Slashdot Mirror
Will the Web Replace TV?
dratcw writes "With the continuing writers' strike cutting way back on the number of new and original TV shows available, many media Web sites are providing alternatives to TV that can be found on the Web. A number of sites are offering features describing broadcast/cable TV alternatives while you wait for that next episode of 'Chuck'. 'What better time than during the writers' strike to (re)discover Internet TV and video? The quantity, quality, and diversity of online video grows by the day; and though it's far from perfect, it is at least interesting enough to make you forget that you're watching it on a PC monitor.'" Any web-based favorites you'd like to point out for fellow commenters?
For my artsy, music & avante garde stuff, I prefer SpecialTen, a UK DVD magazine I actually subscribe to. They offer their stuff for free though and I find it all to be either thought provoking, fun or both.
For my documentaries and also music stuff, I prefer VBS although I have heard many criticisms of it playing to hipsters and wanna be hipsters. This may be although I find the material interesting.
While they are nice and work well in Firefox (I watch them both in Linux), I find some of the reporting to be over the top shock reporting and also find the advertisements to be repetitive. I have seen the trailer for There Will Be Blood too many times to count and I THERE'S OIL HERE, UNDERNEATH THE TOWN AND I'M THE ONLY ONE WHO CAN GET AT IT
Of course, I enjoy adult swim, the office, south park, the daily show, etc but you just go to the network sites for that stuff and I assume everyone knows that. And, of course, now that they're releasing the cap for Netflix, I will watch those online although I can't seem to get that to work in Linux. Perhaps they'll come around?
I do look forward to the responses to this in hopes to lengthen my list of channels.
My work here is dung.
Anyone else hear of 'Generation Cox?' I was out in Southern California for some work and there were constant commercials for new Cox Cable technology that would transform the way people would watch tv.
It is basically a completely on demand infrastructure with customizable viewing recommendations. Someone in the industry also suggested that work is being done on moderation technology for people who wanted to join 'viewing groups,' or groups of people united by philosophical or moral similarities who wanted to cull desirable programming from all the chaff.
Sounds like a hybrid to me. Not entirely web, not entirely tv.
Then there's the ever popular Channel101, offering us entertainment like this...
I might point out that there are two new episodes of Chuck airing tomorrow night... of course, as far as I'm aware, those are the last two episodes written before the strike, so you can start waiting after Thursday night.
First, in the article outlining what's available over the web, they missed my favorite, that I highly recommend to all, Miro: http://www.getmiro.com/ - it's free and it supports Linux, OS X, and Windows.
Next, I'm going to shamelessly recycle one of my posts from another thread about Microsoft and others looking at internet over TV airwaves because if it comes to pass that that takes off, and if I'm right, then there may be a less-clear technical landscape for TV via internet than we might hope for today, especially for merging computers with TVs. (And, yes, I know most all HDTVs are already merging technologies on some levels.) Apologies if my point remains unclear, but it's this - I'm not ready to believe that commercial interests - led by Microsoft - won't yet win and screw us all. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=423982&cid=22111742 and http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=423982&cid=22127942
Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
I recommend Chad Vader, day shift manager. There's 8 episodes each about 5 minutes long.
Yep, former Cox employee here. It's one of the biggest things they have going on. Entertainment On Demand (EOD) will be not just a data and video (web and TV) service but will also integrate with their cell phone plans. If you get stuck in traffic you can use your cell phone to program your DVR to record something you might otherwise miss by being late. I don't know if they have cell service in CA yet as their markets operate independent of each other but they have it in AZ - it runs on the Sprint PCS network.
-darkmatterhari
Funny you should mention the BBC. The BBC is pretty much one of the very, very few channels for which I would sincerely love to pay every cent / penny they tax me.
In Sweden, France, Germany, Italy and pretty much most countries I have been to, the TV is abominable, including the State-owned channels... The BBC 1, 2 and 3 are a beacon of hope for high quality TV.
And I'm not being nationalistic. I am from Holland. In Holland, the only thing that comes close to BBC quality or even noteworthiness is Nederland 3.
Other networks' web broadcasts suck--especially NBC, which is unfortunate considering they pulled their content from iTunes just to provide us with buggy, crappy quality You-tube-esque video.
Books are just excellent.
Another more suggestion:
Take your iPod, and use the ipod e-book formatter to put some nice books on your iPod, for reading while you listen to some great music. You can even make playlists that go with the story line!
You can convert e-books here: http://www.ambience.sk/ipod-ebook-creator/ipod-book-notes-text-conversion.php
Some great books here: http://www.craphound.com/index.php?cat=5
and here: http://www.geocities.com/davidbainaa/
and here: http://www.baen.com/library/
Free, or better Creative Commons books, are regularly mentioned on Boing Boing as well.
Blogging because I can...
More closely emulating TV I'm in both the Joost and Hulu betas. Joost might be out of beta now... Anyway, Joost focuses more on providing exclusive/unique content in a streaming and TV-like environment. Joost uses its own application and has a pretty snazzy interface. Hulu is more like a YouTube of TV shows where specific shows (including Family Guy, The Simpsons, The Office, etc...) are streamed on demand, but that at certain intervals during the show you're forced to watch a 30 or 60 second commercial. It's entirely webpage based but does do full-screen video. I ended up watching the first few episodes of the Tin Man, got myself hooked. Also got to finally watch all the Firefly's thanks to Hulu!
Honestly, between those two services and (ahem) other-services-that-rhyme-with-fittorrent (ahem), my roomie canceled our subscription to cable TV... We simply don't need it as we can watch anything we want to within a few seconds (or at most hours) of us wanting to see it.
Since Comcast is the only broadband provider in the area, I spoke with my municipality about a municipal-owned fiber plant. They attempted to put something together in 2004, but Comcast and AT&T lobbied heavily against it. I'm working on reviving the idea, but instead of being owned by the municipality, it'll be owned by a non-profit (so it'll be the co-op model). My goal is to get the city to be an anchor tenant (police, fire, city gov.) with other entities coming on board as well (hospitals, large local businesses). I'm really looking forward to being able to offer an alternative in the area.
I think you're missing the point here. In the music scenario, it is entirely possible to throw a few grand into a recording and make it work on a professional level. This is simply not the case with TV. For one, there are 10 times as many people involved, just at the production level, leaving out the rest of the industry (casting, agents, promotion, distribution, etc.). Where you have a rock band with, let's say 5 people in it, a median TV show cast probably has 5 leads, but also maybe a dozen supporting cast members. The production crew includes camera guys, sound guys, stage production, lighting, makeup, wardrobe, and a lot more. Then we get into post production. In the music scenario, this generally includes the 5 band members, the producer, and the engineer. In the TV scenario, it generally does not include the actors, but it will include the producer, director, editing staff, foley, special effects team, CGI, etc. All these people expect a check at the end of the day. Also, there is a whole extra stage of production in non-principal photography, where reshoots are done, stills and establishing shots, on location shots, etc.
I could go on, but you get the idea. To take a typical network TV show (not a reality show) and produce it on an indie level, for an indie budget, and come out with even a comparable level of quality is going to be pretty much impossible.
If this idea comes to pass, I think it would be possible to see a lot of well-written shows come to light, but there will not be any "Terminator" or "24" type shows. Something like "The Office", where there are little to no special effects, and is character driven will be doable, but even then will require a fair amount of capital in order to attain the production value we expect, let alone support the mammoth paychecks of A-List actors. Unfortunately, someone trying to produce a hot internet TV show for $10,000 a season isn't going to be able to pull in Steve Carrell or Kiefer Sutherland. Not that this won't give rise to smaller actors filling their shoes, but it's another point to consider.
Raging in an online forum won't do anything for the world around you. To see change, you must take action.