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.'"

43 of 306 comments (clear)

  1. PVRs are already making TV unrecognizable by pudding7 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:PVRs are already making TV unrecognizable by K8Fan · · Score: 3, Informative

      So very true. I got a pair of DirecTivos and upgraded both of them, and my wife hasn't watched anything in real time since. She watches what I call the "Vickie Channel", a channel that has programs that would never appear on the same channel, all of which match her tastes. For instance, she put all the actors from the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy in her "Wish List" (except Christopher Lee who has been in hundreds of films). So her Tivo has delivered her a number of great films from New Zealand and Australia starring Miranda Otto.

      --
      "How perfectly Goddamn delightful it all is, to be sure" Charles Crumb
  2. sure...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.....

  3. Haven't we seen this? by gsparrow · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I think its called the internet.

    1. Re:Haven't we seen this? by happyfrogcow · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Haven't we seen this? by Crockerboy · · Score: 2, Funny

      Maybe, but t.v. is infinitely better than the Internet when it comes to zoning out after work
      I agree, the internet is best left to zoning out during work

  4. Thousands of steams? by BizidyDizidy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Thousands of steams? by Tsali · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm not looking for TV to be a mindblowing experience; I can leave the house for those

      Do you live in Amsterdam?

      --
      This space for rent.
  5. kind of... by heh2k · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:kind of... by Trigun · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hopefully it's more like Suprnova.org

  6. Individualization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...will resemble more of a kaleidoscope, thousands of streams of content, some indistinguishable as actual channels.

    There's nothing like catering specifically to the one person who likes Golden Girls reruns mixed in with heaps of porn.

    1. Re:Individualization by mrtroy · · Score: 3, Funny

      No no! The BEST combination would be the 1998-2001 Miss Universe/Miss America/Miss World pageants next to porn from 2002-2003. A lot of familiar faces!

      1999 Miss Universe ---> oooh I would like to see Miss *country* naked! She is soo hot!

      2002 Porno ---> ooh that Miss *country* can really swallow that banana!

      --
      [I can picture a world without war, without hate. I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it]
  7. Oh YEAH! by cliffy2000 · · Score: 3, Funny

    "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.

  8. The World of Tomorrow by TraumaHound · · Score: 5, Funny
    thousands of streams of content, some indistinguishable as actual channels.


    It's good to know that MTV will still be around in the future.
  9. Why Ashley Highfield Is Incorrect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  10. 57 (000) channels by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 4, Funny

    and STILL nothin' on.

  11. Ah, the Glory days by snowlick · · Score: 5, Funny

    "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!
  12. Kaleidoscope? by Asprin · · Score: 2, Funny


    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
  13. She needs to watch more TV .... by El+Cubano · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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."

    1. Re:She needs to watch more TV .... by UrgleHoth · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Funny you should say that. I used to watch TLC before it became what seems to me to be a lot of BBC one-offs (ripoffs?).

      Also, the article mentions 50% of UK residents have internet connectivity and digital TV. A couple of questions: is this the same 50%? As I live in the US, what is the US %'s. When we moved, we did not bother to get cable. Currently it is too much money for too much stuff bundled that I will not watch that I don't want to pay for. So we watch some PBS and read a lot.
      So our household falls into the group that does not have digital cable and probably will not until and unless (if ever) the price for selective programming drops to dial-up prices.

      --

      Dogma - "let's just say we'd like to avoid any empirical entanglements."
  14. Stupidest prediction EVER! by mrtroy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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]
    1. Re:Stupidest prediction EVER! by illumin8 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You know, I think a lot of us in the Slashdot crowd don't appreciate the dynamic of this because we're just not young enough.

      This seems like it should be a no-brainer because here we are on Slashdot, commenting on stories that come from thousands of different places on the internet, and generally organizing and re-ordering content the way we want.

      How is this any different whether we are commenting on video streams or web pages? I think she is amazingly insightful about the future of television. I predict more and more Slashdot-like comment and moderation systems being used by TV viewers to comment and interact with their programs in real-time, even posting their own video comments (ugh, goatse.cx links just got a lot more painful) after each show.

      I'd say this is just the opposite, not the Stupidest prediction ever, but one of the more brilliant.

      --
      "When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
  15. yeh right by stratjakt · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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!!!!
  16. Waiting for the first TV Virus by Nova+Express · · Score: 4, Funny

    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/

  17. Four trends, no revolutions by ianscot · · Score: 4, Interesting
    1. consumers are ...choosing not just the 'what' they watch but also the when, how and where they watch it.

    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.
  18. Television ROTS brains. by rice_burners_suck · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I lot of people, like me, are getting increasingly disenchanted by television. I stopped watching television almost completely about four years ago because the commercials were repetitive crap with garbage in between. 10,000 channels and nothing to watch on TV. And the news programs... don't even get me started. They tell you, "Up next," whatever story they were advertising all day. But the only thing that's "up next" is more commercials, and the story you're interested in is always about 2 seconds long and at the very end of the news program.

    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."

    1. Re:Television ROTS brains. by Eponymous+Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I was also getting tired of the commercials, so I picked up a Tivo. Now I find that I watch less TV than ever. I never worry about catching something live, because Tivo will record it and I'll just watch it later. Except, I rarely end up going back to watch it.

      As for your comment about children- well watching TV or having a full life is a false dichotomy. I have a two year old who has a few TV programs that she likes to watch (Sesame Street, Dora, Oswald). She also loves to look at books, play with playdoh, color, play with with her toys, sing, run around, etc... She has an incredibly full live and TV is a part of it.

  19. Re:For Users? by Space+cowboy · · Score: 2, Informative

    You're aware that the BBC has no adverts or pay-per-view yes ? Which media conglomerates are you talking about ?

    The Beeb is supported by basically the entire country (everyone with a TV) paying for a TV licence. You can't watch TV without one - saying "I don't watch BBC" is not a defence :-) They also sell their programs abroad.

    In general the quality is a damn sight better than all the advert-or-ppv-funded channels. You can argue whether the "tax" imposed on TV viewers is fair, but since it costs me less per year for the Beeb than it does for 2 months of Sky, I don't think it's a strong argument, given that the programs can be much better. Yeah, they have crap too. Show me a channel that doesn't...

    Simon.

    --
    Physicists get Hadrons!
  20. Experimental results by bytesmythe · · Score: 5, Funny

    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
  21. Re:Jibber-Jabber by mrtroy · · Score: 3, Funny

    OK I find visualization useful here.

    First, visualize a bunch of feces. Poop from different animals, and different diets. So different sized poop, different colored poop, and different smelling poop.

    Ok, now start throwing that poop at your TV screen. When you are finished, that is your "kaleidoscope, thousands of streams of content, some indistinguishable as actual channels."
    You see, you cannot distinguish which poop is which, but you do know there is a lot of poop there.

    --
    [I can picture a world without war, without hate. I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it]
  22. You mean... by oGMo · · Score: 5, Insightful
    but instead will resemble more of a kaleidoscope, thousands of streams of content, some indistinguishable as actual channels.

    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

  23. Re:For Users? by IWorkForMorons · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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...

  24. What I want out of TV by flacco · · Score: 2, Interesting
    • On-demand programming
    • The option to not see any commercials at all, ever. I will pay for this.
    • While "scanning" (or previewing "channels"), I want to be able to NEVER see certain categories of programs, and even parts of programs: no daytime TV talk shows (Springer etc), no sports, no financial news, no weather, no religious programming, and I never want to see a live performance of a top-40 song ever.
    • WAY more small-time content providers. I'd like to see cable become a two-way street: individuals and small organizations could create their own programming and send it UP the cable to interested viewers.
    • hardcore donkey-porn.
    --
    pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
  25. Commercials Are: by 4of12 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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."
    1. Re:Commercials Are: by zenpiglet · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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 ...

    2. Re:Commercials Are: by hhawk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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/
  26. Fundamental rule: by Cassanova · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Anything done in extreme is bad.
    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?

    1. Re:Fundamental rule: by StarFace · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Too much cocaine is bad.

      Yet, I don't think balance is necessarily the solution there. You must learn to balance your use of balance, as well.

      The problem is content in many cases, but universally it is the format It doesn't matter how much you learned on those three stations out of thousands. You could have learned the same material through other methods, the use of which are more healthy for the brain than having nearly the entire show run for you automatically.

      --
      V
    2. Re:Fundamental rule: by StarFace · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Whew, it is rather complicated. Well, in a nutshell, the brain learns things best by actively utilizing as many of the senses as possible. A large part of that is the use of imagination to "conjur" elements you do not have access to. The process of conjuring sense based information in tandem with provided information enhances the provided information. It's the classic: You can read about swimming all your life, but you'll never learn how to swim until you jump in. Note this is active use of the senses, not to be confused with stimulation.

      The problem with television is that it is providing stimulation for several of the senses to such an intense degree, that they become latent and no longer active.Thus, these senses are not being uses to anchor the memory. Anchoring is vital to the efficiency (not ability) of memory. You can memorize a list of numbers with brute force, but that isn't very efficient internally. A small amount of stimulation is good, in fact it can be conducive to good learning. This is why subtle noises like water or crickets (or whatever else you grew up with, some people relax to traffic) can relax your mind and allow you to function at a higher level of efficiency.

      This is where balance comes in to the picture, and it it is a good rule of thumb. The problem with television is that it is by its very nature an over-balance. It is a saturation of sense stimulation through two paths with causes two things to happen. As already mentioned, those sense paths become latent, and secondly, the other senses become "blind" to their surroundings. In effect, the mind shuts down most of its ability to function imaginatively, which is vital for healthy learning.

      That raises the question of why the mind learns that way, but that is where things start to become a good deal more complex. If you are really interested in the why, do some research on information theory in relation to brain bandwidth, recent research on the "sub-conscious," and how the conscious mind is not intended to be used as the primary vehicle for true, healthy, wisdom building learning.

      As I read through your list of ways in which television has benefit you, I couldn't help but notice that in all cases you used some small detail in a particular show to springboard a session of research or further experience without the further help of the televison. In other words, you are not actually doing your learning with the TV, you are using it as a nearly random topic generator. The same thing could just as easily be accomplished with a careful mix of random encylopaedia and Internet usage. Using these two as springboards you could accomplish just as much research into things that interest you. So it is not the TV that is at stake there, it is simple your preference for a dynamic base of trivia from which you can pull interesting facts from.

      That's great! But recognize that it is simply that, not the television.

      --
      V
  27. Subtle but disturbing change.... by freeze128 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I wonder at what time the television "viewer" became the television "user"....

  28. This is not at all what I see. by wcrowe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  29. It started already: Lord of the Rings by devphil · · Score: 2, Funny


    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)
  30. Watching television by Oshkoshjohn · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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!