Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Television Media

Online Video Begins To Threatens Television 188

eldavojohn writes, "The BBC has an article reporting that a survey of 2,070 Britons revealed that online viewing is on the rise against television. From the article: 'Some 43% of Britons who watch video from the internet or on a mobile device at least once a week said they watched less normal TV as a result.' The figures the BBC is reporting are up from last year when they ran the same survey. It seems the digital world has disintermediated Magazines, Music, & Newspapers but somehow never really tapped books. Will the internet also take on the role as the family television?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Online Video Begins To Threaten Television

Comments Filter:
  • by suso ( 153703 ) * on Monday November 27, 2006 @02:18PM (#17004340) Journal
    I think that as online TV becomes more popular, people will isolate themselves more and more from a shared experience. So people will end up having even more polarized views of things.
  • Is this a surprise? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by grapeape ( 137008 ) <mpope7 AT kc DOT rr DOT com> on Monday November 27, 2006 @02:21PM (#17004406) Homepage
    I would imagine that if they looked they would find that Internet Users on a whole watch less TV. Why just sit there when you can do something interactive. I watch video's online but usually they are shoved up in the corner of the screen while im doing something else more productive. I dont really see this as a bad thing, the major US networks are already catching on and are offering much of their programming online.

    Isn't this exactly what has to happen for the mythical media/computer convergence to happen that everyone has harped on for the past 15 years? Its survival of the fittest, adapt or die, all media companies have to come to that reality whether is music, movies television, radio, newspapers or even books.
  • by Kombat ( 93720 ) <kevin@swanweddingphotography.com> on Monday November 27, 2006 @02:24PM (#17004446)
    Anyone want to lay odds regarding whether the TV networks will view this as a problem or an opportunity? Of course, they'll see it as a problem that must be "solved," rather than an opportunity to be seized. There is so much money to be made here for innovative and visionary content providers, so much cross-promotion and integration they could take advantage of, and yet you just know the "old guard" will fight tooth and nail to keep the status quo, even as their marketshare/revenues decline over the upcoming years.

    It's sad, really. I would have hoped that the "younger" networks like MTV and Spike would have jumped aboard and shown the path, but the only network I can think of who has even remotely embraced the dual-delivery model of TV and online media is the Comedy Network/Comedy Central.
  • Logical step (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Damastus the WizLiz ( 935648 ) on Monday November 27, 2006 @02:24PM (#17004460)
    This is a logical step really. people will move to online viewing because it offers them the choice of what to watch and when to watch it that fits around their schedual. I think if networks put up their shows for people to watch at any time on the internet with commercials people would watch it with commercials just to be able to watch their favorite shows when they want to not when the network scheduals it.
  • It's obvious (Score:5, Interesting)

    by spyrochaete ( 707033 ) on Monday November 27, 2006 @02:25PM (#17004476) Homepage Journal
    Why do we prefer online video over television? Doy! No advertisements!

    Magazines and newspapers have non-obtrusive ads that can just be flipped immediately. TV ads must be watched or channel-flipped with the risk of missing content. Most internet video has ads on the site, not in the video.

    I can't wait until TV networks get smart enough to put a Pepsi ad in the corner of the screen and allow "TV pirates" to spread the show on the internet. The network is off the hook for the piracy because it's out of their hands, Pepsi gets advertised all over the world, and the audience gladly puts up with the ad being onscreen because it doesn't interrupt the show.
  • by CarlJagt ( 877688 ) on Monday November 27, 2006 @02:29PM (#17004536) Homepage

    as online TV becomes more popular, people will isolate themselves more and more from a shared experience

    Instead, I'd say that as online TV becomes more popular, people will timeshift their viewing more and more. This does not eliminate a shared experience altogether, but it does stretch it thinner. But to the point of isolation? Naw. A good series remains a good series, and word will travel.

    In fact, I find it refreshing that, at our watercooler, co-workers introduce each other to new shows, as well as help filter out the crud. Instead of a dozen people investing 12 man-hours to all learn that the Such-and-Such show blows ... the investment was perhaps one or two.

  • Sure it is. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Rob T Firefly ( 844560 ) on Monday November 27, 2006 @02:33PM (#17004606) Homepage Journal
    My PC plays DVDs, downloads from torrents and Usenet (shh!) and legit online streams (bless you Adult Swim!) [adultswim.com] My PC plays all the PC games and classic console ROMs I need it to. When I have a video card with the proper inputs, the PC displays my real game consoles as well. My last actual television died about four years ago, and I really never found a reason to replace it.

    To be fair I'm not much of a fan of modern mainstream television, and the only two series (not counting Adult Swim) I really follow are British ones I can only torrent in until the DVDs make it here to the States, but with mainstream stuff like NBC's "Heroes" following the legit streaming model I can see standard televsions becoming an endangered species fairly soon.

    Many areas currently plan to ditch plain old analog broadcasts in favor of digital, and I imagine that signal is really easy to plug into an Internet server rather than a cable company. I'd love to see a cost comparison of what it costs the networks to stream online versus broadcasting on the dwindling airwaves.
  • See that DVI, HDMI, or SVideo port on the back of your computer? See that DVI, HDMI, or SVideo port on the side of your new TV? Got any bright ideas? ;)
  • by avasol ( 904335 ) on Monday November 27, 2006 @03:00PM (#17005086)
    I think this is an absolutely ludicrous idea you're proposing, especially coming from a /.er.
    Look around you. And if you think Slashdot polarizes these people, you're right. In a _positive_ way. Becoming more opinionated is good for you, I promise. To choose wisely based upon a wider perspective, is also right.

    In fact. What the hell are you saying?
  • by kfg ( 145172 ) on Monday November 27, 2006 @03:28PM (#17005468)
    I see it as more people having "something" to do with their time

    A lovely young lady of my acquaintence is one hell of a little piano player.

    She grew up in one of those little dying dipshit towns out in the boonies with two diners; and one of them is boarded up.

    She told me that she learned to play the piano just to have "something" to do with her time. It's now her life and her career.

    Think about it.

    KFG
  • by rucs_hack ( 784150 ) on Monday November 27, 2006 @03:29PM (#17005474)
    since starting to watch online content I've found that my friends and I talk far more about video content then we ever did about tv. Links to cool new things get bandied about, and there's a constant hunt to find the next cool thing to share.

    Redvsblue is my current favorite for quality comedy online.This was found not through brainless channel surfing, but via a conversation with a friend.
  • by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Monday November 27, 2006 @03:53PM (#17005904)
    The increase of online viewing is only a threat to those stupid enough not to provide easy means of viewing shows online!

    And by show, I mean any media!

    Advertisers seem threatened by online media. Yet how many years ago was it that AdCritic had to start charging because they got too popular? Why is there no modern AdCritic that is free and supported by millions of companies that have ads they want consumers to watch?

    The networks have started to air shows online but when will they stop treating online viewers as second class citizens and let the people download a show the moment it airs?

    I canceled my cable a year or two ago and have not looked back, because downloading (even by purchase) media is just such an improved way to watch TV, better even than TiVO (which was always merely an intermediate step to true random access of, and within, media).

  • by StikyPad ( 445176 ) on Monday November 27, 2006 @08:28PM (#17009900) Homepage
    Once the general perception shifts from "gotta get home, Lost is on soon", to "I'll download it this weekend/I'll wait for the DVD", TV networks as we know them are dead.

    Except that if nobody watches TV, there will be no "Lost" to download this weekend/wait for the DVD. (Although I'd venture a guess that exponentially more people use a VCR/PVR to record shows anyway.) TV won't "die" until there's both a viable distribution method to replace it, and an unmarketable remaining audience -- something which will take decades, if ever, to achieve. A substantially larger number of people still watch TV than even have internet access, let alone those with access but lacking the savvy to download and play videos. That your extremely limited sample (friends/peers) of people is gravitating toward a particular method of content aquisition says nothing for the millions of grandmas, soccer moms, laborers, etc. Further, by your logic, radio would already be dead. People don't always know what they want, and sometimes they just want to browse (channel surf) until they find something they like.

"May your future be limited only by your dreams." -- Christa McAuliffe

Working...