Slashdot Mirror
Will MySpace Disrupt Television?
newsblaze writes "In the Media space, the internet has been threatening to be a highly disruptive technology for some time now. So far it has done quite a number on newspapers, who still don't understand the internet. There are a lot of people who like to have the paper in their hands, though, so newspapers are holding on. Television has no such ties to a physical medium. When Murdoch bought Myspace, I wondered how long it would be before he either found something to do with it — or gave up. Now it seems Murdoch has found a way to leverage his position, and put a massive squeeze on television. How far can he take this — and what will be the result?"
Not a lot more online. Let's get out more.
There's nothing worth watching on TV
So MySpace will disrupt television then.
Television is disrupted already. Too much honor for Murderock.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Holy shit. My head is still hurting from trying to read that "article." The whole thing is filled with incomplete sentences and fragments of thoughts. A note to Ms Strasbaugh: Take some writing classes. A note to NewsBlaze: Hire some qualified editors. As long as there is writing this bad out there, the established print media has nothing to fear from "Citizen Journalists." As for the "content" of the article, MySpace has struck a deal for a show that has no established viewer base at this time (simply because the show doesn't exist yet). Apparently to Ms Strasbaugh, this is the death knell for television.
Many people who would normally watch 6 hours of TV a day are now using myspace for a similar amount of time.
I'd say myspace has already disrupted television and will continue to do so, since a large portion of hours of television watched are these kids who are now using myspace.
Comparing the two, it's hard to say which is worse. Customizing your myspace and/or writing in a blog can help one practice essential computer savvy and writing skills, whereas TV has the benefit of not being plagued with emos.
It also could be argued that myspace 'comments'--which take up most of the average myspace user's time--actually diminish writing skills and intelligence (seriously, read somebody's comments; anybody).
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to comb my hair over my forehead at an angle and take subtly sad photos of myself from a downward angle and blog about how 'indy rock' (emo) is 'the only joy in my desilate, sole-crushing, nitemarish, interminible, bleak, black, life.' [sic.]
Latewire
The linked article actually has worse editing than the slashdot summary. What is the world coming to?
I suppose asking the slashdot editors to link to high quality writeups is a little far-fetched, so I won't even bother.
Oooh. I'd play that.
I mean who the hell is going to watch game shows and reality shows on their laptop? If anything, leveraging MySpace means that TV eventually turns into YouTube length 'segments' e.g. the average television show will now be 10 minutes long and sponsored by one ad, just like TV was in the late 1940's early 50's
No.
I don't think of MySpace has a competitor to anything. Of course, all I know about MySpace is that's it's for personal blogs and such. It's only used by people who want to put their lives on the web, and mostly teens. Then again I've never even visited myspace.com, so what do I know.
If there's any real competitor to television, it's two-fold because it's on two levels: television networks (who buy/make shows) and show creators themselves (professional vs amateur).
1. It's the beginning of the end for "networks". The iTunes Store has the possibility of becoming a direct distributor between content creators and viewers/listeners. No need to pay for all those crappy "channels packages". I'll even mention the stupid fact that you're forced to get the "basic package" just so you can pay for the "extra packages" from which you only want two or three channels out of eight. It would also prevent networks from killing shows. The best example is the near-death of Family Guy, which Fox had neglected so much at the beginning that it's almost a miracle it survived. It would also prevent networks from continuing to poor cash into long-dead series like The Simpsons. Yes, Homer is funny, but let's get real, they're nearly two decades old now. We get a good episode for every ten crappy ones.
2. YouTube. Given that Google now control YouTube, and via such partnerships such as putting YouTube on the iPhone and the AppleTV, allows regular people to reach other people quite easily and (more importantly) beyond computer-only access. And now that YouTube is switching to H.264, the only thing preventing others to do the same thing as Apple is access rights to YouTube's servers.
...but I find it really hard to take seriously any news outlet that can make so many spelling and grammatical mistakes in a single story. Apparently the proofreader/fact checker has gone the way of the printed newspaper.
While it's true that Murdoch is in somewhat of a unique position of both owning a largely used website, and a TV station, I question what he'll really be able to do with it. Certainly other stations (NBC and ABC, for example) have some of the content online. It's not well done, and it still a poor replica of what they're doing on the actual broadcast. Though still much better than other stations, such as Comedy Central (which probably should win awards for worse design ever).
The current state of Myspace doesn't speak well of what's to come. If I have to navigate Myspace's space, it will certainly act as a deterient. If they create new content, it seems doubtful to me it will be as good as the broadcast shows (and that's for the most part a fairly low benchmark).
I think other companies, like Joost, have the right idea of providing a real client on all the platforms. It works fairly well for the most part, thought it does suffer from frequent pauses. Oh, and lack of content. But besides that, it's a good idea.
Oh yes, Fox, Fox News, BSkyB, Star TV...
The question shouldn't be "will MySpace disrupt TV?", it's "How much more will MySpace disrupt TV than streaming video already has?". The current leader in the "most televisions staked" vampire hunter contest has to be YouTube...
"Known world wide as the ultimate spot for networking..."
What? I thought this was the ultimate spot for 14 year olds to put up useless crap on the net.
And great, "my so called life" and something else is going to be played via myspace. Wow, taking over the world 10 years behind at a time.
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
Many people who would normally watch 6 hours of TV a day are now using Slashdot for a similar amount of time.
I'd say Slashdot has already disrupted television and will continue to do so, since a large portion of hours of television watched are these dorks who are now using Slashdot.
Comparing the two, it's hard to say which is worse. Customizing your Slashdot homepage and/or writing in a blog can help one practice essential computer savvy and writing skills, whereas TV has the benefit of not being plagued with nerds.
It also could be argued that Slashdot 'comments'--which take up most of the average Slashdot user's time--actually diminish writing skills and intelligence (seriously, read somebody's comments; anybody).
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to comb my hair over my forehead at an angle and take subtly sad photos of myself from a downward angle and blog about how 'Linux' (gnu) is 'the only joy in my desilate, sole-crushing, nitemarish, interminible, bleak, black, life.' [sic.]
Breakfast served all day!
Oh, you mean the screen where I plug the game consoles?
Circumcision is child abuse.
The more people who use myspace or watch TV, the less people in my space - the outdoors. Thanks Murdoch, I hope you make some money!
I hate slashdot
That thing is the FCC. The FCC holds back broadcast technology, and in the end the medium, because it is too slow to diagnose where the market is heading and make changes to its regulations. This is done on purpose -- the FCC is provided for, and promoted, solely by those who previously controlled the distribution media like television and radio.
Right now, we have cable and satellite for TV, and for Internet, for am majority of households and businesses. Both solutions are antiquated, and ready to be replaced. WiFi routers have proven that small-band radio hardware can be shared in relatively small spaces. All of my neighbors have routers, and we all work well together without major issues. In large urban areas, there are more problems with routers, yes, but this is the FCC's fault for not opening up the spectrum. Imagine how well broadcast technology would work if most of the currently used broadcast spectrum was unlicensed.
The major television and radio networks are scared to death of what would happen if gigabit wireless because available in an unlicensed manner. "On-demand" would take on new meaning. Nielsen would be replaced with real-time, and accurate, statistics sold by Google Analytics or a variety of actual competitors (unlike Nielsen, who has no real competitors). Shows would make it, or break it, not just on mega-advertiser income, but also the chance to make an income based on direct viewer sponsorship (subscription), or a myriad of other income streams (AdSense, or who knows what else?).
It is the regulation of the spectrum that is killing television and radio, as free market capitalists look for new ways to get information to those who want it. PeerCasting is amazing technology, which I already use to broadcast live church sermons to communities. It works well, so much better than public "Channel 19" a week or two later. When you can PeerCast straight to your car or your portable radio, the commercial radio stations will be dead. When you can watch one of a thousand TV shows, and become a hub for 5 or 10 others to watch it, the need for huge servers and huge pipes out of a studio will be ended. But that day won't happen with the FCC mandating frequency use to what worked 20 years ago.
MySpace isn't the killer -- MySpace is just finding a way to be relevant using the tiny bit of wired connectivity they have available. Imagine a peercasted or torrented YouTube, shared by millions, anonymous, and unable to be regulated by the State. That's a future I'm ready for.
Unless their custom series is a show about black eyeliner and self-mutilation, I highly doubt the majority of MySpace users will be interested.
Sure baby, I'll give you my phone number...in Hex
Hope that helps.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Please, an internet is just any TCP/IP-based network. The Internet is the one that spans the globe..
It's a shame that broadcasters, more specifically, the affiliates, are having to pay an enormous amount of money to upgrade all of their equipment to broadcast in HD, when in less than 10 years "broadcasting" television will be a moot point. What is the point of all the regulation and brouhaha and money spent on what amounts to six channels worth of content? Most of the "big four" have started to put their shows for free viewing (with commercials) on their home page. I never watched one episode of "30 rock" off of my cable box this past year, I watched it on NBC's "on demand" site. The same goes for Prison Break and My name is Earl. I download via torrents, all of the shows I can't get, like "Peep Show" and "Life on Mars," but even then the BBC and Channel 4 offer the episodes for free on their respective websites for download (only to UK though). The biggest hurdle in "internet tv" is that ubiquitous "Black Box" that consumer electronics manufacturers have been searching for decades to decades to find. The 360 and the PS3 are the first iteration in what will be the future. The 360 is offering essentially basic cable to 360 owners this fall and I am certain that the PS3 will have something similar, especially since Sony owns a huge catalogue of films.
"Jeremy, you need to get to an internet cafe and cut and paste some appropriate sentiments about me from the world wide
I want to take back both the rainbow and the word, "gay".
While it's true that Murdoch is in somewhat of a unique position of both owning a largely used website, and a TV station...
Nah. The same organization owning a big Internet site and a big content source isn't new. That's what the famous AOL/TimeWarner merger was all about ten or so years ago. Remember how well that worked out?
I question what he'll really be able to do with it.
Yeah, I would too. This sounds more like dangerous overreach than the Rly Kewl Synergy the breathless teenybopper article suggests it is. I doubt serious investors who remember the 90s will touch this with a ten-foot pole.
Here, do you like horror punk and/or psychobilly? Then enjoy Zombina and the Skeletones!
And I found these guys through Guitar Hero: Freezepop (stream only, no sample free MP3s).
MTV is dead, long live MySpace!
You can't take the sky from me...
in 20 years, which is why I gave up TV. Much rather pick up a book and read as it's portable and in an SFF that fits comfortably in the hand plus it uses no power.
Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
A pretty good pile of non-sentences in a non-article about a pretty big non-story. TV will be killed by MySpace in the same way that it was killed by TiVo (only watching what the users wants?!) and by DVDs (which, with entire seasons of content being made available, was going to kill TV as opposed to increase overall viewrships), and by the VCR (content, when and where you want it?!), etc etc.
Meaning, of course, that TV will still be around long after MySpace goes the way of Geocities and Tripod.
While I agree the term 'indie' started from there, it's evolved to something different, and is closer to the term 'underground' than anything else. In musical terms (as opposed to film, in which the term indie has also changed over time) 'Indie Rock' is really an umbrella term (comparable to 'Electronica') that encompasses a variety of sub-genres such as lo-fi, pop underground, college rock, dance-punk, twee, indie-electronic, etc. while simultaneously describing a certain 'sound' that came out of the rock underground in the 90s exemplified by bands like Pavement, Guided By Voices, Built to Spill, Archers of Loaf, Olivia Tremor Control, etc.
It's a very confusing and subjective term, and is really inadequate for proper differentiation of musical genres, but we're stuck with it, and regardless of how it's used within the emo community, emo is certainly not synonymous with indie rock, it's simply a child of the indie node.
In fact, what is happening is that a new show is being put online, on myspace. Did Youtube disrupt network television? Because this amounts to the same thing, but with only one show, and no user-created content.
So MySpace lets you download torrents now?
I don't know about the impact of MySpace, but the biggest disruption of established media has been with the news. People are no longer confined to just a few news channels and papers owned by just a handful of people. Things that were possible before, such as D-Notices (where the UK media are blocked from reporting something by the government) are now quite ineffective. However, Murdoch and the big outlets do have a big web presence and we should avoid them like the plague.
Using the UK Freedom of Information act, it has recently emerged that Tony Blair had 3 telephone conversations with Rupert Murdoch in the 10 days leading up to the invasion of Iraq. No doubt he wanted to know how much support he would get. War sells papers and increases viewing figures, so it would not have been a good business decision for Murdoch to oppose the war. Do you really want to sit there passively consuming Rupert Murdoch's political views, channelled though different newsreaders and outlets? We should be avoiding Murdoch's empire as much as possible. It's not healthy for so much of the media to be owned by so few people. Fortunately the net makes it easy to hunt around and find more independent outlets.
If anyone is interested, the FOI request was made by Lord Avebury and it took him a long time to get the information released.
Get a grip. Indie rock is any independant rock, period, and yes I am a musician and have been for over 20 years.
Yeah, I think more of THAT could disrupt TV. Not your stinking, Javascript-laden, Flash-blasting, Emo shrine. But Kiefer's rocks!
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
Had to be said...
Other regulation, like the ones of the FCC, help distribute limited resources. In the case of broadcast radio and television, the monopoly covers a section and locality of the public airwaves.In exchange for the monopoly, the business agrees to some limite. Complaining about it is like public companies complaining about the regulation of the stock market. Companies that do not want such regulation, and want to treat the companies cash like thier own private liquid accounts, can choose to be private. There is no law forcing a company public.
The boradcasters have been given a monopoly over the airwaves. They have given enough leeway in what to transmit. The only thing that has changed is that others have come in, and with much less public financing, created a competing system of content delivery. The broadcasters, coddled by years of monopoly status, are apparently unable to work in a free market. Sure they are less free than the paid station, but then they also have the only non subscription fee product. If they can't survive with the huge public subsidy of free bandwidth, then I can only assume that they are truly incompetent. No myspace isn't the killer. Softness from monopoly status is. Braodcast content is an extremely inefficient use of the bandwidth, and cannot support the bloated structure that seems to define most broadcast companies.
And who really cares if broadcaster go off the air. That should be seen as a success. Privately funded enterprises killing government subsidized monopoly. Who can be against that? With the broadcasters gone, the bandwidth can be used for something else, by entrepenuers who are willing to rent the space at auction determined market value. I must say that I do not look forward to paying for radio and television, but I also realize that it might be better that continuously hearing people bitch about how unfair the rules are. Give the airwaves back to the public. Let the market decide how to use them best in the post analog world. Even the threat of such a thing will have the whiny wussy broadcast executives going to the hill and saying how absolutely happy they are with regulation.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
I don't even care about reading this article. With how many other sites there are expect tv to be effected but only in improving which shows people view as legit and which shows people view as total crap and don't care to watch.
...seriously
Whether the corporations moving picture is transmitted via antenae, satelite or cable, or adsl, its the same old same old. However, Video on demand of people lighting farts is progress i suppose.
I rarely turn on the tee vee these days, except to watch the Simpsons. Most of the video
content I watch these days is on YouTube, and I don't even mean TV episodes people have uploaded
there. Infact, the only TV set I have is a cheapo 5 inch black and white I bought when my old
color TV gave up the ghost.
Will TV die? I doubt it, people will still want to plop down on the couch, or have something to
watch while eating dinner, but the old channels model that has been around for about 100 years
(this including radio) will probably die out and be replaced with YouTube and on demand style
services. Probably the only 'traditional' channels left would be for sports and the news.
I think Murdoch is missing the point. What makes MySpace (ugh) and other sites like YouTube popular isn't JUST the fact that you're sitting at your computer- it's that the media is produced by thousands and thousands of different content creators. I believe that the days where one centralized entity is making all of the production decisions are coming to an end. Individual control aside, this new breed of content is quintessentially interactive. You can talk to the creators, share with them, befriend them, and even meet them. Traditional media just can't compete.
most of the tv are crap and reruns anyway.
Read radical news here
"I think Murdoch is missing the point."
You are telling this to the guy who built his considerable empire using computers to rip the guts out of the old fleet street printing industry? The guy who has Bush kissing one cheek of his arse and Blair kissing the other while Clinton gives him a blow job? Rupert only ever buys something if it can serve him financially or politically, if myspace fails to deliver the "next generation" he will kill it.
"Traditional media just can't compete."
I don't think he cares what type of media you use nor what you use it for, his main concern is controling the supply chain from producer to consumer.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
That's me. 40+ years old. I have checked out sites like myspace and facebook - and while
I understand what they do, they certainly don't appeal to me. I can see the popularity
among the 20s/30s people who are interesting in hooking up with friends, finding a date,
find a party etc. At my age w/wife/kids - the lazy boy + espn is MYspace.
So what? Well firstly, whatever content News Corp puts in the myspace pipe doesn't really
matter to me. For me it doesn't exist. Secondly, watching stuff on my laptop or at my desk
is way too much of a reminder of being at work and generally uncomfortable.
ergo, I think the big disruption to tv will happen when the IP TV is easily/cheaply integrated
with my TV in my living room.
I'm not suggesting that MySpace will fail - I'm suggesting that this application of MySpace may fail. Let's not forget that Murdoch didn't build MySpace, he bought it. If you've been around YouTube lately, there's a lot of buzz about the way that the corporate suits at Google are making decisions that are really starting to piss people off. They act like they are immune to any fallout from their own incompetence at community management. What makes this whole equation very interesting is that unlike most other media, the communities are the content. When the community leaves, so does the content. I really don't see many people sticking around a service like MySpace or YouTube just to watch more corporate-driven entertainment.
There are a lot of people who like to have the paper in their hands, though, so newspapers are holding on e-paper with rss will take care of this.
Not television - CIVILISATION. If any's left when television gets through with it.
So they go somewhere else, like I said "he will kill it" (and then go and buy/subvert whatever else pops up). I also fail to see how such massive sites can exist without some sort of coporate structure behind it to pay for the bandwidth, storage, code monkeys, etc.
I have no interest in MySpace except for the fact it is a very succesfull site, as for YouTube there are only so many ways you can watch someone have mentos coming out of their nose before it becomes as boring as dog-shit, this is the kind of stuff I look for, I'm not a micro-biologist but the more I learn about what is going on in that short clip the more trully awe inspiring it becomes.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
As long as you don't mind giving up on-demand video, and having to queue your downloads for later viewing, you don't need a cable bill.
Well, you're either downloading that over cable modem, or you're downloading it over DSL. You're watching TV over the airwaves, over cable, or (increasingly) over DSL. You're paying for it either way... and they will without question adjust the relative costs of data and video over broadband to match demand and usage.
All they need to do is to get the advertising back in, by doing something like offering high quality seeds of better-than-ripped-quality un-stripped versions of the shows, and we're back where we started.
I don't see Myspace being a threat to TV as much as YouTube.
All they need to do is to get the advertising back in, by doing something like offering high quality seeds of better-than-ripped-quality un-stripped versions of the shows, and we're back where we started.
Thanks a lot. Now I'm all depressed again.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Only too happy to be of service!
That is the sad part. Yes there was a time when you had 3 TV news sources to choose from. But I get the feeling that the news services where a lot more responsible and unbiased then.
Now with many many outlets to get your news from news providers have become tabloids.
Controversy sells. Of course with all the news services available you can find one that EXACTLY fits your world view. So the news will reinforce everything you believe and challenge nothing. That also means that it will reinforce your fears.
That great unbiased news service you have found on line isn't unbiased. It just shares your bias.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.