Peter says podcasting is inefficient

Peter Davis says: "In the time I can listen to an average podcast, I could have caught up on my 50 favorite blogs, or read a chapter in a book, or read the latest issue of Red Herring magazine."

You might be shocked to hear me say this, but Peter is right.

So, why am I joining a podcasting company if Peter is right? Cause I'd love Peter to explain to me how he reads RSS when he's driving. Or, as someone told me recently, while walking in the Scottish Highlands.

Or, try exercising while reading a Tablet PC. I've tried, it doesn't work for me.

Walking around town with my SmartPhone out and reading it gets me branded a freak.

See, what you're missing is podcasting opens up a new usage model that text can't serve.

How about video? Here, let me show you Halo 3. Well, not. It's top secret and they won't let me into see that. Smart people over at Bungie. Heheh. But, let's say it was being released today. What would be better? A 10,000 word essay on what's new? Or one minute of video showing you the new features?

When I hang out with developers they tell me "use the right tool for the job." If you want to communicate with other people text will do the job more times than not. But, if you want to reach people where they are likely to use an iPod then audio is better. If you have something visual, photos or video is better.

Imagine that you read the report of the Hindenberg disaster instead of listened to it (Real Media player required). Some things need to be heard.


Blogging real estate

Stan Mackey, our real estate guy and friend, is here. He says his blog is already bringing him more traffic. Turns out that Coldwell Banker tracks how people find properties. He advertises properties on Craig's List. And includes his blog's address. He says that since starting his blog on May 3rd he's already seeing about 65% of his traffic comes through his blog.

Has Microsoft changed? WinFS post getting questioned internally

Interesting threads on an internal Microsoft alias today. Employees are questioning why we (Microsoft employees) can't just own up to the truth and stop spinning when we have bad news to report.

Yeah, we're talking about Charles Miller's post about the death of WinFS where he took Microsoft to task.

It's not human nature to admit that you tried to do something and failed at it.

And, it's very hard to share where failure's lessons will be applied in the future because that'd be tipping your hand to your competitors about what you're doing in the future.

What happened to WinFS?

The Web killed it. *
The Web is how people use computers now and will in the future. Steve Gillmor loves to say Office is dead. Well, that has yet to be seen (whether Office dies or not is in that team's hands) but WinFS was a technology that'd have a hard time getting going because it's anti Web. It'll be interesting to see if this stuff comes back in a Web way. Ray Ozzie to the rescue!

More on Memeorandum.

* Update: this is my theory. I don't really know why it was killed but when teams and companies don't come clean and give us some transparency into why things get done then people will make stuff up. And, it is interesting timing that this came a week after Bill Gates announced he was going to be less involved in Microsoft and went on summer vacation.

Update 2: Shishir Mehrotra of the WinFS team wrote me and other bloggers who are talking about this internally and said my theory is wrong and that WinFS hasn't died at all, but is actually being rolled into SQL Server and a new project that's under development.