Slashdot Mirror
TV's Tipping Point
alinv writes ": Ashley Highfield, the head of BBC New Media & Technology spoke yesterday at a conference about how TV is being radically changed by users: 'future TV will may be unrecognisable from today, defined not just by linear TV channels, packaged and scheduled by television executives, but instead will resemble more of a kaleidoscope, thousands of streams of content, some indistinguishable as actual channels.'"
I didn't RTFA, but.... Since I got my Tivo, I have no idea what commercials are. Unfortunately, I think I'm missing some cool shows because I never watch live TV anymore.
Give the link to the BBC website?
I have over 70 freaks, do you?
Family Guy MAY have had the potential to beat the Simpsons in all time best cartoon. Considering how the first few seasons of the Simpsons were relatively low quality in comparison to the ones after...Family Guy had great potential.
I dont think ive ever watched a Family Guy without laughing at least for 15 minutes.
[I can picture a world without war, without hate. I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it]
Sounds like Comcast's Line up.
And we'll all just get around on those moving sidewalks and flying cars, too.
Yeah, we haven't been hearing about "new-tv" as long as these, but its getting almost as tiresome.....
I think its called the internet.
Indistinguishable as actual channels? What about instituting a completely on-demand cable system? I don't know about everyone, but I'm not looking for TV to be a mindblowing experience; I can leave the house for those. It would be nice to be able to watch the programs I want, when I want, though.
The safest way to approach lava is to have another person with you and he goes first.
like tivo? is this news? in the future, shows will probably be subscription based, so you can subscribe to just the shows you like. at least, that's how i'd like things. i don't watch 95% of the crap i get on cable.
Maybe I'll finally be able to watch all the reruns of shows in order with out having to deal with schedule changes halfway through the show like cartoon network does DBZ
Life is pain. Anyone who says differently is selling something.
Sounds like somebody talking up their own job, if you ask me.
There's nothing like catering specifically to the one person who likes Golden Girls reruns mixed in with heaps of porn.
"but instead will resemble more of a kaleidoscope"
Oh, yeah. Just what I want.
Just when TV was getting crappy enough (all reality shows, all the time), now it'll make me physically dizzy. THANKS, genius executives.
It's good to know that MTV will still be around in the future.
I don't care what they say it'll be in 20 years or 20 centuries, it'll still be the same crap.
This sig no verb.
He assumes that digital television will become ubiquitous. It won't. Just as the RIAA and MPAA have demonstrated that they will fight tooth and nail to prevent digital music and video from becoming free and ubiquitous, controllable by the people, so too will the major networks fight to insure that television will not become like he believes. There are strong forces that will rally against television to insure that it does NOT contain things such as "our viewers' contributions." There are political reasons for that as well as economic ones. In any event, sorry Ashley, but it ain't gonna happen.
The Internet in its current state is something similar to future TV IMO, just imagine more TV network switching to broadcasting over the Internet, and broadband being available in every house.
The IT section color scheme sucks.
and STILL nothin' on.
"resemble more of a kaleidoscope, thousands of streams of content, some indistinguishable as actual channels."
So basically, all those years of watching scrambled porn channels are going to pay off big time.
Crystal Meth: Would you ingest somthing made from a poisonous gas and an explosive metal? You do it every day -- Salt!
That sounds like TV for the people, as opposed to TV for the media conglomerates... FAT CHANCE!!!
As long as they control our airwaves innovation that would benifit users will never happen. The web was supposed to resemble that too, remember?
future TV will may be unrecognisable from today, defined not just by linear TV channels, packaged and scheduled by television executives, but instead will resemble more of a kaleidoscope, thousands of streams of content, some indistinguishable as actual channels.'
Oh, you mean like the internet.
I thought it said "indistinguishable as actual content".
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."
> 'future TV will may be unrecognisable from today, defined not just by linear TV channels, packaged and scheduled by television executives, but instead will resemble more of a kaleidoscope, thousands of streams of content, some indistinguishable as actual channels.'
Yep, I see the same informercials on all my favorite channels now.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
A kaleidoscope? You mean that tube-thingy you look through with the mirrors inside that make it look like the same thing is in a lot of different places, but really they're all just pale reflections of each other?
Yeah.... I think I can see how TV might eventually evolve into that. [grin]
"Lawyers are for sucks."
- Doug McKenzie
The BBC can't exactly play a big role in the future of television when access to its content in the UK (or any other tv content, bar current streams) requires a licence fee!! How are the BBC going to regulate this, I for one am not going to pay for a service I could in a less biased form and for free from another country.
some indistinguishable as actual channels.
With advertising indistinguishable from the content.
"...will resemble more of a kaleidoscope, thousands of streams of content, some indistinguishable as actual channels."
Can someone explain exactly what in the world that will mean? It sounds like they're leveraging the paradigms to outsource manpower.
Tivo is definitely kick ass, and the way I love to view tv ... just the shows i want. one of the most cool things about it is seeing movies / shows starring certain actors. but there is still one weakness which i hope the cable companies will address ... you are still limited by shows that are actually airing today. I'd love it if the entertainment companies would open up their "back catalogs" and allow us to view any tv show / movie made at any time whenever we want it. THAT would be sheer tivo nirvana ... I wonder if it will ever happen.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe =UTF-8&q=%22robert+frist%22
He doesn't appear to have existed.
Auto-check your UK lottery lines
but instead will resemble more of a kaleidoscope, thousands of streams of content, some indistinguishable as actual channels
It's obvious Ms. Highflied doesn't watch very much TV. Because the few times I do watch TV ,I think how much crap is on the tube and wonder what happened the "real channels and programming."
Like viewers wish to devote all of their attention to the TV. Or program the TV. TV is great because it preys on our laziness. You can sit there and do nothing, and gain entertainment, or sleep.
"audiences will want to organize and re-order content the way they want it"
No, we dont, we want to use one button on a remote.
But, as I RTFA, I do agree with some of his points.
TV programs should be able to be watched any time. I should be able to watch my programs in my order at my time.
Excluding live events of course, which should be left live for obvious reasons.
Media is changing. If the music industry wasnt a wake up call for the movie and television industries, it sure should have been. People will do things their way, and the industry cannot control that. They must change to keep pace with it, as the music industry has not in general.
Interesting ideas, well written article. But television is still, and always will be about laziness for me. How else could you ever get through a 5 hour breakup with a girlfriend without a TV to watch during it. (while pretending to listen of course)
[I can picture a world without war, without hate. I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it]
The internet was supposed to have done that by now.
Any day now I'll be watching a kaleidascope of magical fairy shit on my HDTV while playing duke nukem forever.
I think people like tv as it is, and it'll probably stay with the status quo for a long long time, there's nothing wrong with passive entertainment.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
But i would have liked it if you had some discussion of the link between the disappearance of King Vitamin from grocery store shelves and the rise in juvenile delinquincy.
IMHO, Futurama is the one that needs to be dethroned. Family Guy does have plenty of cheap laughs, but Futurama is the one that has sublime plots and sublimer references.
Unfortunately for it, Simpsons is being diluted by a lot of really bad episodes. A lot of the wonderful character traits built-up in the early seasons have been thrown away.
There are other good cartoons out there, but they don't run on Fox.
Is this a sigs-optional kind of place? 'Cause I am totally down with that if you know what I mean.
Hot girl-girl action...
As TV continues to make the move toward pure digital information, how long will it be before we see the first TV-specific virus corrupting dowloaded shows?
"Honey, when did they add the Goatsex guy to the cast of Friends?"
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
2. the audience increasingly wants to join in and get closer to their media.
3. ...consuming more media simultaneously...
4. ...the last trend -- sharing.
So in the future, we will watch multiple reality shows we can shape with our various "votes" at the same time -- a time of our choosing. We'll have sent each other some of the shows, too. This is a revolution?
No one mindblowing idea here -- basically it seems like the BBC's thinking about that "Super -Electronic Programme Guide" to get a little ahead on interfaces, and they don't want to stonewall peer-to-peer models the way the music industry did.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
The views expressed are mine own and do not express the views of my employer.
I decided that TV rots brains, so now, I have two televisions in my home and neither of them are plugged in. The big one is where all my clean laundry piles up, waiting to be folded, and the small one just sits there. I can tell you that since I made this change, I have become a much happier person. Suddenly, I have time to read books, which help to develop the imagination, rather than destroy it like TV does.
And a lot of people I know, who do not allow their children to watch television, are amazed at how full their children's lives are. They love to read; they spend time with friends; they do all sorts of stuff. So I swear by this: Television is a waste of time. The Internet is a better source of entertainment. (No, don't read all kinds of "inappropriate" messages from that statement.)
When I read /.'s blurb about this article (about how there will be many streams of content, not necessarily representing channels), the first thought that went through my mind was, "I certainly hope not."
My TV's tipping point is 47 degrees forward from vertical. Anything less and it falls back on its base.
bytesmythe
Hypocrisy is the resin that holds the plywood of society together.
-- Scott Meyer
You mean like downloading shows and movies from KaZaA?
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
Notice how the initial post used a Futurama reference to complain about Family Guy's cancelation. Sublime indeed.
Offtopic:
I've pretty much stopped watching T.V. altogether. I'm not paying for any service, don't even have an antenna. I'm not going to pay to watch commercials and the mindless trash that occupies most of the "content." I'll watch a DVD now and then, catch a game at a friend's or relative's but that's about it.
You can have your streams.
Here's a radical change - stop watching life and start living it.
http://reinvent.the.whe.el/
The TV of the future you're describing is called teh intarweb, lady. Just so you know.
StoneCypher is Full of BS
If it was like the cartoon network where all almost all the comercials are shoved into the last 8 minutes between shows, so you can just channel surf.
There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
most of us won't be able to afford it.
-- Lemmy
It's called LSD
Beer. It's not just for breakfast anymore!
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
This one is a he that works for the BBC.
TV ... how quaint.
-kgj
Fuck TV and the wave it rode in on! It's time to move on, it's pathetic such semi-intelligent beings as us are enslaved by a stupid box with pictures and sound.
Must-not-watch TV!
"...some indistinguishable as actual channels."
I have that already. It's called cable.
I was never allowed to watch TV , except for the 20h30-21h news program which we watched in family. Cartoon ? Only the bugs bunny one before the evnning film (this was long ago...). Result ? Instead of watching Tv I read. Assimov. Heinlein. Clarck. P.K. Dick. F. Pohl. H. P. Lovecraft (yeah yeah i know my taste are ... special). And going outside ! green Stuff ! Woot ! The result ? I have an enorm imagination. TV is only "on" to hear some background noise when i am alone (I detest silence). And I have developped a real memory. When I watch what some of my contemporain were doing at the same tinme... I also KNOW what is a forest , what is to be in the middle of a deer herd (scarying... trust me... especially when they run toward you) or a boar rushing headlong to you :). A pity many folk never know what a real tree or forest outside the small screen.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
This is exactly what you need. A thorough study about the matter. :-)
;-)
Since I'm 100% swede, I'm not mutilatited either, as they don't do that stupid stuff here.
Whoa, I wrote a comic book about Wendell and the Encyclopedia Britannica kid killing the other Cinnamon Toast Crunch bakers and grinding them up into cinnamon swirls when I was in the 7th grade. Who are you, and how did you get inside my head?
You have only got to look at how many DVDs are now created with less and less user control over how you watch it to realize that the entertainment industry will fight this idea tooth and nail!
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
twenty four by seven...nothing but the professor, Mary-Anne, Ginger, coconuts, cannibles eating Mrs. Howell
Ahhhh yes....and a fast enough processor so I can digitally insert Natalie Portman into every scene doing the hot-grits beowulf dance of the BSD.
Goddamit, when I was a kid, Lucky Charms only had three shapes, and two of them were rocks! And we liked it like that!!!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
I can't find to original article, but I remember reading that NBC is altering the start times of some of it's lineup to odd times like 8:34 to mess with Tivo owners. When different networks choose unconvential start times, shows overlap each other by a few mintues and PVR's end up recording fewer competing shows.
You display the classic symptoms of some cranky 50 year old. People always think that everything is worse then when they used to do it or they were younger.
First, you need to stop watching local news. Often it isn't very good. However, between MSNBC, CNBC, PBS, CNN, BBC America, Fox News, and anything else your cable company carries, you should be able to find news on somewhere that you enjoy.
Then there is sports. Even the greatest geniuses of time have enjoyed sports. They have been an integral part of Americana for years. And all well adjusted children should play an organised sport. ESPN, ESPN2, ESPN Class, Fox Sports Net, and tons of league specific channels.
Comedy Central, The Cartoon Network (and Adult Swim if you are a virgin), and others to make you laugh. Books can do the same thing, but TV isn't books. They both have different experiences.
Even the networks have good shows on. From young dramas like Everwood to mysteries like CSI to just find women on stupid shows like Dog Eat Dog. There is something for everybody, literally.
I really can't think of a time that televisions has ever been better. Remeber that TV is just a device, just like a computer. The Internet can be filled with useless crap (Something Aweful) too.
I dont really mind not having on-demand content on my TV, since I rarely watch any shows on it.
there's hardly anything worth watching anyway.
so everytime the cable/satellite company calls to offer this or that promotion, I ask the following:
"can I watch any and all tv channels from all over the world? surely you have the technology to do so?"
when they say no, I tell them to call me back when they upgrade their broadcasting technology level.
In my little corner of the universe, I've been quite content the last few years simply by telling my ReplayTVs to watch the shows I might find interesting. I only ever really sit down in front of the TV on weekends anymore, and now it's more "What am I in the mood for" instead of "let's see what's on right now" It's amazing how much that alone has changed my relationship with Television. I'm no longer a slave to "oh my god, I can't miss tonight's episode of FooBarBaz".
And to continue that line of thought, I do the same with Series on DVD or VHS... if I like a show, Im starting to feel safe in the idea that they will eventually release the whole thing on DVD. A friend and I tend to have similar enough tastes that we sort of seasaw back and forth on who is collecting which show and we have weekend marathons when they come in.
All this has resulted in a TV-watching style that is very targeted. I sit down to watch a particular show or set of shows, not to blow the evening watching "Most Extreme Elimination Challenge" (okay, so maybe I watched that one once or twice, but I was over at a friends house.. yeah, that's it)
The Digital Sorceress
Unfortunately, the real trend always seems to be opposite this. New channels often allow some less structured or mainstream programming, but as they get established, drop it. Early MTV - garage bands with no special effects, skinheads and punks, 'weird' arty stuff by Lorie Anderson. Videos that are sometimes just a single camera angle on the band - one continueous shot. Modern MTV - Madonna - Rock Star's house tours. Early HBO or Showtime - Forign film nights - Let's do a Lina Wurtmuller retrospective - got a 12 minute gap, let's show this student film about cartoon weasels in Hell dancing to Bach. Modern HBO or Showtime - got a 12 minute gap, let's show "The making of Movie X", which is coincidentally coming on later in the schedule. When bandwidth expands, minority ideas (good or bad) spread rapidly. As 50 million + people crowd onto that new bandwidth, Majority taste rules more and more. To get the kalidescope effect from where we stand now, someone has to build 1500 channel sets, and someone else has to start casting (broad or narrow) to those unused channels while there are still only a few hundred thousand people willing to pay the extra costs for access. When those get crowded too, the Kalidescope effect again vanishes.
Who is John Cabal?
Since I got my Tivo, I have no idea what commercials are.
Exactly. I know what they are.
Commercials are: the break in the stream that requires you to hit fast forward for a few seconds.
Commercials are: those pieces of programming that are having to become more entertaining and less obnoxious to have any chance of being seen.
Commercials are: those artifacts of the 20th century that remind you just how painful it is to be fed a linear stream of programming.
Commercials are: what have taught me how to watch the news on a TiVo - quickly hit pause and take a long potty break so I can FF through the commercials when I get back.
Commercials are: those pieces of noisy time that still squat in the middle of broadcast radio feeds that have become so annoying to my sensitivities that I frequently have to turn the damn thing off because the signal to noise ratio is just so abominable compared with my TiVo enabled life.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Those of us who are REALLY into PVRs have at least two in the house to cover the occasional overlap (like when TLC was running Junkyard wars at the same time as Comedy Central was running South Park)
It will be more annoying to have to constantly do the stagger thing, but if I need another PVR, they're getting cheap and coming out with new features all the time.
The Digital Sorceress
YHBT HAND.
TV networks aren't going to use technology to give people more choice, they're going to use it to spam advertising to make more money. TV "bugs" are already getting our of hand. Example: SpikeTV's gigantic Joe Schmo ad that pops up over about the entire lower left quarter of the screen every 2 minutes. Or their animated and opaque spraypaint logo bug that refreshes every 45 seconds.
The future of TV is popups. The actual show will get less and less space as multiple eyecatch techniques are used to spam and spam and spam. Floating semi-transparent animated billboards will roam around all edges of the screen, probably across it too. It's not like browsing where you can click them off either. This is the plan to get around TiVo, you just make the commercials part of the show so they can't be cut out.
Doesn't bother me much though, I'll just download more dvd rips of shows the networks cancel because they don't appeal to the general moron. Or anime series that would either never make it here or would be mangled to death by censors and bad dubbing anyway.
Introducing the new Occam Fusion! Now with sqrt(-1) fewer blades!
There is almost nothing to disagree about in the article. This guy has very smart ideas and I am glad that BBC is ready to start implementing them.
TV was limited all the time by difficulties in distribution of content. There was only one way to do it cheaply on the large scale - broadcast on the air and let every TV show it. Of course, that is completely ineffective, because it severely limits the access of viewers to the content - you can only watch what is shown right now. The obvsious solutions are to record it (TiVo) or download it on demand.
This brings some really exciting possibilities, about which Highfield speaks in the article. like personally customized news, etc. There is nothing overly complex about this, but for some reason most TV networks were slow in the uptake. Good to see the situation change.
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
your tv's tipping point about 45 degrees from it's upright position?
The bullshit-o-meter just pegged. God, these people are so full of it.
Doesn't bother me. When I heard about that, I checked my Tivo's ToDo list, and I didn't have a single NBC program scheduled. NBC needs to give us decent shows, not fsck with the times.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Too much eating is bad.
Too much sleeping is bad.
Too much TV is bad.
Too much internet is bad.
Balance is the key..
There is good, stimulating content on TV - Discovery channel, National geographic and History channel. I've learnt quite a lot about many things I did not have any idea at all, by watching these three channels for example.
BTW, I also read books. I would never completely replace either of them with any of them. Each has its own place. Choose wisely.
The internet is a better source of entertainment? How exactly? You have porn-on-demand the moment you are online. You have dirty spam clogging your emails. It is less well regulated than TV broadcasting.
Again, balance is the key. Choose wisely.
---
Friends? Foes? What is this place? Kindergarten?
the end of the first season has great simpsons. the characters were developed and they hit the ground running.
A few concepts related... or really questions...
Who created the "Menu?" NBC? TV Guide? Microsoft? NPR?, your "smart agent?" etc
Will you stream or download?
Will you be annonymous to the Network(s)?
Will you rent? subscribe, share? PPV?
Will you see local ads, national ads? Ads that require real time attention (forcing you to watch them?), will you have to see ads only when you give your permission (and thus agree to watch them?)
I think in part the answer to all the questions is yes, no and maybe.
You might download some wild stuff from the net. Subscribe to NBC and PPV the world cup soccer finals. The super bowl is free but you have to watch 5 ads (and interact with them!).
-- Look for a pay for use formal network with real time streaming and lots of DRM options and a Ad Hoc network based more on pure internet for more less formal shows that may have to be downloaded because they don't have the bandwidth quality to stream in real time. This stuff might also be more on the margins of the copyright laws.
http://www.hawknest.com/
We hardly ever watch live TV anymore. We tape (well, record) it then watch it when WE want to watch it. If two shows are on at the same time, we record both, then watch at our leisure.
All this jockying for good prime time spots, and competition between stations to try to get me to watch ONLY their channel at a particular time is laughable. Who cares what time it is actually on (except to set the recording)?
I don't care that I don't watch it "as it happens" because, well, I don't care. As for commercials, skip. The pop-up commercials that appear in the middle of a show merely annoy me. They DON'T make me want to watch the show. If anything they make me want to boycott the show.
And the station bugs? Sooner or later someone will write some filter that will get rid of them. The really annoying ones hide text or sub-titles.
Blah, TV executives live in their own little ivory towers.
- - - - - - - - - - -
I am a programmer. I am paid to produce syntax not grammar. Deal with it.
I just want all the camera feeds to my house so I can pick which angle to watch the game in. Then, they can fire the "director" of the football game and I can figure out what is going on. YOU HEAR THAT FOX? With your STUPID FLYING END ZONE CAMERA! Didn't you learn your lesson by trying to HIGHLIGHT THE HOCKEY PUCK? After 40 years I think we've figured out how to watch a sporting event and we don't need this turned into action movie.
Sorry for the screaming. But since Fox got the contract for NFC Football Games my tension level has risen dramatically.
Sleep is for the Weak
in the future, shows will probably be subscription based, so you can subscribe to just the shows you like.
Oh please G-d no! There aren't many things for which the "subscription" model actually works. I don't see it actually working for TV, either. Plus, if you think that will get rid of ads, you'd be in for disappointment. There aren't many no-ads magazines... I could talk more about the "inevitability" of advertisements, but that'd get Off-Topic very fast.
All I have to say is - as far as TV models go - I'd rather live in the UK instead of the USA.
If BBC-ing TV in the USA isn't an option, though, I wouldn't mind being able to pick-and-choose channels from my cable provider. I don't care about most of the channels, so I don't want to have them available. I don't want to subsidize them.
I can't imagine having to pick and choose every show I might want to watch, though. If the world does eventually go the way you want, with pay-per-show TV, each series better have 1 or 2 free episodes. Otherwise I'll never try a new show. The only reason I waste my time trying out new shows these days is that it only costs my time...
Of course, hundreds of these channels will be HDTV feeds from various camera angles in each room of coed dorms. Although we may have the technology in the future to offer so much data, the amount of quality, creative content will be no different than it is now.
The BBC licence fee is equivalent to $16 a month and easily provides 16/40 * 100 = 40 hours a month of stuff I want to see, and all those nice radio streams at BBC Radio 4 such as this one. If all my taxes had such unambiguous returns, I'd be well happy
...where's my flying car!?!?!?
Complete meals will come in tiny capsules
Cars will fly on highways in the sky
And the world will be controlled by damned dirty apes!!!!
Unless there is a radical change in the thinking of TV execs, the future of TV is more phone-to-vote 'interactive' shows and more on-screen corporate logos and scrolling messages.
This seems to be their focus nowadays.
Making good programmes that people actually want to watch because of what the program *is* doesn't appear to be very important nowadays. Execs seem satisfied to get ratings by attracting huge armies of teenagers armed with mobile phones and opinions because (a) they'll call the vote lines and (b) they're the target demographic for advertisers.
Based on current trends, anything genuinely pro-viewer has only a limited place in the future of television.
Our upcoming digital television service will run on the new secure Internet protocol called SIPv7. "Our secure Internet protocol is vasty superior to IPv6." Says the lead developer of the SIP open source project. "Our development team is very large and well funded. I believe we represent the forefront in Internet research. Unlike IPv6, ip addresses are divided into two classes with one class for hosting and one class for client connections. Client addresses are virtually limitless, unlike IPv4. On the other side, host addresses number at about 5 and are mandated by God. Of course if you don't like our version of the protocol you can always use the corporate incarnation entitled $IP 2000 Infinity."
Thousands of indistinguishable pieces of information. Lets just hope my head doesnt explode!
This is a link to my Internet image-searching kaleidoscope -- a very cool Google hack, and way more entertaining than most TV shows.
MetaScope
Now, if it could only search for MPEGs...
Interesting. I thought a TV was just a device that allowed you to play console video games after the death of simple CRT devices like the Commodore 64 color monitor.
'Phone-jacking: Give someone a ring, they'll have to answer to find out who it is!' - Threni
Anyone read Fahrenheit 451?
Remember the video walls?
I wonder at what time the television "viewer" became the television "user"....
It's Robert Psot... Frist was his middle name.
If memory serves me, the modern broadcast video is entirely dependent on computers, networks and I.T. to be exist as it does today. With computers being the nebling technology, it seems odd to propose any kind of future where TV controls, rivals, or even comes close to the capabilities offered by the computing world.
Interactive TV? V-Chip? Common. Video on demmand? Maybe.
But why watch any live video if it's not some format of live news? TiVo is only the tip of the iceburg. I want to watch the latest episode of my favourite show. Not when it wasproduced. Not when it was televised or broadcasted. I want to watch it when I sit down and select it.
How's that for democratic capitalism?
You can laugh without eating a sandwhich, but you can do both if bring one.
Law & Order is good TV.
I remember something David Cross said as a non-TV owning character,"TV is a nickname, nicknames are for friends, and television is no friend of mine!"
I don't normally get up on a soapbox (you live your life, I'll live mine) but all this talk about "next-gen TV" and TiVO lawsuits/etc. just make me laugh.
I tossed my TV in the garbage can in 1989.
And I am much better off without it.
You can do the same. Take back your life, Kill your TV.
So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
Does this mean they're finally getting rid of the semi-transparent logos in the bottom right corner of the screen? Not soon enough if it were up to me...
here we have the most important broadcaster in the world talking about:
and all you can do is say either that directTv/ tivo does that already for you, or that, hey, dosn't the Web do that?
wise up: the way that media is delivered in the US is out of date, irrelevant and beholden to commercial interests. Most viewers in the world aren't subject to all three of these disabilities, so why moan that you are?
just as with SMS, open standards DTV, decent FM radio and governmental mandates for OSS code, you're in the 4th world.
http://milkshake.dexy.org
Jeeze. The BBC can't work out what to do with 4 or 5 channels. Hells bells, give em a thousand 'streams' and our fingers will get sore trying to blurp past 17 simultaneous Only Fools And Horses episodes. Gimme strength....
As you can see, the parent author's brain has been thoroughly rotted.
It's true that TIVO is a revolutionary way to watch TV. As it grows though, the industry is going to fight back against their inability to sell commercial time when people aren't even watching them.
The next big revolution is going to come when content providers get together with TIVO type box makers. There are several things that satisfy both sides:
1. Video recorded to a local hard drive for 'on-demand' playback. You can watch streams live, or set your box in advance to save ones you want to watch. Everyone receives the stream simultaneously, and thus bandwidth requirements are low. This is pretty much in place.
2. Frequent repeats of streams. Instead of showing the same infomercial on 10 stations at 3am, rebroadcast recent 'primetime' shows for those people who missed it the first time. Either they were saving other streams at the time, or they didn't know about the show. This is already somewhat implemented by cable stations that show the same 3 hour primetime block again after primetime is over. [Or the same show 2-3 times in a row like FX does sometimes.]
3. Free show listings. Listings, with stream times and descriptions should be freely included with the basic service package. i.e. why do DirecTV customers who get a DirecTV PVR have to pay $5/month extra for the digital listings that they already get with regular sattellite subscription? WTF?!? I mean, I watch a video stream of at least half a meg per second bandwidth, why does 50kb per day of listing data cost $5/month?
4. New commercial / compensation model. Let's face it, the producers have to get paid so they can make the shows. But current commercial models are retarded. Commercials need to be reduced, and targetted better. A fourth of broadcast time is for commercials. Product ads should be limited to a few minutes per hour of video. Users should be able to skip commercials for products they're not interested in, and the set-top box should learn better what commercials to display to each individual viewer. Some household should never see a single mini-van commercial. Others should never have to watch a 'feminine product' commercial. Or maybe a commercial for the latest Disney movie. Or a Pepsi commercial. Or that Humvee that costs more than you make in two years. Individual commercials could be shown a certain limit of times per month, week or (god forbid) even day. And the best thing for both sides would be a 'tell me more' feature that could give you an extended version with more information. Car commercial get your attention? Get an in depth tour of the vehicle right now.
TV show promo spots would also get a few slots per hour. And the box would be intelligent about not airing ads for show that you already have set to record, as well as not showing ads for programs you've missed already. You could also tell the box that you don't like that show, and don't want to see ads for it anymore. [I can't even begin to describe how much more I hate 'Queer Eye for the Straight Guy' since I have to see commercials for the same episode 5 times for every episode of 'The West Wing' that I watch on Bravo.] You could click one button during the ad to tell the box to record that show when it streams.
5. Alternate payment methods for programming. You still hate commercials? Just pony up 25 cents to watch you show commercial free. Or maybe old MASH episodes for a dime each. See the Superbowl commercial free for $5. Or go the opposite way. Catch that pay-per-view movie for free with a few unskippable targetted commercials every 5 minutes.
6. (Un)Censored TV. Viewers should be able to set their own threshold for censorship of the TV programs they watch. The basic stream should be uncensored. Digital markers could include programming to censor content in the box using audio drops, blurry boxes, or even blanked video. The viewer or parent/guardian could determine what gets censored. Nudity (male or female), sex, gore, violence, or language could be blocked on a per-incide
I predict a much darker, less interesting future.
Advertisers will want to find ways to get their messages in the programs. Right now, the method is to insert the messages in breaks of ever-increasing time which occur at greater and greater frequency. People use PVR's to fight this trend.
The next logical step, then, is to insert the advertising directly into the contents of the programming. This is already happening now to a small extent, but I believe in the future it will get worse.
Here is an example of what I envision: One character, Bob, pulls out his cell phone. A second character, George, sees it.
George: Hey, that's a cool cellphone you got there.
Bob: Yeah. It's a Noksung. I got it with my T-Cingle PCS. It was free! Look, I can take full-motion video with it and uselessly hog screeds of bandwidth with aimless nonsense.
George: Wow! Can I have a look?
Bob: Sure. T-Cingle PCS is running a special right now. 3,000,000 anytime minutes for nine cents a month.
George: Great. I'm going to sign up for that right after we solve this murder. Wait! is that a Taco's Jr. over there. Pull in, they've got a new sushi-cajun burrito on their value menu for 34 cents!.....
etc, etc, etc.
Surprisingly enough, people will probably actually watch this crap.
Proverbs 21:19
Free TV is full of garbage most of the time.
What most people fail to recognize is that "good" TV is a pay commodity. If you want to watch good television, you need to have HBO and some pay movie channels. Having a Tivo helps.
Free TV (just the networks) is full of commercials and has been dumbed down to the knuckle-dragging level.
But it wasn't always like that; over its history, television has had some great dramas and excellent programming. But anything good has shifted to pay television these days.
but instead will resemble more of a kaleidoscope, thousands of streams of content, some indistinguishable as actual channels.
You mean like the Internet?
And considering how many people are on a cable system, how well would "on demand" scale? Let's say several thousand people all want to watch "Spongebob Squarepants", but all at different but overlapping times. A bit of a nightmare. Second TV (in all it's forms) works on the same principle that gave us cheap consumer goods. Economics of scale. Cheap TV is both because of what you want to watch, and what others want to watch, but you don't.
I'm surprised that I haven't seen more comments congratulating the speaker for recognizing that what the industry is providing and what viewers want are increasingly becoming two different things, and that furthermore viewers are finding their own ways around the problem (which, as the RIAA and MPAA have found, is not to the industry's benefit):
And as an industry, we should be more active in creating legitimate content download products, whether that's as a pay-model, or rights-cleared for free. We need to help consumers leap-frog the illegal downloading issues that have wrecked havoc on the music industry.
Too bad the music and film industries lack members so enlightened.
Please donate your spare CPU cycles to help fight cancer and other diseases
I don't fully understand why people are being so critical of TV. It doesn't rot brains, but if you sit down for hours upon hours per day or per week with no specific plan for something better to do then that would be a problem, the TV is just a tool.
That said, like is not all about tasking. If you want a balanced life then a third of your time ought to go into productive, task-based activities, a third into fun, non-task oriented, recreational and refreshing, guilt-free play activities, and a third for your sleep. I, personally, often find TV useful as an entertainment medium. That said though, I'd totally agree that 80-90% of the material on TV is not suitable for my taste and sensibilities. But those that are, i am very selective with. My main interests are news, documentaries and arthouse movies. I almost never care about other things. And for me, often watching a documentary about someone or something, especially if it's a good documentary, is either useful or entertaining.
The beauty of television is that it's a convenient, up-to-date and instant medium. An picture is worth a thousand words, they said, and I'm sure a motion picture such as a video clip is worth even more. There are many books that are useful, and there are many individuals whose company is likely bad for you. It's just about selectiveness.
I'm also a person who has not watched TV with any regularity in a long time, so I'm not too concerned what the channels of the future may be like. I don't watch much full motion video at all. But when I do, I like to watch things that deserve my attention.
I know that in order for their to be enough power to make a new user experience possible, there will be a need for both high bandwidth and high resolution monitors. What doesn't seem to be fully considered is that those resources might be detrimental to the the conventional role of the passive viewer.
Look how much television viewing time has been lost to the simple innovation of being able to key in text across a slow network as I'm doing now.
If what was once called "the audiance" is presented with a set of tools to manipulate more media in a larger work space with more speed the result may be something that is more similar to an bottomless film festival than it is to television. In a sense that degree of choice isn't too far from the position in the article. However, a kalaidescope doesn't sound like a very good metaphor. That metaphor sounds so fragmented, it's as though there's an unclear vision of what is possible.
I believe that people will always seek structured narratives for entertainment. You can blend genres all you want, but they're like colors on a pallette. If the work sucks, it doesn't save it to just be colorful. You've got to have some substance.
I think end users are capable of creating works of great substance which is something that television and movie producers are loathe to face. They're not really that talented and their works are far too generic to excite the exotic and worldly modern palate.
Going back to text for a minute. I strongly believe that we have not not even begun to see the influence of large monitor spaces on composition. This may be too subtle for some to find intriguing, but organizing a large body of text such as the plot of a story is exceedingly complex. Anything that can make the process easier also makes it more accessible to the outsiders. I think this is the more likely direction we're heading. We'll still have conventional highly focused narratives without a lot of clutter, but we'll see them coming from independent sources outside the traditional media and outside of the financing that makes that media so droll.
It's nothing so dramatic or orwellian as "the new" TV, it's just that TV inevitably succumbs to the Internet. One by one, they all shall be assimilated.
Resistance is futile.
Yeah. I agree. I'm waiting for someone to make a tivo for the radio. Maybe, for safety's sake since I listen to radio mainly in my car, with a ReplayTV style commercial auto-skip.
(Mind you, I'm not watching anything regularly on C4 or Sky either, and as for ITV... ha! As if!)
Of course, watching less TV hasn't improved my life any, because I have broadband with which to devour my time and destroy my brain instead. ;)
You must think in Russian.
Taken to its logical conclusion, this could benefit non-TiVo users.
:05, CBS at :10, and ABC at :15, this not only increases the likelihood of lock-in to YOUR programmes, but it gives you a show starting whenever you're in the room.
If I come in at 20.10 or 20.15, there's nothing on that I haven't missed important plot developments on.
If NBC starts each programme at
It's just like a fascist dictatorship, without the punctual rail service!
Unfortunately, I think I'm missing some cool shows because I never watch live TV anymore.
Those don't exist anymore.
Thirty years ago, TV shows typically ran for an hour, with three intermediate commercial breaks of one minute each. On the hour, two to three minutes of commercials, and a five-second station identification. Total, six minutes of ads per hour. Today, it's more than three times that.
It took 4 seasons of Farscape for them to realize that more and more people were watching the show. They couldn't have THAT now could they?
Even if the methods of delivery, or the flow of programming changes (say to an on-demand system) the one thing that will never change is advertising. Sure if TiVo-style commercial skipping becomes the norm, what we think of as "commercials" may go away, but that will mean that the actual programming itself will feature more blatent product placement than we have now. If you think TV shows already sacrifice "artistic vision" to appease commercial interests then you haven't seen anything yet. TV shows exist for one reason - to make people money. They make that money by advertising.
I think its far more likely that commercial interests will influence the technology to not be able to skip advertising. Or services will exist that trade you being "forced" to watch advertising in order to skip (or reduce) subscription fees. The former is far more likely as many of the same companies that own the programming creation business also sell consumer products with which we view said programming (e.g. Sony).
Legislation continues to progress to ensure that the content providers remain few (e.g. FCC regulations regarding cable tv/cable internet, and laws trying to make DSL access under a similar umbrella as we've seen in recent articles).
The more things change, the more they will stay the same.
DTV isn't a pipe dream.
Unfortunately, broadcast TV is suffering from years of declining income. They are deathly afraid of making a wrong move.
Several are thinking of distributing free DTV tuners. It is a big move for what amounts to a small local business. They have been dragging their feet on implementing the standard waiting for some leadership to emerge.
Any preoccupation with ideas of what is right or wrong in conduct shows an arrested intellectual development. (Wilde)
Ashley Highfield, the head of BBC New Media & Technology
At first I thought that said Ashleigh Banfield and I got all interested. Turns out it's just some nobody. Crap.
Nudity, lots of it, all the time. Not porn, no penetration or shaved spread crotch shots, or anything like that. Just lots and lots of incidental nudity in every program including the weather report and sports events. Oh, and in the commercials too! Definitely, in the commercials.
That would totally save television.
Fred Allen--"TV is for people who have nothing to do so they can watch people who can't do anything."
They cancelled Eastenders. If it weren't for "The Office" I'd never tune in again. I can guess what's on the BBC: BBC1: Benny Hill Marathon BBC2: Best of Michael Caine BBC3: The Italian Job (the one with Michael Caine) BBC4: Teletubbies
One one of their DVD commentaries, the makers of 'Airplane' explained why their TV series 'Police Squad' (on which the 'Naked Gun' films were based) fared very badly on US TV: all their subtle jokes and clever gags went largely unnoticed, because people simply weren't used to giving TV their full attention. A comment I found very revealing. Maybe it's become a vicious circle: people don't pay attention because there's nothing worth paying attention to; and then programme makers have to make programmes suited to an audience that's not paying attention.
In any case, I find the US situation, with people searching through tens or hundreds of channels and joining programmes half-way through, very sad. Personally, I plan my viewing: I work out in advance what I'm going to watch, and then watch those programmes from start to finish. Very rarely do I look 'just to see what's on'. Of course, it helps having access to only the 5 terrestrial channels (and one's not available in my area; I haven't missed it).
But then I don't watch much TV at all. In fact, for the last several months I've watched none because there's a problem with my aerial, and I can't be bothered to fix it. (Before you ask, there is cable in my area. Or at least, the flat downstairs has it, but the company told me I was too far away. I really didn't care enough to argue with them.) So far I'm surviving quite happily on videos I recorded ages ago and some DVDs, and there are only a handful of programmes I care in the slightest about missing.
I remember when I first went off to uni - the lack of TV there (well, there was a TV room, but it was out of the way and few people bothered to go there) made me realise just how dependent on the box I'd been before. It was quite a revelation. And although I bought a portable TV after a couple of terms, and now have my own full-size set, I've never watched as much TV since then.
In any case, roll on the day when broadcasters discover that the best way to grab your attention is to make programmes worth watching!
Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.
We all agree that most commercials are crap. We don't want to watch them, etc...
Most of us can agree that the commercials generally pay for the programming (at least for the networks)...
BUT... we have pay channels like HBO, Skinimax, etc... they have no commercials, yet they have series and shows that people pay for.
It's not A La carte, unfortunately, which brings me to my point. The next step in TV evolution is a la carte programming.
I am MORE than willing to pay a REASONABLE fee to have a "season" subscription to my favorite show. I'll pay say $15 or $20 EACH for a season of Enterprise, SG-1, Family Guy, Simpsons, Futurama, etc... as long as there are no commercials.
That is the key to future programming. Piecemeal subscriptions to a season of your favorite show. Magazines work this way, some of them are even weekly, just like a lot of shows. It can be done, and it can be lucrative, even more so than the current advertising based structure.
As an added bonus to switching to an A la carte method, the "networks" can get direct and unquestionable feedback on what type of show is "good" and what type of show "sucks." If they don't get very many subscriptions to a show, chances are it sucks. This eliminates the "Trailer Park Syndrom" of Neilson ratings. TV shows would be beholden to the mighty dollar and those people that are willing and able and wanting to watch that show, instead of 90% of the nation being shackled to the whims and desires of the stupidest 10% of the nation's TV watching populance.
It's a win/win situation if handled properly, but the paradigm shift will be painful, and I don't expect the networks to go willingly. They've never been good at looking to the future, no reason to think they'll start now. Fortunately, they won't have a choice once people stop watching completely.
You FAIL it, ass-goblin!
A lot of what's on tv now is already "indistinguishable as actual channels."
Yeah.
Then I might actually be willing to watch commercials if they let me start watching what I want when I want...
somehow i don't really buy it about the 'kaleidoscope' wading through thousands of streams of content,
:P
people have enough difficulty using a remote control
i think instead of flipping through hundreds/thousands of numeric channels a la directv, you'll simply type a url like espn.com or hbo.com into your tv/satellite/digital whatever and get a tv stream instead of a web page.
-fren
"Where are we going, and why am I in this handbasket?"
Anyone catch the product placement for lembas wafers as the party was leaving Lorien? "Lembas bread! One small bite can fill the stomach of a grown man!" I was waiting for the elves to start singing the Lembas[tm] jingle.
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
"but instead will resemble more of a kaleidoscope, thousands of streams of content, some indistinguishable as actual channels." seeing as how my internet and TV come over the same cable...?
We're not going to see "thousands of streams of content" any time soon because someone has to make the stuff:
10,000 channels * 24 hours = 240,000 hours per day
Assume a 2 hour film takes 100 people six months, then
1 hour of film requires 60,000 person.hours to produce (assuming 10 hours/day * 20 days/month)
So, every day, there must be
240,0000 * 60,000 = 14,400,000,000 person.hours of work to produce ONE DAY's films. That's almost 2.5 hours per person on the planet.
Hmmm, it could give full employment.
Alterntatively, each person could receive a webcam with their TV set and just stream their own lives onto the channels. When you're bored of your own life, go and live the person's next door.
Dropping the commercials is not the answer. About four years ago, as a cost-cutting measure my wife and I dropped our cable access back to the ultra-basic service. Entire seasons have come and gone and we have not checked in to see any of the new programs. Eventually everything with sufficient episode count makes it into syndication on WGN or Oxygen or one of the local channels, so if I like I can see some of what I missed. I am usually underwhelmed. The serious crap simply disappears. I took up my television viewing slacktime with reading and cable internet access. The extra cost was more than covered by dropping a telephone line we had been using for our dialup service. I am working on my wife to drop the other landline in favor of expanded cellphone service. Many of our younger friends have already done this.
Goddamned kids! Get off my lawn!
Or 'The League of Gentlemen'
Note, he said 'UK' not just BBC. So you could include 'Spaced', 'Black Books' and 'Peter Kay's Phoenix Nights' from Channel 4.
Be careful, poster!
Video on demand. A giant multiuser TiVo in the cable headend.
I've never used one (we have PPV on DirecTV, but those shows are played on a schedule, and are only "on demand" once they're transferred into one of my TiVos), but a guy I know at nCube (who makes VOD servers) says it's growing in LA and NY.
Depending on the set-top box, you can apparently get the pause, rewind, and FF control on VOD you'd have with a DVR, though this isn't universal.
My problem with it is someone else controls what's stored, and how long it stays available (both in general, and if a certain stored show is considered objectionable by a sufficiently powerful person).
I also worry about everything becoming PPV. That makes my normally flat-rate cable bill into a variable bill that may be higher than I pay now (why would they add this if it didn't increase revenue, or reduce costs?). Maybe I'm just paranoid, but if you can measure it you can bill for it.
I wonder if the VOD provider could make enough money with a flat fee?
If VOD was available for a flat rate (for given set of programming corresponding to the channels we have now), and they really stored everything that came by for a really long time (years), then it's be the functional equivalent of a "perfect TiVo" (which has arbitrarily large storage, arbitrarily many tuners, never fails, and can never exist). That's still quite expensive, though, so unlikely to happen.