Podcasts and Screencasts are not the same

I realise this is mundane, but sorry Robert Scoble, I feel duty bound to disagree with you as to whether video content delivered via RSS should be called a 'podcast':

"Some groups call what they do
"screencasts" (cause they are doing Flash videos of what they are doing
on screen). Other groups call them blogcasts, but that term hasn't been
accepted outside of a few small groups yet."

Podcasting has become synonymous with 'audio'. Look what Wikipedia's podcast entry - my bold:

"It is distinct from other types of online audio delivery because of its subscription model, which uses the RSS 2.0 XML format with an audio/mpeg enclosure. Podcasting enables independent producers to create self-published, syndicated "radio shows", and gives broadcast radio programs a new distribution method. Listeners may subscribe to feeds using "podcatching" software (a type of " aggregator "), which periodically checks for and downloads new content automatically."

To
be fair the entry does go on to say the same delivery technique can
deliver video, but this is single mention in a sea of an audio focused
definition.

Now I like your "podcasting in my mind is "Personal On Demand Casting",
comment - nice, but...The iPod is associated with audio...it may well
do photos and video in the future too, but can it break its
brand from the audio shackles? Sony Walkman marketers tried and
failed Maybe Apple can do this, but be sure - today is known as
an AUDIO device.

In the same way you believed what Channel 9 does is best described as video blogging, or vlogging (urgh!), (you were right by way, now you're wrong ;-), the act of recording your screen is what screencasting is (not just in Flash btw, any video output format), or as Wikipedia puts it (I know 'cause I created the original entry, ably iterated by others since):

"A screencast is a recording of computer screen output, usually containing audio narration typically published as a video file."

As for the terms being used by a few small groups, that maybe so, but 'Screencast' beats 'Blogcast' in a Google Fight any day of the week :-)
I think screencasting will always be a less active area in
terms of the number of productions compared to video blogs or vlogs
(see Google Fight again on this) - it takes someone fairly geeky
to record their computer screen in action and publish this as a video
file. In contrast publishing handycam-created content on the
web will be much, much bigger in terms of adoption.
But screencasts and vlogs are 2 different things. Don't
confuse them as the same.

In
my final effort to persuade you...Say I 'm going to give a present for
your birthday and I ask you what you might like as a present. You'd
like a book, you say - you love reading...Now, as you know, there
are lots of different kinds of books. Novels
& non-fiction. Audio books & brail books.
But I decide to give DVD video, and when you ask why, I reply
"'cause in my mind, books and video are type of media that
can be delivered by post, and since you wanted a book, I thought
I'd give you a video.

Books
and DVD movies are not the same. Audio and video (with audio) are
not the same. Podcasts and Screencasts are not the same. Why
name two different things as the same thing?

Update...trackbacks are flakey so adding manually :-(

Robert notices (trackback)
Frank Arrigo asks a good question in my comment:

" so, what's the collective term? or is your argument such that there shouldn't be
one?"

I respond lamely: "Good question Frank. I don't know, maybe 'casts'? Blogcast, Screencast, Podcast?"   Want
to add to this: I don't have anything against there being a collective
term for content being delivered via RSS. My suggestion is lame,
but I don't think it should be 'Podcasts' for the reasons given
above. I also want to point out that audio files, video files -
whatever - don't need to be within an RSS encolusure to be called a
podcast and screencast: in fact most content is right-clicked
downloaded on embedded within HTML. These methods won't go away
because of the advent of RSS. Another thought....if you go to iPodder, the Podcast Network, PodcastAlley.com,
or any other podcast-related directory, feedstore, etc, you'll find
they ALL deal with audio. Not a single video-clip will be found... Anyway,
I'm rambling...

Update 14 July 2005:

Inside Microsoft (trackback):

"Of course, plenty of Microsoft employees use Apple’s player, and use the word
podcast. The more important debate is why the hell are we naming the medium
after a single product? I realize the iPod is popular today, but what about in
three years? Everyone is aware that the “pod” in podcasting refers to the iPod,
not anything else. Personally, I like the term “RSS Radio” (which allows for
“RSS TV” instead of the terrible “vlog” term). What do you guys think?"