15 September 2002

Wired mistakenly thinks journos must control the delivery as well as the words Mitch Ratcliffe takes Wired to task over its review of audio content from (online) newspapers. The notion, as expressed in the Wired article linked above, that somehow an audio version of a story is not useful because it will be read by a professional voice rather than the author is silly. Some authors should not read their stuff and, frankly, the pace most authors would read their work is boring when the content delivered for playback in a car needs to be paced quickly, if just to get all the information in during a commute. [...] But, most troubling is the attack on audio and the notion that the newsrooms are up in arms about this medium. It clearly indicates the writers, at least the author of the Wired peice, are afraid of losing control of their work -- why else would the wired writer put the words voice talent in quotes as though performance diminishes written work? Ratcliffe is right (and it's a bit like complaining that journos should be able to print their own papers or code their own websites in order for the content to remain authentic). People like hearing news and other content in audio, whether on the radio or the phone. They like hearing that content delivered well by broadcast professionals. 12:32:19 AM     comments

Mobile phones as nodes in peer-to-peer networks Unlikely, says The Register. What about this instead?: some phones have buddt lists with presence, ands some support instant messaging. It's a short step from there to voice instant messaging voice on phones. Or "phone conversations". Doh. 12:15:25 AM     comments