Why TV Lost 576
theodp writes "Over the past 20 years, there's been much speculation about what the convergence of computers and TV would ultimately look like. Paul Graham says that we now know the answer: computers. 'Convergence' is turning out to essentially be 'replacement.' Why did TV lose? Graham identifies four forces: 1. The Internet's open platform fosters innovation at hacker speeds instead of big company speeds. 2. Moore's Law worked its magic on Internet bandwidth. 3. Piracy taught a new generation of users it's more convenient to watch shows on a computer screen. 4. Social applications made everybody from grandmas to 14-year-old girls want computers — in a three-word-nutshell, Facebook killed TV."
I'm not dead yet (Score:5, Funny)
Digital broadcast (Score:5, Insightful)
I suspect digital broadcast TV is going to swing the pendulum back a bit.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Digital broadcast TV is a huge disappointment in my book. With analog TV, bad reception results in some snow on the screen. Programs are still perfectly viewable because there are no frame dropouts, and the audio is still there. Digital TV's failure mode is generally catastrophic, with no audio, shredding of the image akin to a half-received jpeg file; it's basically unwatchable with even the slightest bad reception where you would barely notice a problem with analog.
If the degradation in quality of prac
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The signal bandwidth of digital TV is much narrower than traditional analog broadcast, so much less actually has to be received to successfully construct the stream.
The extra bandwidth can be used to instead transmit redundant information and error correction codes, to make the signal much more reliable than it ever was with analog TV, and potentially multiple different streams over the same channel.
The failure mode is more catastrophic, but digital technology should also be much less likely to fail.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it's nothing like that. That's possibly the worst analogy I've ever read. Even on /.
Re:Digital broadcast (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Digital broadcast (Score:5, Funny)
That's possibly the worst analogy I've ever read.....
A bad analogy is like a leaky screwdriver.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It doesn't make sense?
Obligatory buggles quote (Score:3, Funny)
I heard you on the wireless back in Fifty Two
Lying awake intent at tuning in on you.
If I was young it didn't stop you coming through.
They took the credit for your second symphony.
Rewritten by machine and new technology,
and now I understand the problems you can see.
Re:Digital broadcast (Score:5, Informative)
It works really well in Britain - digital is just superior in every way, and set-top boxes [wikipedia.org] are more or less free with cereal - but Britain is rather more densely populated than the US. Even then, the BBC has had to start doing Freesat [wikipedia.org] to fulfil its universal service obligations to areas that can't get a good terrestrial signal. In the US, I expect they're reluctant to compel TV stations to provide universal service at all.
Re:Digital broadcast (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Digital broadcast (Score:5, Interesting)
I LIVE in a 'snowy broadcast' area. My new LCD TV has the digital channels perfectly clear, while the analog channels show lots of artifacts. I'd even rate one of the stations that did a flash-cut as 'unwatchable' before the transition, is now perfectly clear at 1080i.
Are you sure that you're not comparing the lower power temporary digital channels against the old full power analog? Many stations are transmitting both, but the digital station at a tenth or less of the power.
When they finally turn off the analog stations, most are going to put their digital broadcast on the original station at the old power.
Re:Digital broadcast (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone who grew up with analog TV knows better.
You lost sound.
You lost horizontal and vertical sync. You had snow and you had ghosts. Color introduced you to whole new levels of pain.
The solution to bad reception was a good antenna.
Dad brought out the forty foot ladder to mount a big Winegard on the roof. You watched him drive a ground stake in with a sledge until his face turned purple.
Your neighbor who clung to his rabbit ears as "good enough" was full of it then - and he is full of it now.
However, the programs still suck
The Boston Symphony in live performance New Year's Eve does not suck. The Leafs and Sabres in overtime - also broadcast in 1080i - does not suck.
This is the experience YouTube can't deliver.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
1080 looks drop-dead gorgeous even on your refurbished 37" Sam's Club Vizio.
Re:Digital broadcast (Score:5, Informative)
I suspect digital broadcast TV is going to swing the pendulum back a bit.
Not if people who used to rely on an analog broadcast signal can't get a DTV signal with the same antenna. This is reportedly a problem for people who live in the country between towns: a fuzzy analog signal could reach, but there isn't enough SNR for a digital tuner to sync to the carrier. Even in cities, all isn't perfect: I can get the FOX affiliate station in Fort Wayne, Indiana, fine over analog but not at all over digital.
Re:Digital broadcast (Score:5, Insightful)
It's like the Internet ... except shit!
I work in media. The future of television is YouTube or similar. We know this. It'll take a few years before the Internet is a better television than television, i.e. when your connection is a better delivery mechanism than DVB-T over the air. OTOH, convenience beats quality every time.
Re:Digital broadcast (Score:4, Interesting)
I work in media and the future is in real HD content in RSS streams that can be subscribed to NOT the utter crap that is Youtube or anything like that.
Automatic subscription to my content that my equipment can collect. and I can view at my leisure. Every person I show that model WANTS that model and not the sift through garbage to find what I want model that is Youtube or the other current systems.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
At least real TV is, for the time being, DRM-free.
Yes, CableCARD has a bunch of BS DRM, but you can get a component video capture card and hook up a cable box to it with an IR blaster and record anything you want, probably even PPV.
Re:Digital broadcast (Score:5, Insightful)
TV still has an important advantage over the PC. It is not generally related to work at all, can be restricted to a pure entertainment level, requires no brain effort, has a remote control and is generally placed just in front of the most comfortable armchairs and sofas in the house...although more and more of these TVs have desktops, laptops, iPods, Tivos, Wiis, Xboxes, PS3s or other computer-like devices connected to them most of the time.
This isn't a case of either/or. It's a case of TV having lost a long time ago.
Re:Digital broadcast (Score:4, Interesting)
Right - I agree. And it's just a matter of time till Tivo or some company like them will make a Tivo that doesn't actually record anything but just downloads it. Then you can cancel your cable bill and pay more for your Tivo subscription, but what you'll get is a huge Tivo full of the sort of stuff you like, in HD. Every time you plop down in front of "the tube" it will look just like TV, except with micro-targeted ads. It will even have a "personal broadcast" mode so that you can flip channels between various arrangements of the stuff on your Tivo. It's like "custom channels made specifically for you."
That stuff will be interspersed with "breaking news" and local shit that the Tivo algorithm suspects you will find relevant.
Digital VOD. (Score:4, Interesting)
Lovely. Ala carte eventually came about.
Re:Digital broadcast (Score:5, Insightful)
>>I suspect digital broadcast TV is going to swing the pendulum back a bit.
No way! The summary says that "Facebook killed TV", and I have to agree.
Sitting there staring at my screen for hours waiting for my friends to update is a hundred times more preferable to watching Sister, Sister or 90210.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I tend to agree. I'd be more inclined to predict that a convergence of mobile phone and TV will replace 'computers' although the definition of a computer is quite fuzzy (by a lot of metrics, a modern TV and a mobile phone both count). A modern phone has a 600MHz+ CPU, a DSP and a GPU that can handle H.264. Drop it in a docking station connected to a big screen, and you've got everything most people need for a computer, including Internet access. Add a bluetooth keyboard and you can do everything you wou
Re:I'm not dead yet (Score:5, Insightful)
If the article literally means that we're all going to be crowded around computer screens to watch entertainment instead of sitting comfortably on our couches in the living room, then yeah, it's wrong. My wife and I probably spend way too much time on our computers (we're WoW addicts). But when we want to watch a "TV show" (usually a DVD of a TV show) we go into the living room. It's just way more pleasant and better set up.
If you're talking about the delivery mechanism, then yeah, it may work out that broadcasting the same signal to everyone is going away. Although even that I question. I'm wondering if the Internet infrastructure really has the bandwidth to support everyone (not just a minority of people) all doing real time streaming. I'm thinking we're at least one generation of the Internet away from such capacity.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If the article literally means that we're all going to be crowded around computer screens to watch entertainment instead of sitting comfortably on our couches in the living room, then yeah, it's wrong. My wife and I probably spend way too much time on our computers (we're WoW addicts). But when we want to watch a "TV show" (usually a DVD of a TV show) we go into the living room.
What's stopping you having a computer in the living room hooked up to the TV, or sitting comfortably on your couch with a laptop?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Rule of thumb: The Internet never has enough bandwidth for everybody to do what the power users are currently
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What, exactly, is stopping you from plugging a computer into your nice big TV surrounded by couches? Other than a complete and utter lack of imagination?
For the price of a decent 5.1 sound system you can buy a nice computer to plug into that TV and do all your streaming in the "correct" room. Plus with another $50 you can add in a HDTV antenna and have a complete solution. Vista even comes with the software, Media Center, that takes care of most of it for you for free.
That would be why computers won. I have
Re:I'm not dead yet (Score:5, Insightful)
When the PC boots up in 3 seconds, has a monitor at least 24" or more across, is placed in the most comfortable room in the house (after the bedroom), has no associations with work, requires ZERO brain effort, switches channels at the touch of one button and can be operated with one hand via a small remote control while the other hand holds a beer or fishes in a packet of Salt'n'Vinegar crisps for the last crumbs...
Then the PC will win. Don't see it happening though.
Re:I'm not dead yet (Score:4, Interesting)
The "TV is dead" line is all about broadcast technology, not the display device itself. People are already using various boxes to watch Internet content on their living room TV's. All you need to kill TV completely is to sell a tuner-free display which plugs directly into your home network.
Most (ALL?) new TVs are embedded computers. My reasonably affordable 32" LCD TV runs linux, has all the features you listed, and updates its firmware over TCP/IP
We are already there in terms of technology. The only ongoing challenge is the content owners who use legal structures to resist change.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
What is this 'Facebook' that you speak of?
Neither "won" (Score:3, Insightful)
Both computers and TV are still "alive".
TV's are becoming more computer-like though. With digital guides, PVR's and whatnot. Eventually it'll all be a hybrid. Do computer stuff on your TV, do TV stuff on your computer.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree somewhat with that view, but I think it's jumping too far ahead (and introducing uncertainty as to how things will evolve) to say we'll end up with a hybrid.
I think TVs (the device) will stay a TV (even with a tuner, albeit DTT). However, set-top boxes will become ubiquitous and rather than the current programmatic content, there will be the "appearance" of a pull system (you decide what you want to watch). The broadcast system will merely be used to stream new content to set-top boxes, where it wil
I Want My iTV (Score:5, Interesting)
In Wired in 1998, I ranted as follows:
(Microsoft VP) Craig Mundie's statement that "we view the Internet as one of the 'features' of digital TV services" demonstrates the same lack of vision that caused Microsoft to miss the start of the Internet phenomenon. As communications technologies converge, TV will be one of the services of the Internet, not the other way around.
Not to say ITYS but ITYS.
Couldn't part of the reason for this win be that people over the age of two don't actually like being spoonfed their entertainment, their desires (mu-u-u-st SHOP!), and their political opinions?
On the Internet, I can not only drive, but plan out the whole route, if I want. Heck, I can build my own railway for other people to ride. Much more engaging than TV.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Huh? How is the Internet not a digital TV service? Follow my logic here:
Today, I can build or purchase a PVR/Media Center box (what they used to call a 'settop box') and stream video-on-demand purchased from Netflix or a competing service. I can also purchase digital copies of movies and videos using iTunes and/or Apple TV. I can download pirated movies and play them on my media center. I can rip movies I already own, record them from cable, etc.
But, it's also the other way around: I can watch "TV" and
VOD (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:VOD (Score:5, Insightful)
30 years from now, people will think how stupid it was that you had to wait for your favorite TV show to come on at a specific time.
I think it is stupid now, and I grew up watching TV.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Waiting a year is fine if you live in a vacuum. However, when your friends are all talking about the last episode of Lost or Dr Who that aired the night before, don't you feel a little left out?
Re:VOD (Score:5, Insightful)
30 years from now, people will think how stupid it was that you had to wait for your favorite TV show to come on at a specific time, rather than watching it whenever you wanted.
Also very strange, people considered it normal for their show to be interrupted periodically by attempts to sell you crap. After watching shows downloaded, going back to regular television is strange and depressing. Ads can spoil the best of programs. Yet I grew up with television and ads and it all seemed perfectly normal for years and years. Interesting how little time it takes viewing stuff without ads for it to become completely unacceptable.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
30 years from now, people will think how stupid it was that you had to wait for your favorite TV show to come on at a specific time, rather than watching it whenever you wanted.
Also very strange, people considered it normal for their show to be interrupted periodically by attempts to sell you crap.
It funny. We got our first TV in the early 1970s. Within a week of watching it my dad had improvised a remote control to mute the ads. I think we started the decline of TV advertising revenue but standard wireless remote controls certainly played their part.
Re:VOD (Score:5, Funny)
We got our first TV in the early 1970s. Within a week of watching it my dad had improvised a remote control to mute the ads
Throwing a beer can at the back of your head is not a remote control!
Re:VOD (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:VOD (Score:5, Funny)
I remember when commercials were entertaining and were trying to sell a real product.
The snugee _is_ real. I've seen it. I'll let the mods decide if I'm being funny.
Piracy? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, I download. But I pay £140 a year in TV licence fees that goes to the BBC, and about £125 in cable TV fees. The material I download is either produced by the BBC, or material that's showing on the stations that I'm paying for anyway.
Now yes, from a strict legal point of view, I've no doubt that still counts of piracy. But I'm not doing it because it's cheaper - I'm still paying £265 a year to the TV industry, and if I wanted to be unethical, I could stop paying, and just download. I do it because even though I'm happy to pay for it, it's much more convenient to watch TV when I want, and not when the TV company decides to put it on.
Not that I'm disagreeing with the article really - the fact that the TV companies were so inept to adapt to new technology shows why they are losing. They should just be glad that some of us are still willing to pay for them anyway.
Not piracy (Score:5, Insightful)
Now yes, from a strict legal point of view, I've no doubt that still counts of piracy.
IANAL, but I believe that unless it happens on the high seas and involves forcefully robbing or commandeering a vessel, from a strict legal point of view it is not piracy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> The mechanisms are in no way economically sustainable.
Yes, and that's why the industry must change (not the other way around): people is not willing to pay more because Angelina Jolie "needs" to win 10 millions per film; directors must look for lower price digital production; F/X people already works with Linux clusters, etc... Like musicians that can win a lot in concerts (with the exception of Pink Floyd, but that's another story), there is a lot to be made in theaters, merchandise, etc. and yes, som
Re:Piracy? (Score:4, Insightful)
But I pay £140 a year
Ok in all honesty where in your mind does £140 even begin to cover the literally thousands of hours of production? Do you think that covers even a SINGLE employee for a SINGLE episode? THIS people is the problem with the whole "I'm a noble pirate" bs that flies around on Slashdot. The mechanisms are in no way economically sustainable.
Apparently it does, since that's the price that was set by industry. I'm pretty sure the difference is made up by the fact that there are many more people paying that price than there are employees.
Re:Piracy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh brother. If his £140 not covering the salary of one person who worked on the production of the show doesn't entitle him to watch it, then why is that the price they choose to charge him to watch it?
Maybe you were being sarcastic, but I didn't get that. You're aware of course that they make their money not from the subscription fees of a single individual, but from producing a product that they sell to tens or hundreds of thousands of people, right?
I can't quite accept, "You paid for it, but you will watch it when we say you can watch it, unless you recorded it when we said you could watch it, then you can watch it later - but not if you didn't record it when we said you can watch it but instead got the same thing from somewhere else, then watched it later, that's just unacceptable."
He paid for it. Time shifting is legal. Time shifting does not dictate what mechanism is used to shift. Get over it.
It was obvious 10 years ago (Score:5, Insightful)
Even 10 years ago, it was pretty evident that it was only a matter of time before TV became obsolete. Once you could inexpensively publish online, and once a PC could do full motion video, it was only a matter of time.
TV will hang on for a while yet, as will newspapers, and as will the odd brick and mortar game or music store, but the end is nigh for all of these things.
You Got Your Blinders On (Score:5, Insightful)
TV will hang on for a while yet, as will newspapers, and as will the odd brick and mortar game or music store, but the end is nigh for all of these things.
The problem here is that we are the technical elete, and many of us have blinders on that prevent us from seeing the significant number of people who do not have these types of computer based solutions, nor want them. As long as they exist and keep sending money to Jesus and buying things as seen on TV, TV the way we know it now will continue to exist. Too much money in it.
Re:You Got Your Blinders On (Score:5, Insightful)
You could have said the same thing about the web in 1995 - I was 'technical elite'; my parents saw no point whatsoever in paying for modem dialup for that interweb thing. 10 years later, my parents see always-on broadband as a basic essential of life just as I do.
Right now, I'm (allegedly) the 'technical elite' in that I watch what little TV programming I watch online without ads and can't remember the last time I bought a physical music CD; my parents don't see the point of internet-delivered TV and still feel the need to 'own' a physical CD when they buy music. In ten years..
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Different markets (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, television isn't that idiot-proof story telling box. Lots of idiots break their TVs, and don't even get me started on the whole Wii crowd. I have a Wii, and folks: It's called a 'wrist strap' for a reason, and it's not made of steel cabling.
One word - ads (Score:5, Interesting)
I stopped watching TV about 6 years ago. My biggest reason?
Even the paid channels that were supposedly "ad free" started having ads. I wouldn't mind paying a premium for a channel that had absolutely no ads whatsoever, and had uninterrupted programming. I can never relate to the whole, "ooh-shiny" mode of programming that's prevalent today. If anything, I wouldn't be surprised if this were causing an increase in ADDs.
With a computer, I can pretty much download and watch what I want at my convenience, without ads.
Today, I do own a TV (which I bought a a few months ago at the behest of the girlfriend) - but no cable. We use it to watch DVDs and play videogames, and that's about it.
So, yes. Give me programs that are longer and uninterrupted (and good quality) and I will watch them. I am willing to spend 4 hours watching an uninterrupted show with a good story arc, rather than something that is half hour long, with interruptions ever 4 minutes in this age of instant gratification. And having to watch it again the next week at the exact time, which would be programming my life around the show and not the other way around.
Re:One word - ads (Score:5, Interesting)
I like ads. Let me repeat that... I like ads. If it comes down to a choice between having to shell out real money for entertainment (or more money, in case of certain entertainment types) and viewing ads, I'll take viewing a few ads every time. Somebody has to pay the bills, and I'd rather have that somebody be a company hawking their product.
Re: (Score:2)
Ads might be a neccessary evil, but once you've "unplugged" from mainstream advertising, if you go to someone's house and watch something live, like say the Superbowl, ads (even amazing ads like superbowl ads) seem obnoxiously obtrusive. You might not mind ads simply because you've always been exposed to them, the same way a 4th grader doesn't think he needs glasses simply because he's always gotten along without them just fine. Once you get used to glasses you wonder how the rest of the world got along for
Re:One word - ads (Score:5, Interesting)
If it comes down to a choice between having to shell out real money for entertainment (or more money, in case of certain entertainment types) and viewing ads, I'll take viewing a few ads every time.
Well, the main problem is, you still get the ads even when you are shelling out real money -- as in, satellite, cable, etc. And I'm not talking about commercial breaks -- those I can stand, within reason, although I do appreciate being able to fast-forward through them sometimes.
No, it's two things that bug me: They're the same ads every time, so even one worth watching is boring by the time the show's over and I've seen it five or ten times. And they're now to the point where ads actually slide onto the bottom quarter or third of the screen, with audio, basically trashing the show -- and of course, with no reduction in the number of ads shown during commercial breaks.
It's not much better online -- Hulu not only has an ad every 15 minutes, but an ad every seek. No, really -- you can't easily fastforward through the show to find where you left off, because every time you seek, they'll cut to a 15 second ad.
I don't mind ads -- sometimes they're even informative, and sometimes I do end up buying a product that way. However, when I see an ad actually preventing me from enjoying the real content I wanted to consume, I make a mental note not to buy that product.
I mean, hell, I like the idea of Hulu. I would love to watch old shows like Firefly online, on demand, streamed, yet in a way that compensates the original creators. But they've managed to perfectly replicate the amount of ads that ruined TV for me, so fuck 'em, I'll get it off The Pirate Bay.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
But you are shelling out real money to watch TV.
18 minutes of your time for every hour of television you watch. When you consider that the average American watches 28 hours of TV weekly, you're looking at 8.4 hours of your time wasted every week. 436 hours a year. 11.3 workplace-years (2080h/yr) of you life, wasted watching advertisement.
In terms of income, a median American earner will pay $363,000 in lost opportunity cost over 65 years of television viewing.
One way or another you *are* paying for your
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hell, I can deal with the commercials; they've been there as long as I can remember.
But these days, while you're watching the show there's stuff swooping across the bottom or top third of the screen- sometimes both! Or my personal favorite- they shove the show to one side of the screen to make room for the ads. If they don't respect their own programming, why should I watch it?
Thanks but no thanks.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Or my personal favorite- they shove the show to one side of the screen to make room for the ads. If they don't respect their own programming, why should I watch it?
I agree with you there. When I started getting interested in reading credits at the end of a program, that was exactly when cable companies started squishing the picture for advertisements. The credits aren't even readable on an SD set. Now I can't easily see if I was right on guessing the voice actor in this cartoon or try to remember the name of the cute blond on that beach without running to a computer.
Exagerrated (Score:5, Insightful)
This is like saying that verbal storytelling lost to books, or that books lost to radio, or radio lost to movies.
The internet, by virtue of interactivity, is far better for certain kinds of entertainment, sure, it has a competitive advantage. But sometimes you just want to sit down and receive and not interact, and that functionality will always be there, even if it's now the computer that will produce it in the future.
And there will always be demand for that sort of one way entertainment.
Facebook?! (Score:5, Insightful)
Social applications made everybody from grandmas to 14-year-old girls want computers â" in a three-word-nutshell, Facebook killed TV.
I'll take any odds that the saturation of the PC market graphed against the rise of Facebook (in, what, 2004?) shows absolutely no support for this absurd statement. I strongly suspect that PC sales more or less level off before Facebook even gains any real traction; to support this statement (that Facebook "made everybody... want computers"), you'd need to show exactly the opposite. Seriously, this is just a silly claim.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Facebook?! (Score:5, Insightful)
Facebook is a symptom, not a cause.
Re:Facebook?! (Score:4, Insightful)
Poor reasons (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, reasons 3 & 4 really miss the mark.
3. Piracy taught a new generation of users it's more convenient to watch shows on a computer screen.
How is it more convenient to watch video on a computer screen, than in a living room designed specifically around a television set with a large screen? This is why I own a DivX DVD player with a USB port, and why things like MythTV and Media PCs exist - so people can watch video in the optimum environment, which is not a computer or laptop sitting on a desk.
4. Social applications made everybody from grandmas to 14-year-old girls want computers â" in a three-word-nutshell, Facebook killed TV.
I don't know of a single person that bought a computer or got internet connectivity because of Facebook - or any single site for that matter. Claiming that the internet is popular because of Facebook is patently absurd. Not even Google can make such a claim.
Re: (Score:2)
I actually miss reason 5
99% of the tv shows are crap, not worth your time or money.
Internet doesnt help improve the quality of the shows but at least you can pick whatever you want when you want for a very reasonable price.
Re:Poor reasons (Score:4, Insightful)
It's more convenient to watch them on your computer screen when you only spend a small fraction (45 minutes a day typically) watching videos. Keep in mind the living room has been designed around the TV only for the last 50 years or so. If he only watches an hour a day of video his viewpoints are going to be drastically different from someone who spends the majority of their leisure time watching ad-funded TV on the sofa.
For example I only have a TV so that my friends don't think it's odd, or so they have something to watch while eating.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
parent and grandparent poster both don't get it (Score:2)
Not needing a separate room to use your computer: Priceless (and helps heat bills if you have zoned heat).
Not needing to purchase, maintain, pay electricity for, and replace a separate dedicated player: Priceless.
Double clicking a file you just (legally) downloaded and watching it in 1080p even though you don't have HDCP: Priceless.
[note: when I say Priceless, I'm joking. I know there's a measurable price to all of these things. Buy a Kill-A-Watt unit and m
Re: (Score:2)
Welcome to the Brave New World (Score:2, Interesting)
Not TV, media companies lost. The future came and they weren't prepared.
I'd be willing to bet that in ten years we won't have phones or TV sets, just digital boxes with broadband internet. Small boxes to carry in your pocket, big boxes at home.
Game consoles, computers, phones, they will all merge. Perhaps we will have some boxes more specialized than others, but inside they will all be the same. A computer with a display and some form of input device, communicating over a wireless link to the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Computers + TV (Score:5, Insightful)
I also realize that it will probably become easier to integrate our computers with our entertainment centers, nothing, at least at this point, makes me want to sit in front of the TV on my leather couch to surf/write emails/program/etc.
I really don't care how nicely the 2 will end up playing together. In the end, it's two seperate things that I use. Sometimes I want to sit upright in an office chair and get some work done, some playing done, or just some random stuff done. Other times I want to throw a blanket on my lap with a drink and veg to a movie.
I just don't see them mixing perfectly. I can't see them replacing either one. We will just simply have the need for both.
Re: (Score:2)
"Piracy" (Score:5, Insightful)
"Piracy" really does deliver the best convenience money can't buy.
Here is a list of crap that I won't put up with:
Unskippable DVD menus.
Region locks.
Content that expires before I'm ready to let it go.
Waiting a week longer than American audiences (BBC iplayer)
Commercials.
Ghetto satellite dish on my house.
Somebody else's schedule.
Inability to pause.
Driving to rent/buy physical media.
The redundant TV screen itself.
Yep, TV lost.
Same reason blogs lost? (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps TV has lost for the same reason blogs have lost. Nobody wants to read/watch inane crap that somebody just pulled out of his ass in order to attract advertising attention.
What, people actually read this tripe? Nevermind; I recant. TV has a bright future.
The day "computers" are good for an evening of video entertainment with a significant other, the word will be spelled "television".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The Internet calls television inane and tripe. :D
Call me a luddite, I really want to keep computing divorced from television viewing. TV is passive spectator sport. I shouldn't be encouraged to click around. I rue the day when popup interstitials during the actual show aren't the most annoying thing in my TV viewing, but on-screen hyperlinks, encouraging me to press a button on my remote to immediately pause the show and launch a browser window so that I can instantly buy an item worn by my show's protagoni
And DTV (Score:2)
I'll bet that when the final history of TV is written, people will point to the time of the switchover from analog to digital TV as a watershed moment. In one fell swoop it'll kick off a whole bunch of mostly-older folks who don't have the interest/capacity in getting the digital converter setup. (A year or two ago I assumed that would be me, until my TV died early and my girlfriend & I discovered we preferred watching shows on the computer anyway as a stopgap.)
Not that it's causative. There are in fact
Re: (Score:2)
And yeah TV is toast. Nice bit of bandwidth you have there...
It's simpler than that (Score:2)
In this case better means cheaper, more flexible and easier to distribute. Once content became digital, as opposed to only existing on videotape, and computers got connected - which is what made digital better than broadcast, the rest was inevitable.
It's The Blinking Ads (Score:2, Informative)
Ronald Reagan drove the nail in the coffin lid of television. He passed legislation that allowed far more ads to be run every hour of the day. That killed conventional TV. Cable was also shot in the rump as without over the air competition the cable companies purchased far too little entertainment.
Worse yet regulations were relaxed or at least no enforced which allowed shockingly loud ads which got to the point that some channels were impossible to watch.
The real problem... (Score:5, Funny)
"Television? The word is half Greek and half Latin. No good will come of this device." - Charles Prestwich Scott, 1936.
Engagement (Score:2)
The reason that TV lost is because people choose to be actively involved in how they spend their entertainment and downtime, rather than being spoon-fed what someone else wants you to watch. Piracy is popular because while people like the shows they want to watch them how and when they want them (sans interruptions like ads). Gaming is popular because you're the hero rather than watching some overpaid action doll doing all the fun stuff. TV is passive. The internet is active. Come get some!
Not right in soooo many ways (Score:3, Insightful)
Computers have not won...yet. And their eventual triumph is doubtful. "Convergence" hasn't really happened yet, although it is unfolding; its future configuration will be shaped by how long and how widespread the economic downturn becomes. Much of the computer hardware we are used to is finding its way into TVs; HDTV needs processing power and graphics rendering of high orders. OTOH, computer CPU power is not increasing at is old-time rate.
But more important is that the article ignores the insights of Marshall McLuhan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_medium_is_the_message [wikipedia.org] . TV was a 'cool' medium, meaning we had to put its picture together in our heads. To prove that point, look at any paper Newsweek or Time cover picture of an event on a TV screen. Why does their picture look so much poorer than our TV at home? The answer is from McLuhan through psychology: the electrons (of a CRT) go through the glass and into our bodies.
His theories predicted the popularity of the Simpsons, North Beach, adult swim and countless other animated shows and series. It predicted tribalism, and TV, being real-time, is tribal by its very scheduled nature: you can watch TV with your friends at precisely the same time even if you are not together.
Computers are a very different medium. They have the potential to be very, very hot: good audio, great video; but they are not. A truly hot medium is immediate. It does not have to boot for a minute or two. It does not wait fifteen seconds for a show to load. Hot is IN YOUR FACE rightnowmutherflicker! Computers have not yet achieved that level of hotness. But random-access helps. That we can watch whenever we like a youtube video we missed and everyone else saw is much hotter than having missed a network TV show that can't be seen again until the series goes into reruns.
No, I doubt TV has lost. It has gone HD and over cable. The cable providers will be using computer-like interfaces and our home computers will gain HDTV tuners. The media they create/disseminate will be the true convergence.
Odd... I always thought the reason TV lost was... (Score:4, Informative)
Nope. I can tell you why TV lost in 7 words. (Score:2)
"Software evolves faster and cheaper than hardware."
TV vs monitor (Score:2)
On a sort of related note, I'm confused as to why TVs haven't completely merged with computer monitors. They're similar enough now that they should be one and the same - they do pretty much the same thing - that's for sure.
I must have missed the memo... (Score:2)
...about TV dying a sad death. Because TV is alive and well at my house. Mythtv has been a godsend with regards to being able to focus on content rather than (as pointed out by another observant poster) being continually interrupted by sales pitches.
Not that there is much content on TV worth watching. That's OK; my Netflix account keeps me loaded up with just about any movie I choose to watch (I prefer foreign movies). Why would I even think about watching a movie on a screen that's 17" from corner to c
what i have (Score:2)
Sigh (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh my! How clever and powerful, three words that explain the death of TV! BRILLIANT! /sarcasm Well I have three words in return: "You are wrong."
I'll agree with this when I can only get my favorite shows through Facebook, and when if I want to sit down and casually surf the channels I have to do more than press a single button.
Nothing compares to being able to flop onto the couch, press the "On" button on a television remote, and immediately have my regularly scheduled prime time show on the screen.
Show me any computer setup that can have my show on the screen in the time it takes for me to get home tired from work, toss my shoes off, plop on the couch and just press "on" one time to be where I want to be.
Some of you resourceful nerds out there probably have such a setup, but I will offer two things preemptively to respond to that:
1) You are not nearly the norm, most people don't want the hassle of setting something like that up, and,
2) Even if they did, what does this have to do with Facebook again?
Please excuse my french, but seriously, the statement "Facebook killed TV" is just fucking stupid.
'jumpingthegun', indeed (Score:3, Interesting)
I actually RTFA (I know, I just don't fit in here...) but it's nonsense. It may be accurate in some tiny subculture, but it's so far off the beam for the general public, I really don't even know how to address it. I am reasonably up-to-speed, tech-wise, and my buddies and I all live right here in good old Santa Clara county, Silicon valley defined. But I don't know many people that actually have abandoned TV for a fucking computer. There are far more posers "stating" that they don't watch TV any more, as if that makes them somehow superior, but that is a tiny minority of the tiny minority (and most are just lying about it).
For the general American public, virtually *no one* has replaced their TV with a computer. The Facebook argument is nonsensical because the majority of people don't even know what the hell it is aside from buzzword/fad at 14 minutes, 55 seconds, and counting. The article sounds as if it was written from the perspective of a bunch of geeks huddling in their mom's basement arguing over who is watching TV the least between downloading Natalie Portman pictures. It may be true in that crowd, it may be highly represented on slashdot clientele, but it's so far off for normal people (you know, those who admit they watch TV, and are making Simon Cowell a billionaire) it's frightening.
Brett
facebook killed TV? (Score:5, Insightful)
I would agree with the idea that piracy did a lot more to kill TV but it's also people's lack of care about quality. I think both digital audio and video has been a bit of a step backwards in quality (for the most part) and that's a shame.
I'm sure companies like that because they can offer the same music in a better bit-rate later and people will buy the music again and not realise the quality may still be inferior to the CD they could have bought instead and they could have created their own DRM free mp3s. The same goes for video.
Re:facebook killed TV? (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, come on..... (Score:3, Insightful)
We have reached new heights of ridiculous, premature geek hyperbole. TV is nowhere near dead. Go to any random neighborhood, of any income level, and poll the residents. How many of the households use their computers for their primary (an important distinction) means of receiving and watching video content versus how many are getting it on a dedicated receiver via cable, satellite, or OTA? TV as a distinct medium is alive and well, and isn't going away anytime soon. TV programming delivered online is certainly becoming another choice, among many, to get our daily dose of information and escapism. But it has hardly become anywhere near the conventional, common, default option. Come talk to me in about 20 years and maybe we will be having a different conversation.
This is so typical of the demographic that tends to be attracted to sites like Slashdot. Younger, better educated, technically savvy, etc. A small subset of the citizenry that tends to be automatically and passionately enamored of anything new, different, and "cool." Hardly descriptive of the U.S. population as a whole. Networks and cable channels are still viable business entities, advertisers and content providers still make money hand over fist, and TV sets are still flying off store shelves every day. Guys, I hate to burst your bubble, but you are in the minority here -- you are the unconventional freaks and not in any way representative of the typical American.
Right now, this is not about obsolescence or a wholesale quantum shift in the way we do things -- it is about having different options for achieving the same goal, and about expanding choices, not locking everybody into some new paradigm. TV via the Web is just another available option, among many. It is an excellent choice for people who spend much of their lives in front of their computers anyway. Most people -- most normal people don't use their computers as a 24/7 umbilical cord. Sure, they surf the Web, and maybe even watch some videos there (especially unusual, quirky, or amateur content that is not available through conventional TV). They also watch TV, listen to the radio, listen to ipods, read books, go to the theater (cinema or stage), attend live concerts, take long walks, play with their kids, indulge in a hobby, screw their significant others, and have pleasant conversations with their friends and loved ones (whether by phone or -- horror -- face to face), and more. All of these activities are still regarded as rather distinct entities, all are important to a well-rounded life, and they do not have to be all combined, integrated, and streamlined into a single delivery source in one magic box.
This thread reminds me of that guy a few weeks back who was beside himself figuring out how to set up a computer to provide live, streaming video of the Inauguration to his students via the Web, when the simplest, most practical and effective solution was to simply drag a TV into the classroom and turn it on. Folks, everything doesn't have to be accomplished in some new, flashy, and high tech manner -- sometimes, perhaps most of the time, the tried and true solutions still work best for most of us.
Is this a cruel joke? (Score:3, Insightful)
From the article, "The second is Moore's Law, which has worked its usual magic on Internet bandwidth. "
From where I sit, that sounds like a cruel joke, particularly when juxtaposed with news stories about how far behind the USA is in broadband penetration.
I've been on Wi-Fi for I forget how many years now (a decade at least?), during which time my computer has gone through a couple of replacement cycles and is now several times as fast. During that same time my internet bandwidth has increased not at all. (I tried DSL at one point, but it was no better.) So where is Moore's Law for bandwidth? I don't see it here.
I can't even watch a YouTube video without having to pause for buffering every once in a while. Is this supposed to be the replacement for my satellite TV? I have Dish Network with a tivo-like recorder and HD now, so it has arguably improved more during the last decade than anything on my computer.
Nor is there any immediate prospect for improvement on the computer side. I talked to my ISP about this. A couple of years ago the CEO was talking about going to Wi-Max, but wanted to wait until the technology was more standardized and proven. Now he's saying it's unaffordable, and it wouldn't help anyhow because the real bottleneck is his connection to the next regional hub.
The other thing to remember. . . For what it does -- distributing the same information to a large number of people -- broadcasting is several orders of magnitude more efficient than the internet can be, by the very nature of its design. It may have a smaller role, but broadcasting isn't going to disappear anytime soon.
Laptops and wifi killed TV (Score:2)
Back when I was very young some people I knew had a TV room (a home theatre, how about that!). The TV room had specials rules about not talking and keeping the lights out. With a laptop you can watch your stuff in the bathroom or the garage.
Re:mythtv killed TV (Score:4, Insightful)
A bigger impact is the people (like me and my friends) that don't buy or consume any TV at all, and hasn't for years.
Its hard to analyse because we are all changing, getting older and losing our spare time. TV may well be undergoing a race to the bottom as their best customers go to other media, they lose advertisers, pay less for content and lose more customers.
Some of it (kids TV) seems exactly the same now, but my son gets that on youtube as well. The repetition may be getting to us. Most of the content is rehashed year after year. Maybe TV has been done.