around for a long long time, but somehow, live broadcast has managed to survive.
All of which could efficiently manage several different worlds with immense precision and become very popular and powerful in a short time, and then drop them at a moment's notice because it no longer amused them.
Objection, relevance! How does this have ANYTHING to do with Podcast vs. Internet Radio?
''9 simultaneous listeners is still greater than ZERO'' This implies that because Scrym can't completely accurately count their listeners, you believe that they are worth less than your 9 listeners, because you are sure they exist. Don't the forum members here prove that at least more than 9 people listen to geeknights (and definitely more than zero), just check out the ''How did you find us thread''.
I thought that was pretty clear: simultaneous. _You_ tell _me_ what is the maximum number of people listening to Geek Nights is at any given time. I, for example, am listening to the latest show right now. Am I the only one? One of 10? One of 100? How many?
That is what I consider listeners. I believe television and radio ratings agree with this method.
Have fun with your board and I'll still be around when you get a real job.
I'm not sure if you know, but Rym and Scott do this in their free time. That's right, they both have jobs in the computer industry working forty hours a week. Are you some how under the impression that Rym and Scott do this for a living?
On the other hand, if you're trying to turn your broadcast into a nation-changing -- if not world-changing -- phenomenon, then I will also be here to help you syndicate your spudcast into a global media sledgehammer. Its evolution, baby.
First off, I'm not sure why they would come to you to become "world famous". Nine listeners is such a wide market. Your vapid arguments against podcasting are filled with ad hominems and broken trains of thought. Hell, I'm not even sure what you are arguing. You are here, on these boards, bitching about how Rym and Scott don't think streaming radio is going anywhere. If you were so important and popular, why bother even coming here in the first place? I'll be waiting here for you to gather your "new world order" of internet radio listeners.
You stated earlier that time shifted media doesn't unite people together. I say you are wrong. Take a look at these boards, I would say that Geeknights has a very strong community around it and it is growing more and more every day. I'm not even sure what you are trying to achieve here, why don't you go spend your time talking into your microphone to your nine listeners, I'm sure they are waiting for you, afraid they are going to miss your sweet sweet voice...
I thought that was pretty clear:simultaneous. _You_ tell _me_ what is the maximum number of people listening to Geek Nights is at any given time. I, for example, am listening to the latest show right now. Am I the only one? One of 10? One of 100? How many?
Why the hell does that matter? Seriously. Give me one good reason.
I believe television and radio ratings agree with this method.
I wonder why that is. Oh, right, because TV and Radio are the real life versions of streaming media. Are you saying that a record has 0 listeners, or a book has 0 readers, just because everyone's not reading it at the same time?
I thought that was pretty clear:simultaneous. _You_ tell _me_ what is the maximum number of people listening to Geek Nights is at any given time. I, for example, am listening to the latest show right now. Am I the only one? One of 10? One of 100? How many?
That is what I consider listeners. I believe television and radio ratings agree with this method.
What is so important about people listening at some arbitrary time? Your argument makes no sense...
Your strategy thus far has been to ad hominem a single post and ignore the arguments that you can't defend against. Why stop now? You might as well continue to humiliate yourself.
Are you trying to argue that there is some transcendental property to people listening to your medium at the same time and that somehow 9 people listening to your podcast as it happens is a greater net experience then 1,000's listening to it over the course of a few days or weeks.
TV and radio believing that this is a superior method is one of the reasons most people believe that TV and radio need to get with the program and learn to time delay as well. There is a reason why both these media are in decline. I no longer watch a show when it airs on TV unless by some weird twist of fate I happen to be cleaning my living room at the time. Therefore, I guess I do not understand why you think there is a sense of community by streaming an internet radio program on to someone's computer or watching a show in your own personal dwelling. The only time you get this sense is from a forum or chat room on the internet (like this one), a panel or live event (like at a convention or a concert). I would argue that the only time you get a sense of community is when you are actually interacting with that community. Personally, these days I feel more involved with the Geek community then I ever do with my local Suburban PA community.
Sorry dude, while live events (in person, or via a chatroom or forum) will always have the power of people banding together enjoying a common event. Internet Radio on it’s own does not solve this.
Your strategy thus far has been to ad hominem a single post and ignore the arguments that you can't defend against. Why stop now? You might as well continue to humiliate yourself.
If you knew anything about media, you'd know that humiliating yourself is exactly what gets people's attention. Think of a single modern entertainer who is always poised, never ironic, and never gives the illusion of weakness in order to get attention. There aren't any. Learn a lesson, bro.
And where are these killer arguments, exactly? That people are too lazy or too busy to make time for things they like? That's right. No one watches the superbowl. They all just tape it and watch it at their leisure. That's not even an argument, that why I don't respond to it.
I guess the fundamental difference between us is I'm building a media empire, and you're just trying to run a show. You guys have a great show. Its somewhat entertaining if one isn't already predisposed to hating elitist geekery. I'll continue to listen in hopes that you realize that it doesn't really matter if you have a total of one thousand listeners across the nation in one week. I'd rather have 10 listeners in my hometown at one time. That's about it.
If you knew anything about media, you'd know that humiliating yourself is exactly what gets people's attention. Think of a single modern entertainer who is always poised, never ironic, and never gives the illusion of weakness in order to get attention. There aren't any. Learn a lesson, bro.
I fail to see your point. If it's that you're a delusional, fallacious, attention-grabbing troll, then I'd have to agree.
I guess the fundamental difference between us is I'm building a media empire, and you're just trying to run a show.
Good luck with that. And when you have made your million dollars, don't forget us little people.
Be sure to come back in a year and tell us all how things are going. I'm sure we would all like to hear about what it's like to be a media tycoon. Come back, and we'll see who's saying "I told you so".
Davek . . . did you fail math? 1000 > 10 Simultaneous or not, ten listeners is ten listeners and a thousand listeners is a thousand listeners.
No one gives a flying fuck about live audiences. Any slipshod group of punk kids can get a few dozen of their buddies on Ventrillo and talk about how big their e-cocks are. Are they building a media empire? Are they superior to the myriad of professional podcasts with legions of listeners? For anyone with an ability I like to call "understanding the obvious", that should be . . . well, obvious!
Listen, your friends may like to humor your delusions of grandeur and put up with your half-baked schemes, but no one as short-sighted and vain as you could ever hope to build anything aside from a cute little hometown radio show.
Normally, i'd try to poke holes in your argument, but as the rest of this thread has shown, that's rather pointless.
Try learning some humility and common sense before you flaunt your non-accomplishments, kid.
If you knew anything about media, you'd know that humiliating yourself is exactly what gets people's attention. Think of a single modern entertainer who is always poised, never ironic, and never gives the illusion of weakness in order to get attention. There aren't any. Learn a lesson, bro.
John Stewart George Carlin Lewis Black OH, shit. Sorry. That was three.
And where are these killer arguments, exactly? That people are too lazy or too busy to make time for things they like? That's right. No one watches the superbowl. They all just tape it and watch it at their leisure. That's not even an argument, that why I don't respond to it.
Ok, first off. You, as a content provider, should do your best to make it easy for your audience to consume your media. Otherwise, people will go elsewhere that's easier. Second off, your comment about the superbowl is idiotic. There's a difference of scale.
I'll continue to listen in hopes that you realize that it doesn't really matter if you have a total of one thousand listeners across the nation in one week.
But, it does matter. Once again, I bring back my analogy of a book, or a newspaper, or a magazine. Do those have "doesn't really matter" readers just because people aren't all really all reading at the same time?
I'd rather have 10 listeners in my hometown at one time.
Davek's arguments are irrelevant, because we're not all reading them simultaneously. Also, I'm building an empire of beers in my refrigerator, and I still have more beers than he has listeners.
Look: this argument is dumb because Davek is trying to lose, because then we will listen to him because that's what all great entertainers do. It all makes sense, guys.
John Stewart George Carlin Lewis Black OH, shit. Sorry. That was three.
Um, these guys aren't ironic? aren't sarcastic? and never make themselves vulnerable just to get attention?
I think you misunderstood me.
That's part of entertainment. I don't believe for a second that Rym and Scott believe everything they say. Most of it is just to stay entertaining and interesting. Reality is pretty bland, if you get right down to it. You've gotta put your balls on the table to be interesting, so to speak.
But, it does matter. Once again, I bring back my analogy of a book, or a newspaper, or a magazine. Do those have "doesn't really matter" readers just because people aren't all really all reading at the same time?
I saw a book at the supermarket today, labeled: "New York Times #1 best seller in NINETEEN MINUTES". Now why, pray tell, did they include that temporal metric in there? Could it be because THOUSANDS of books have eventually made it to #1 on that list? However, making it there in nineteen minutes is quite an achievement. Time... does... matter!
I have finished drinking my beers. Let's see Davek do that with HIS empire. Oh, the gauntlet has been thrown, mister.
Its gong to be a long long time before the number of listeners I have in one night is greater than the number of beers I drink in the same time period
You don't know shit about business, do you? When one makes a product that they intend to sell, it is imperative to toss as many embellishments on it as possible. If some time-related statistic makes it seem any better, then toss that on too! Within the publishing industry, competition for sales is immense! Trust me, if they have ANY edge over the competition, you're gonna hear about it.
But, it does matter. Once again, I bring back my analogy of a book, or a newspaper, or a magazine. Do those have "doesn't really matter" readers just because people aren't all really all reading at the same time?
I saw a book at the supermarket today, labeled: "New York Times #1 best seller inNINETEEN MINUTES". Now why, pray tell, did they include that temporal metric in there? Could it be because THOUSANDS of books haveeventuallymade it to #1 on that list? However, making it there in nineteen minutes is quite an achievement. Time... does... matter!
What was the relevance of the NYT #1 best seller in 19 minutes? Seeing as how the week is done weekly I don't know how they could have done it in 19 minutes, unless it was released 19 minutes before you read it... but then you might be reading it at a different time then someone else. So whose 19 minutes is the right 19 minutes?!
Anyway you're being stubborn, and using bad examples. The amount of time to sell a book, has nothing to do with what time a person consumes a medium except for the word time. Time isn't important anymore, TiVo and bit torrents have made it irrelevant for TV (and film to an extent.) Written media isn't read simultaneously, some people read the newspaper in the morning some read it at night. People read books, and magazines whenever they want to, not when it is said they have to. Podcasts are listened to when people want to listen to them, whether that is the instant it finishes downloading, or whether it is 3 weeks later.
The only instances where time does matter are live events, like sports, where there is only one time you can watch it.
But none of that really matters, what matters really is that people have some sort of sense of community (in a sense) with those who are consuming the same media as them. Whether thats people who listen to a podcast and then discuss things with other listeners, or people discussing the latest newspaper article at work, or movie or whatever. It doesn't matter when they saw/read/listened to the medium, that will in no way affect the discussions they have about it.
And bringing it back to the whole radio vs podcast thing. Making it easier for people to listen to something at their own schedule, makes it more readily available for them to consume. Thus potentially giving more people the option to consume it, thats how podcasts, and books, magazines, newspapers, video games, and heck even movie theaters, were designed to be consumed. Limiting the amount of time during the day when a person can consume your medium, limits the number of people who are going to consume it.
What this boils down to is that just because you say watch the Daily Show one your computer (pirated, through iTunes, whatever) doesn't make you any less of a viewer of the show then someone you watches it when that episode airs for the first time. The big media companies are realizing this, and thats why they sell TV episodes on places like iTunes. What you're doing is conforming to an old model of distributing media, during a time in which the model itself is changing into something completely different.
Actually there are internet radio stations you can listen to in iTunes, but its a limited number of them. Which are probably chosen by Apple employees, while if you have a podcast, you can have it put into the iTunes store. There is no middle man there deciding if you can be or not.
The only instances where time does matter are live events, like sports, where there is only one time you can watch it.
And Multi-player games ^_^ because if for example you just got Mario kart DS, You're going to have a harder time finding a game today then you did when it first came out (plus they will probably be crazy obsessed people who will kick your butt.
And Multi-player games ^_^ because if for example you just got Mario kart DS, You're going to have a harder time finding a game today then you did when it first came out (plus they will probably be crazy obsessed people who will kick your butt.
Yes, but this is only a problem for multiplayer games that are not very good. For example, let's say you play some small-time MMO. Well, in a year or two those servers are going to be taken down. Meanwhile, if you were to buy Counter-Strike or World of Warcraft today, you will still find plenty of people playing all around.
Dave, so far you arguments have been unconvincing, Rym and Scott's arguments aside. I do not see how or why this 'icecast' thing would be better in any way. I do not have time in my day, every day, to listen to broadcasts in whatever form. I like the fact that I can listen to shows I enjoy whenever and wherever I want, listen to episodes I have missed, and do it with ease. The fact that your arguments seem to center around how awesome you think you are and not what your form of broadcast offers anyone, aside from it feeding some sense of elitism and self-superiority, makes me seriously doubt you have a god-damn clue about what people listening want.
You have 9 people who jump through hoops to listen to you whenever you feel like broadcasting. GeekNights has hundreds of listeners who may not listen at the same exact time, but listen nonetheless.
THIS MEANS THEIR PODCAST GETS MORE LISTENERS AND IS MORE POPULAR THAN YOU ICECAST.
Additionally, the NY Times best seller list is meaningless since companies often buy copies of their own releases in advance to get their book on the list. Plus, I would rather have a book that sells millions over a longer period of time then a few hundred thousand, or even tens of thousands right at the release, and then never again. It's the same reason that MMO's will always earn more money in the long run then other games, because they make money over time.
I say again, Dave, your arguments are self centered, illogical, full of fallacies, and annoying. On behalf of the entire community here, which is far more than 9 people, I say:
so even though no one has offered a single respectable argument as to why streaming content is somehow counter productive to internet broadcasting, some of you feel content to just dismiss this new idea as useless because its just too damn hard. But that's fine. Without syndication, Geek Nights will eventually fade. Plain and simple.
Uploading an MP3 recording to a server somewhere is not broadcasting.
Somehow, you're making even less sense than before.
It's not too damn hard, it's too damn useless.
And by the way, uploading an mp3 isn't broadcasting . . . having a service that distributes it is. Ergo, another one of your erroneous thought processes has been shot down. Care to throw some more?
Comments
Statistical analysis can tell us quite a bit about our listenership. While we can't say for certain EXACTLY how many listners we have, we can derive a great deal of information. For example, the raw downlods give us the maximum number of listeners we could possibly have (barring public playings and file sharing).
I can say with certainty that we have at least five hundred people who regularly listen to most if not all of our episodes. I can say with certainty that we have between one and two thousand regular and semi-regular listeners currently. I can say with certainty that we have between one and three thousand casual listeners. We err on the low end of those possibilities when claiming numbers to be on the safe side. I'd much rather UNDERestimate our listenership than OVERestimate.
Davek has made up his own criteria for what constitutes a "listener" in order to justify to himself his internal sense of superiority over other content producers. He doesn't appear capable of addressing the real concerns all of you have brought up with his model. He's lying to us in order to bolster the lies he tells to himself.
Davek, you can stream all you want and try to make it big, but you have to understand that the reason people like us don't talk about streaming is that it's largely useless and unpopular. You demanding that we bother talking about it at our live shows is like demanding that Michael Jackson talk about your hometown garage band at his concert.
But first, the dog's bullocks: Rym enjoys showing his lameness by insulting people in the third person. This is actually relevant to the argument. As I stated before, I'm broadcasting mostly to my own hood. If I lead with my weak foot like that up here in upstate, I can be sure of a beatdown. I thought you guys were based in NYC and could actually spar with me... Well la dee da. I can play guitar. I used to make my living with it in Paris. I'd bet that I could record a CD, and if given enough time, I could get about 3 thousand people to listen to my CD. It doesn't matter than I'm a useless tool compared to the street musicians that trained me. That I can't hold a candle to the power they have to stand up and any given time, in the middle of a crowded subway, command attention and gain an audience who will then give these musicians money; what matters is the summation of listeners over a random period of time.
Yea... Right.
You have ZERO listeners. You can dismiss my work as useless and irrelevant, I can do the same to you. The lie that radio isn't going away? The lie that people enjoy being part of a timed event? The lie that there is no sense of "belonging" to a uploaded, pre-recorded rant? Recorded media has been around for a long long time, but somehow, live broadcast has managed to survive. Do me a favor: next time you host a panel, just walk in and put a wireless machine on the desk and say "you can download and listen to our panel whenever you want! Isn't that better than actually talking to us?" See how many people stick around. (In fact, that's an old professor trick, and I'm sure you know how well it works.)
Let me say this once again: if all you want Geek Nights to be is a hobby, through which you can achieve a minor amount of geek fame and garner some sliver of respect among a limited audience, then by all means! go ahead. I still don't know exactly what you guys want to do. Back in the RIT days, I was surrounded by geniuses. All of which could efficiently manage several different worlds with immense precision and become very popular and powerful in a short time, and then drop them at a moment's notice because it no longer amused them. If that is what Geek Nights is, then great! Have fun with your board and I'll still be around when you get a real job.
On the other hand, if you're trying to turn your broadcast into a nation-changing -- if not world-changing -- phenomenon, then I will also be here to help you syndicate your spudcast into a global media sledgehammer. Its evolution, baby.
That is what I consider listeners. I believe television and radio ratings agree with this method.
You stated earlier that time shifted media doesn't unite people together. I say you are wrong. Take a look at these boards, I would say that Geeknights has a very strong community around it and it is growing more and more every day. I'm not even sure what you are trying to achieve here, why don't you go spend your time talking into your microphone to your nine listeners, I'm sure they are waiting for you, afraid they are going to miss your sweet sweet voice...
Are you trying to argue that there is some transcendental property to people listening to your medium at the same time and that somehow 9 people listening to your podcast as it happens is a greater net experience then 1,000's listening to it over the course of a few days or weeks.
TV and radio believing that this is a superior method is one of the reasons most people believe that TV and radio need to get with the program and learn to time delay as well. There is a reason why both these media are in decline. I no longer watch a show when it airs on TV unless by some weird twist of fate I happen to be cleaning my living room at the time. Therefore, I guess I do not understand why you think there is a sense of community by streaming an internet radio program on to someone's computer or watching a show in your own personal dwelling. The only time you get this sense is from a forum or chat room on the internet (like this one), a panel or live event (like at a convention or a concert). I would argue that the only time you get a sense of community is when you are actually interacting with that community. Personally, these days I feel more involved with the Geek community then I ever do with my local Suburban PA community.
Sorry dude, while live events (in person, or via a chatroom or forum) will always have the power of people banding together enjoying a common event. Internet Radio on it’s own does not solve this.
And where are these killer arguments, exactly? That people are too lazy or too busy to make time for things they like? That's right. No one watches the superbowl. They all just tape it and watch it at their leisure. That's not even an argument, that why I don't respond to it.
I guess the fundamental difference between us is I'm building a media empire, and you're just trying to run a show. You guys have a great show. Its somewhat entertaining if one isn't already predisposed to hating elitist geekery. I'll continue to listen in hopes that you realize that it doesn't really matter if you have a total of one thousand listeners across the nation in one week. I'd rather have 10 listeners in my hometown at one time. That's about it.
Be sure to come back in a year and tell us all how things are going. I'm sure we would all like to hear about what it's like to be a media tycoon. Come back, and we'll see who's saying "I told you so".
Simultaneous or not, ten listeners is ten listeners and a thousand listeners is a thousand listeners.
No one gives a flying fuck about live audiences. Any slipshod group of punk kids can get a few dozen of their buddies on Ventrillo and talk about how big their e-cocks are. Are they building a media empire? Are they superior to the myriad of professional podcasts with legions of listeners? For anyone with an ability I like to call "understanding the obvious", that should be . . . well, obvious!
Listen, your friends may like to humor your delusions of grandeur and put up with your half-baked schemes, but no one as short-sighted and vain as you could ever hope to build anything aside from a cute little hometown radio show.
Normally, i'd try to poke holes in your argument, but as the rest of this thread has shown, that's rather pointless.
Try learning some humility and common sense before you flaunt your non-accomplishments, kid.
George Carlin
Lewis Black
OH, shit. Sorry. That was three. Ok, first off. You, as a content provider, should do your best to make it easy for your audience to consume your media. Otherwise, people will go elsewhere that's easier. Second off, your comment about the superbowl is idiotic. There's a difference of scale. But, it does matter. Once again, I bring back my analogy of a book, or a newspaper, or a magazine. Do those have "doesn't really matter" readers just because people aren't all really all reading at the same time? Then why are you getting so butthurt about this?
Because he needs to tell everyone how much better he is than them, i know lots of people like that.
I think you misunderstood me.
That's part of entertainment. I don't believe for a second that Rym and Scott believe everything they say. Most of it is just to stay entertaining and interesting. Reality is pretty bland, if you get right down to it. You've gotta put your balls on the table to be interesting, so to speak. I saw a book at the supermarket today, labeled: "New York Times #1 best seller in NINETEEN MINUTES". Now why, pray tell, did they include that temporal metric in there? Could it be because THOUSANDS of books have eventually made it to #1 on that list? However, making it there in nineteen minutes is quite an achievement. Time... does... matter! Its gong to be a long long time before the number of listeners I have in one night is greater than the number of beers I drink in the same time period
You
Can't
Do
Basic
Addition!
You don't know shit about business, do you? When one makes a product that they intend to sell, it is imperative to toss as many embellishments on it as possible. If some time-related statistic makes it seem any better, then toss that on too! Within the publishing industry, competition for sales is immense! Trust me, if they have ANY edge over the competition, you're gonna hear about it.
Anyway you're being stubborn, and using bad examples. The amount of time to sell a book, has nothing to do with what time a person consumes a medium except for the word time. Time isn't important anymore, TiVo and bit torrents have made it irrelevant for TV (and film to an extent.) Written media isn't read simultaneously, some people read the newspaper in the morning some read it at night. People read books, and magazines whenever they want to, not when it is said they have to. Podcasts are listened to when people want to listen to them, whether that is the instant it finishes downloading, or whether it is 3 weeks later.
The only instances where time does matter are live events, like sports, where there is only one time you can watch it.
But none of that really matters, what matters really is that people have some sort of sense of community (in a sense) with those who are consuming the same media as them. Whether thats people who listen to a podcast and then discuss things with other listeners, or people discussing the latest newspaper article at work, or movie or whatever. It doesn't matter when they saw/read/listened to the medium, that will in no way affect the discussions they have about it.
And bringing it back to the whole radio vs podcast thing. Making it easier for people to listen to something at their own schedule, makes it more readily available for them to consume. Thus potentially giving more people the option to consume it, thats how podcasts, and books, magazines, newspapers, video games, and heck even movie theaters, were designed to be consumed. Limiting the amount of time during the day when a person can consume your medium, limits the number of people who are going to consume it.
What this boils down to is that just because you say watch the Daily Show one your computer (pirated, through iTunes, whatever) doesn't make you any less of a viewer of the show then someone you watches it when that episode airs for the first time. The big media companies are realizing this, and thats why they sell TV episodes on places like iTunes. What you're doing is conforming to an old model of distributing media, during a time in which the model itself is changing into something completely different.
You have 9 people who jump through hoops to listen to you whenever you feel like broadcasting. GeekNights has hundreds of listeners who may not listen at the same exact time, but listen nonetheless.
THIS MEANS THEIR PODCAST GETS MORE LISTENERS AND IS MORE POPULAR THAN YOU ICECAST.
Additionally, the NY Times best seller list is meaningless since companies often buy copies of their own releases in advance to get their book on the list. Plus, I would rather have a book that sells millions over a longer period of time then a few hundred thousand, or even tens of thousands right at the release, and then never again. It's the same reason that MMO's will always earn more money in the long run then other games, because they make money over time.
I say again, Dave, your arguments are self centered, illogical, full of fallacies, and annoying. On behalf of the entire community here, which is far more than 9 people, I say:
Uploading an MP3 recording to a server somewhere is not broadcasting.
It's not too damn hard, it's too damn useless.
And by the way, uploading an mp3 isn't broadcasting . . . having a service that distributes it is. Ergo, another one of your erroneous thought processes has been shot down. Care to throw some more?