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.'"
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.....
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.
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.
> '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
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!!!!
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."
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
The web was supposed to resemble that too, remember?
And it did, for a while. When the net was strictly a geek thing, or at least not a mainstream corporate thing (circa 1995), regular people did control the content. And there was a lot of content. Unfortunately, about 50% was crap and assorted fluff, 45% was porn, and about 5% was actually worth looking at. Then the corporates came, and it changed to about 90% porn, 8% crap and assorted fluff, and 2% worth looking at that's harder then hell to find. But one thing you must remember: TV was never controlled by regular people. It has always and will always be controlled by the corporations. But hey...every now and then, they slip up and actually let something good go on the air. And they don't even notice it at first. It took them at least 2 seasons to realize Family Guy was funny, and another season to finally kill it...
I think its called the internet
Maybe, but t.v. is infinitely better than the Internet when it comes to zoning out after work and just relaxing while the mind slowly oozes out onto the floor of numbness.
from the article, "audiences will want to organize and re-order content the way they want it"
I don't want t.v. to be something I have to assemble or manipulate in order to get something watchable.
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
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?
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
Commercials are ...
...
Those things that pay for the content you do actually watch. Imagine how great the programs are going to be once advertisers stop paying for commercials or, worse, start forcing blatant product placement. Joy. I can't wait
Commericals pay for the Stream.
There are only 4 ways it can work...
a) you watch commericals
b) you pay per view/subscribe
c) "public" TV like PBS
d) make your own
HOWEVER, when you actually use a PVR and you have to fast forward you still see BITS and Pieces of Commericals and some research has shown (and my personal experience backs this up) if a commerical looks particularly interesting or revelant, you actually stop and watch. THOSE commericals are SUPER effective because instead of seeing 20 or 30 commericals (or more) per hour you see maybe 2 or 3 PER WEEK.
http://www.hawknest.com/