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?
I've been watching them weekly since their hilarious "Rejected Wiiplay Games" movie. They're also the Desert Bus For Hope people. Anyway, they're somewhat hit-or-miss, but mostly hit IMO: http://loadingreadyrun.com/
instead of the web replacing TV, i think what is more likely is that TV's will be adapted to use the web... this has already started to happen (apple TV uses the web, doesn't it?)
i think that soon, our TV's will be a computer with a rather large, high-definition monitor
Those of us who think they know everything annoy those of us who do.
With various torrent sites, an rss feed, and XBMC the internet has already supplanted over the air television for me. It's going to be awfully hard for anyone to improve on that setup.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
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.
TV? I don't watch a television device anymore, haven't for five years. The whole idea of attaching myself to a video broadcast at home seems so incredibly impossible to me. For the past five years, my chief source of entertainment has been reading and interacting with my favorite websites, posting comments, with the occasional game on the side. This to me is far more entertaining than the idea of gluing my eyes to a video broadcast. If there is a well-done TV show, I'll just download it off the bittorrent and watch it on the bus on the way to and from work.
Analog TV...sure. It will when Google buys up the 700 MHz band and takes over next year.
Digital TV - nope.
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.
I agree whole heartedly. Around where I live I have a small company that feeds off comcast, called metrocast. They want around $65/month for basic cable, and apparently around $200 for the premium package.
Even if there was a decent amount on tv to watch (which there isn't), it's not like I'm just sitting around all day to watch tv. I might watch a show or two in the evenings after work. What makes them think I'm going to spend that much money on watching 50% adverts anyway?
Basically, as soon as the companies realize that in order to take advantage of the web you must present not only convenience but additionally it needs to be a bit cheaper than the real thing, people will kill their cable service.
The problem is, with technology as it is now, people find driving to walmart, buying a DVD for $11 to be EASIER than getting an online rental that's unlikely to work and costs just as much.
But as far as the potential of the net to kill cable as we know it? Oh it's already there.
Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
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 can't wait to pay a license fee for my computer as well.
If you haven't made a developer cry, you've wasted a day.
I recommend Chad Vader, day shift manager. There's 8 episodes each about 5 minutes long.
reading a book?
Its easy for us to say the net has replaced TV but I think it will be a long time before it replaces it for less tech savvy people.
I canceled my cable TV a few months ago and haven't looked back. I have over the air HDTV essentially for free (after tuner cost). I also pay Netflix $17 for their 3 at a time plan, and that fills the void nicely and is much cheaper than digital cable.
In this household there is no cable television, just a little OTA 19" set for when something major is going on which is pretty much never nowadays. The SO just likes the background noise.
But with services like Joost, and all the online movie sites that are already online or coming shortly it's looking more like television is dead.
I've also taken to watching the Real News clips on YouTube. I like the concept, it's essentially a publicly supported news gathering organization. I'd like to see local groups do the same in communities all across the country. The key difference with Real News is that it isn't just 30 second sound bites, they actually do a bit of analysis.
It can't actually replace TV until:
1. The bandwidth is fast enough to stream HD (or whatever the current standard is)
2. Production houses could figure out how to actually derive revenue for web exclusive shows.
No.
I'm as much a computer lover as the next person, but there are a number of reasons why a TV currently and will always occupy a niche different from a puter:
1. Bigness. The gap is narrowing, but you can still get a bigger TV for less than a smaller monitor. As far as I can tell, more families have a room based off a TV screen than a computer screen.
2. Options. With monitors, it's either overpriced and pretty from Apple, or less overpriced and less pretty from someone else. With TVs, you can still pick a plethora of options.
3. Ease of use. The wiimote was so revolutionary, but the friggin REmote has been pretty much perfect for decades. It's simple, there's nothing extraneous like apps or downloads or email. You can switch back and forth between hundreds of options seamlessly, whereas on a computer you've got to load up the site and browse to the exact item. If you know what you want, the intarwebs are good, but if you wanna surf, TV is still better.
4. A lot easier to turn on/off.
5. No one is gonna sue you for making a tape of a movie.
The differences are narrowing, but for now, there's definite differences. Something kind of like AppleTV has a definite future in the world but we're still gonna sit around the set for the Super Bowl, not a computer (well, we will, but others won't).
I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
"Well turn SOMETHING on, I'm starting to think!"
Monstar L
.. and in the public domain are just as entertaining today as they were in the old days. Google is great for that stuff.
~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
I'm still waiting for traditional cable networks (or even individual programs) to offer subscriptions, streaming HD content to my set-top box over the Internet. I don't even care if it's live. So much of what I watch is on the DVR anyway. Let me cancel my (evil) cable TV subscription and just get the shows or networks that I'm interested in.
Live IPTV would be nice too, but since you can't do QoS over the untrusted, public Internet, I'm not sure how you'd get CATV-style latency and reliability without violating "network neutrality".
I prefer downloading torrents rather than watching a show on the web, but sometimes you can't find a show anywhere but on the TV stations website, so I watched one such show on mtv.com, and err, I don't mind a commercial break, even if it's one commercial every ten minutes, but at least, PLEASE, don't make it be the same fucking el cheapo commercial every single fucking time!
I mean come on, what are you trying to achieve by showing your viewers the same commercial 7 fucking times during a TV show? Will I want to subscribe to Verizon because they interrupted my show 7 times to tell me that "Science is wrong, the world revolves around you" and that because of that I needed unlimited plans or whatever it was they were trying to sell to me (yeah, I saw that commercial like 30 times, I remember every word of it, except the last few which were about what they were trying to sell to me. Oh, and was it Verizon or Vodafone?)? Fat chance, I don't even live in the US!
My point? Oh yeah, if they want Web "TV" to go anywhere as serious as regular TV, they need to be serious about it. Showing many times during a show the same commercial that is so cheap that it doesn't even contain images filmed with an actual camera makes it sound like no one could even be arsed to find more than one company to advertise for, and that this company couldn't be arsed to produce a half decent commercial. I get the feeling that they have no clue what they're missing out.
You just got troll'd!
In most places, a library card is still free. Why not start there?
/. crowd.
If you must be entertained, then I suggest you start with borrowing some videos. DVDs/VHS... it doesn't really matter. Reaquaint yourself with the classics -- choose anything from the AFI top 100 list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFI's_100_Years..._100_Movies_(10th_Anniversary_Edition))
Once you've gotten that out of your system, try some books on tape. Turn that hour-a-day commute time into something more productive than enduring the Morning Show Morons laughing at how drunk they got the night before or making ill-informed comments about the news of the day.
After a few weeks of books on tape, try reading a book. I know, I know -- you don't have time. Try it anyway. Read it during your lunch break. You'll eat more slowly and may lose a few pounds as a result. Spend an hour at night. If you take a train or bus, read it then. You'll be surprised at how quickly the time passes! If you're not sure what to read, choose anything which has won a Nebula Award which should appeal to the
Wouldn't it be nice if there were a television writer's stike and no-one noticed? After this exercise I suspect you'll find that your appetite for television entertainment has decreased. That's a good thing... it indicates you're more alive and using your mind actively rather than being passively entertained. There's life outside of television. Go find it.
Bruce F. Webster (brucefwebster.com)
There isn't anything on the web that can make me forget I'm watching it on a PC monitor - because my computer room isn't nearly as comfortable as my living room.
That's what I'm working toward. I don't want my video options dictated by a single local cable monopoly, and while Apple is heading in the right direction I don't want them limiting my options either.
Give me a single high-bandwidth data pipe to my TV, and source material & providers geared toward the TV-style viewing experience.
Cable/satellite/broadcast had their chance to provide what customers wanted: a variety of good material, without commercials, on demand or in a casual drop-in format. Like so many practical monopolies, they forgot who their customers are. Now that broadband exists, others can provide what customers want. Let's get a move on, people!
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
I have Comcast in the Chicago suburbs. I was tired of paying $55/month for digital basic cable. Got rid of the TV service, but still have cable for internet, but I get most of my content from Netflix's unlimited Watch It Now. Installing a HDHomeRun in some datacenter space I have in the next couple of weeks (which is in downtown Chicago) to let me stream digital/HD over the air signals to my home (which isn't close enough for reception). The web replacing TV indeed.
I'd like to first state I don't have cable TV and I don't have an antenna either (which doesn't do much good in NYC anyways). I still watch TV through both legal (web sites) and illegal (torrents). I generally don't mind the ads, as long as they don't interrupt the show too much (though both ads that come up in the *middle* of a scene are really fucking annoying, as well as watching the *exact* same ad repeatedly .. I'm pretty sure there's a way of advertising without being a complete asshole..).
.. companies are already advertising with some of these companies (e.g. Joost, NBC, ABC, Fox, etc.), though exactly how to manage is still being worked through (again, putting an ad mid-scene does not work). What's holding things up? Most likely things like stupidity, licensing issues (amount of content you can host), and lack of momentum (at least until the strike, people's appetites were sated enough).
I also try the various alternatives out there. I do Netflix, so I can watch low-quality on-demand as well as old series over DVD. I use Joost, though their interface is really really (extremely) horrible, and their content is slightly better than that. For reasons I'm sure make sense to someone else, each 'channel' can only maintain a small number of shows, so you won't be able to watch an entire series of a television show, and only a small percent of that channel is watchable. Which means that while they have the opportunity to create a system where you can actually watch exactly what you want, when you want, trumping TV once and for all, they don't. They completely and miserably fail. Did Also, did I mention how horrible the interface is?
Someone else mentioned Miro. It's a fine idea. Only, I can't find any content I really care to watch, especially as most of it are snippets from full programs, and have a total length of 5 minutes. I know the 5 minute clip is supposed to be the next revolution, but I'm sorry, it really isn't. Sure, I watch the quick YouTube clip every now and then, but it doesn't replace a full-length TV show. Additionally, for actual revenue to occur, an add would have to be added, which would likely double the length of the clip, and make you watch ads for half of your viewing experience.
Do we have the technology for alternatives? Definitely. Is there a method of revenue currently in place for it? Probably
My head almost exploded reading all of the "well I replaced TV eight years ago!!" and "t0rentszzzz!~" from all the no-TV snobs. This is exactly the type of article that brings them out of the woodwork I guess. "MY DAY TO SHINE!"
Of course, none of those iTunes downloads or Torrents would exist if there were no TV.
I don't think the WEB will replace TV. I think there might be something that's more interactive than TV, but less interactive than the Internet. The On-Demand stuff is a step in that direction.
Now, I've watched movies on the computer screen, and I've watched TV shows there too. But it's never as comfortable as lounging on the couch. The remote control is easy to hold, easy to use; you generally don't even have to look at it. There's a few hundred channels to choose from on most cable systems, and personally I can always find something to watch. It might be something I've seen before, but don't mind watching again, or it might be something new. The HD channels are where I spend most of my time. Between Discovery, HD Theater, Science and TLC, and sometimes HGTV, I can usually find something interesting enough to watch.
When I'm in for the night, and I'm settling down, I don't want to deal with crappy web pages and CLICK HERE!!! flashing crap I have to click around. I don't want to deal with server down, server overloaded, or whatever. I just want to watch TV.
I like TV. There's several shows that I think are top notch. I don't mind waiting for the next installment of whatever show. It's okay. Maybe it's part of getting a little older, or maybe it's because the Internet was only becoming a word that people knew when I was a Senior in high school. Perhaps I just have more patience for these things.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
I seriously doubt that the web will replace television viewing. Much in the same respect as why I think that physical media will always be around in one format or another. Most fans are like myself and while we don't have time to watch television, most of what we watch are on DVD ...
I just think that the AMPTP are making a huge gamble on the fact that if they don't settle and the writer's are forced into accepting a bare bones contract that television programmning is over. It will never be over because then those who only have the ability to watch programmed television will be out of the loop and this is because of low income families who can barely afford cable television.
Most television shows that I watch are on DVD. I can't stand the week to week programming and broadcasting of television shows. I'd rather just have the studios to release television shows on DVD, bypass television altogether and go straight to DVD. Instead, the studios are fighting the strike because of DVD royalties and Internet-related profits that are being made by the studios. It's been announced by the studios that over the next three years, if the strike were settled with no new media or DVD concessions, that the studios stand to rake in over 3.5 billion in profits.
The studios are in a fight for their lives in preventing the writer's or anyone else from dipping into those profits and the longer they can hold the writers at bay, the more profits they stand to earn. However, I suspect that the shareholders mof those companies may be a bit more vocal as the strike dredges on longer.
The real problem with the "web" replacing TV is that few people want to sit in front of their comptuer to watch TV/movies. While the "internet" may kill cable (unllikely as cable companies probably already control your internet), the "web" most certainly won't kill "TV". Whatever transmission medium is, it has to have a set top box or some other dedicated entertainment center hardware to view on a large screen in front of your couch. Nothing less than that will replace traditional cable TV.
I doubt the cable companies will give up so easily. Before we see wide-spread internet video (not just YouTube, but full shows and movies), we'll see cable companies offer more and more On-Demand programming. If I could get any show or movie on demand with the ability to skip commercials over cable and only pay for what I view (and not have to pay for 100 channels I never even browse), there'd be no reason to bother with video in a browser for anything more than YouTube.
-matthew
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
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.
For the last 20 months, My roommate and I have not even taken the time to buy a set of bunny ears for the TV to pull local channels. The only purpose the TV in our front room serves is to watch DVDs or not-at-all-pirated-100%-legal-backup-copies of stuff on the media PC hooked to it. And to be a paperweight.
The only weird part is that since I am not used to it anymore, if I am in a room with a TV on at someone else's house I get distracted by commercials and appear comatose for 30 seconds.
But clearly you have something better to say...
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...
You're lucky that you were just paying $55. I got tired of paying $71/month for their digital cable service + another $7 for their anemic hdtv offering. Their expanded basic cable here is $55. On top of it I dropped their internet service and started using my apartment ethernet again (slow but free). I ditched the cable for rabbit ears, supplemented it with the 3/month netflix for $18 and haven't looked back.
The funny thing is I keep getting flyers from them offering me digital cable for $20/6 months. I wonder how much resistance I would get from them if I signed up and immediately scheduled my disconnect for 6 months later.
I watch Internet TV shows. YouTube, NBC/ABC Video, wwitv.com, etc. But I'm your average /. geek. I can't see anyone I know doing this over watching normal TV. Do I have the right Codec? The proper media player such as Flip4Mac? Ok, configure my bandwidth settings. Oh, yes, my Antivirus IMON makes it stutter, so disable that. WIFI's getting trampled on my neighbor, change AP channel. Now my videocard is overheating and generating artifacts...
Not until it's as easy as pushing "1" "2" on a remote and the channel working do I see this as replacing TV. The key word was replacing.
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.
My son watches YouTube, Japanese anime, reads manga, and uses the web for something like 80 percent of the time, instead of TV.
He's fairly similar to most teens nowadays.
The change already happened.
And the nutso TV/movie insistence on not paying writers is just making people stop watching TV.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
The web is a delivery mechanism, and the TV is a display mechanism... One can not replace the other... What will [and is] happening is that the CONTENT CREATORS have been pushed down to a level playing field with anyone with a video camera and a cable modem... Ultimately the TV is just a big PC screen, so when you add a Tivo, a Microsoft Media Center PC, a MythTV box, or whatever, you've got a nice network aware media player that will give you the CONTENT that you want on the display device that you want.
It's going to force the major networks of the world to put out some decent content, or they'll go the way of the AM radio....
-Steve Tired of voting for the "lesser of two evils?" Come talk about it on www.bothsidesarewrong.com
Yes, I do miss Discovery HD and ESPN HD on occasion. But I'm done paying the exorbitant costs of digital cable just to get a couple channels I liked. If I could sign up for just those two for a nominal fee, I would (a la carte). But until then they're not getting my business.
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.
To suggest that online shows wouldn't exist without TV is short-sighted.
Do you think that the music industry should have died when gramophones started becoming popular, offering a viable alternative to radio? How about LP's? Cassettes? Did MTV kill the industry? CD's? Maybe DVDs? No.
Cinema reinvented itself by focussing on what it does well - big screen, big sound and someone else to clean up the popcorn.
It's simple - the medium moves on and media producers take advantage of the new features.
The drive for the in-progress media upgrade is that Internet is replacing TV by offering more choice from small providers, more interactivity for "viewers" and more effective advertising through *targetting* with *global* reach. This pull/push will cause more well-resourced shows to be released on the internet.
Also, TVs/monitors are now big enough and integrated media center/console/computers smart enough that you can use them in the living room, so you can read books, play games and experience local and broadcast media and content from your sofa. It's the (current) best of all worlds. Enjoy it!