Paul Graham, co-founder of VC firm Y-Combinator (funders of the iSchool spinoff PopCuts) recently wrote, "after decades of running an IV drip right into their audience, people in the entertainment business had understandably come to think of them as rather passive. They thought they'd be able to dictate the way shows reached audiences. But they underestimated the force of their desire to connect with one another."

Ok, so he's right - it's obvious that Internet technology provides added improvements to the television experience. It's easier for users to find the content they really want, anytime they want. There's more choice online, and much of it is free.

I agree that viewers enjoy interacting around broadcast media - but how are they interacting? I wonder how much of the interaction comes from users sending each other messages about what they watched. I think online social networks provide a forum for users to talk about what they like, and computer technologies mediate that communication well. However, I think that users who interact this way are mostly using the networks as a kind of "recommendation system." Basically, if there is a good program on old-school television or radio, users will suggest to others to watch it directly, or recommend things passively using "weak tie" networks like Twitter. Thus, I feel that it's not the social networking technology that is changing the broadcast game directly, but rather, it's simply exposing the lack of creativity and intelligence that has plagued network media for so many years.

It's an interesting, not groundbreaking article. Choice quote: "Now would be a good time to start any company that competes with TV networks."

In gearing up to start producing e.nTangled.net Podcasts, I have been in the market for a Zoom H4. They are available at some local music stores, as well as Best Buy, but the best prices are online, and if I wait for delivery, I might not have the gizmo in time for some upcoming interview opportunities.

With the current recording equipment I own, I have two options - either lug my desktop Behringer USB mixing board, laptop and external mic around, or use my aging Olympus digital audio recorder (which records clips in some strange, non-standard audio format). Then it dawned on me - I already have a portable device that can record audio - my iPhone.

I want a recorder app that can record to a decent file quality for voice, and that is stable enough to not crash during an extended interview. Sounds simple, right? Like all iPhone utility apps, there are many many choices in the App store, and it is not immediately obvious which one suits my needs. One of the biggest problems for the consumer is that, on the mobile app store, iPhone apps are not well organized. A user who queries for "recorder" is rewarded with an unsortable parade of candidate apps - differentiated by nothing other than price, and the number of reviews.

There are many sites that specialize in reviewing iPhone apps. I compared apps on available features and price. I settled on - guess what? "Recorder," the audio capture app which appears to have the most reviews. It wins on price as well, only $0.99. I'll post a few audio clips created by this device soon!