Slashdot Mirror
Why TV Lost
theodp writes "Over the past 20 years, there's been much speculation about what the convergence of computers and TV would ultimately look like. Paul Graham says that we now know the answer: computers. 'Convergence' is turning out to essentially be 'replacement.' Why did TV lose? Graham identifies four forces: 1. The Internet's open platform fosters innovation at hacker speeds instead of big company speeds. 2. Moore's Law worked its magic on Internet bandwidth. 3. Piracy taught a new generation of users it's more convenient to watch shows on a computer screen. 4. Social applications made everybody from grandmas to 14-year-old girls want computers — in a three-word-nutshell, Facebook killed TV."
Rumors about my death have been greatly exaggerated. tv
Both computers and TV are still "alive".
TV's are becoming more computer-like though. With digital guides, PVR's and whatnot. Eventually it'll all be a hybrid. Do computer stuff on your TV, do TV stuff on your computer.
In Wired in 1998, I ranted as follows:
(Microsoft VP) Craig Mundie's statement that "we view the Internet as one of the 'features' of digital TV services" demonstrates the same lack of vision that caused Microsoft to miss the start of the Internet phenomenon. As communications technologies converge, TV will be one of the services of the Internet, not the other way around.
Not to say ITYS but ITYS.
Couldn't part of the reason for this win be that people over the age of two don't actually like being spoonfed their entertainment, their desires (mu-u-u-st SHOP!), and their political opinions?
On the Internet, I can not only drive, but plan out the whole route, if I want. Heck, I can build my own railway for other people to ride. Much more engaging than TV.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
But it does not mitigate the fact that Paul Graham is a tedious windbag.
Somebody had to say it.
The article fails to mention video on demand (other than in the notes). 30 years from now, people will think how stupid it was that you had to wait for your favorite TV show to come on at a specific time, rather than watching it whenever you wanted.
Cable TV is becoming more computer-like. They give you a "cable box" (which is really a locked-down PC) and you can select from a small offering of shows and movies which will start streaming when you want to start watching them.
Yes, I download. But I pay £140 a year in TV licence fees that goes to the BBC, and about £125 in cable TV fees. The material I download is either produced by the BBC, or material that's showing on the stations that I'm paying for anyway.
Now yes, from a strict legal point of view, I've no doubt that still counts of piracy. But I'm not doing it because it's cheaper - I'm still paying £265 a year to the TV industry, and if I wanted to be unethical, I could stop paying, and just download. I do it because even though I'm happy to pay for it, it's much more convenient to watch TV when I want, and not when the TV company decides to put it on.
Not that I'm disagreeing with the article really - the fact that the TV companies were so inept to adapt to new technology shows why they are losing. They should just be glad that some of us are still willing to pay for them anyway.
Even 10 years ago, it was pretty evident that it was only a matter of time before TV became obsolete. Once you could inexpensively publish online, and once a PC could do full motion video, it was only a matter of time.
TV will hang on for a while yet, as will newspapers, and as will the odd brick and mortar game or music store, but the end is nigh for all of these things.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
While there is obviously plenty of overlap, there will always be those of us who prefer the control we get with computers, and others who want an idiot-proof story telling box. It's two separate but overlapping markets.
Caveat Utilitor
I stopped watching TV about 6 years ago. My biggest reason?
Even the paid channels that were supposedly "ad free" started having ads. I wouldn't mind paying a premium for a channel that had absolutely no ads whatsoever, and had uninterrupted programming. I can never relate to the whole, "ooh-shiny" mode of programming that's prevalent today. If anything, I wouldn't be surprised if this were causing an increase in ADDs.
With a computer, I can pretty much download and watch what I want at my convenience, without ads.
Today, I do own a TV (which I bought a a few months ago at the behest of the girlfriend) - but no cable. We use it to watch DVDs and play videogames, and that's about it.
So, yes. Give me programs that are longer and uninterrupted (and good quality) and I will watch them. I am willing to spend 4 hours watching an uninterrupted show with a good story arc, rather than something that is half hour long, with interruptions ever 4 minutes in this age of instant gratification. And having to watch it again the next week at the exact time, which would be programming my life around the show and not the other way around.
Cesar Millan
This is like saying that verbal storytelling lost to books, or that books lost to radio, or radio lost to movies.
The internet, by virtue of interactivity, is far better for certain kinds of entertainment, sure, it has a competitive advantage. But sometimes you just want to sit down and receive and not interact, and that functionality will always be there, even if it's now the computer that will produce it in the future.
And there will always be demand for that sort of one way entertainment.
"I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist"
comercials? what are those? oooh right those things that my mythTV box automatically skips over
TV what's that? a large low resolution for it's size monitor(1280x720 for mine)
Shaping my schedule to the TV shows? nooop... 1TB of storage + record when they show + watch when i want
If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
Social applications made everybody from grandmas to 14-year-old girls want computers â" in a three-word-nutshell, Facebook killed TV.
I'll take any odds that the saturation of the PC market graphed against the rise of Facebook (in, what, 2004?) shows absolutely no support for this absurd statement. I strongly suspect that PC sales more or less level off before Facebook even gains any real traction; to support this statement (that Facebook "made everybody... want computers"), you'd need to show exactly the opposite. Seriously, this is just a silly claim.
Wow, reasons 3 & 4 really miss the mark.
3. Piracy taught a new generation of users it's more convenient to watch shows on a computer screen.
How is it more convenient to watch video on a computer screen, than in a living room designed specifically around a television set with a large screen? This is why I own a DivX DVD player with a USB port, and why things like MythTV and Media PCs exist - so people can watch video in the optimum environment, which is not a computer or laptop sitting on a desk.
4. Social applications made everybody from grandmas to 14-year-old girls want computers â" in a three-word-nutshell, Facebook killed TV.
I don't know of a single person that bought a computer or got internet connectivity because of Facebook - or any single site for that matter. Claiming that the internet is popular because of Facebook is patently absurd. Not even Google can make such a claim.
Better known as 318230.
Not TV, media companies lost. The future came and they weren't prepared.
I'd be willing to bet that in ten years we won't have phones or TV sets, just digital boxes with broadband internet. Small boxes to carry in your pocket, big boxes at home.
Game consoles, computers, phones, they will all merge. Perhaps we will have some boxes more specialized than others, but inside they will all be the same. A computer with a display and some form of input device, communicating over a wireless link to the internet.
I also realize that it will probably become easier to integrate our computers with our entertainment centers, nothing, at least at this point, makes me want to sit in front of the TV on my leather couch to surf/write emails/program/etc.
I really don't care how nicely the 2 will end up playing together. In the end, it's two seperate things that I use. Sometimes I want to sit upright in an office chair and get some work done, some playing done, or just some random stuff done. Other times I want to throw a blanket on my lap with a drink and veg to a movie.
I just don't see them mixing perfectly. I can't see them replacing either one. We will just simply have the need for both.
"Piracy" really does deliver the best convenience money can't buy.
Here is a list of crap that I won't put up with:
Unskippable DVD menus.
Region locks.
Content that expires before I'm ready to let it go.
Waiting a week longer than American audiences (BBC iplayer)
Commercials.
Ghetto satellite dish on my house.
Somebody else's schedule.
Inability to pause.
Driving to rent/buy physical media.
The redundant TV screen itself.
Yep, TV lost.
1.) Hacker speeds? So did their speed at ripping shows and placing them on the internet make it better(?), leading to your point three. Yeah yeah, we have Hulu, Boxee and the likes now but it's still not quite there.
2.) Moores law is a joke for the U.S. network speeds. Look at Japan.
3.) Piracy (while i don't care if people rip shows and place them on the net.) led to poorly named file names of the shows, leaving one to wonder if what your downloading is the same thing you'll be watching in the next 30 minutes. Is it the HighDef version the Standard Def version or some crappy copy? Who nows.
4.) Since when did Facebook have anything to do with TV? As far as I know it's just a place for people to communicate with their BFF every ten minutes. (Disclaimer, I don't use social networks.)
IMO, the networks are doing a better job at getting the content online for the shows they choose to put online. I can easily watch a show in HighDef when I want. Sure, some of the networks still don't get it when it comes to linux and you still get a few commercials. But hell, it's far less commercials versus the local broadcast and most ad blockers can get rid of the ones they do insert anyway.
Perhaps TV has lost for the same reason blogs have lost. Nobody wants to read/watch inane crap that somebody just pulled out of his ass in order to attract advertising attention.
What, people actually read this tripe? Nevermind; I recant. TV has a bright future.
The day "computers" are good for an evening of video entertainment with a significant other, the word will be spelled "television".
My wife wanted a TV antenna point in the bedroom. Once she found youtube she stopped asking.
Back when I was very young some people I knew had a TV room (a home theatre, how about that!). The TV room had specials rules about not talking and keeping the lights out. With a laptop you can watch your stuff in the bathroom or the garage.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
I suspect digital broadcast TV is going to swing the pendulum back a bit.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
I don't know exactly when it happened, but over the last few years "TV" stopped working for us and we started working for "TV". Do you notice how your favourite programs (if you still watch TV) randomly move around? They are constantly jumping timeslots, days, and taking random holidays. What's that about? Now I have to actively hunt down my favourite shows each time I want to watch them... and having to continually rearrange my evenings certainly doesn't endear the format in my eyes.
This lack of respect for the viewer seems minor when compared to the larger issue of the big companies/stations randomly interfering with and even canceling shows for no _good_ reason. Firefly comes to mind. So does Family Guy. And Global Frequency - a FULLY complete pilot for a new Sci-Fi show that never even aired! (You can find copies of it online, and I found it well worth the download.)
Basically I see it coming down to this: there's an odd mentality in TV-Land (whatever that even is) that the viewers' opinions -- the reason TV exists in the first place -- are no longer important compared to what the big stations and companies want. Anyway, that's why I think TV is in the process of losing. It's no longer there for us -- we're here for it. And WTF is that?
worst post ever. like i enjoy watching shows on my 17" lcd over my 70" hdtv. they serve a totally difference post and there's a ton of gadgets to link the 2 anyway.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
I'll bet that when the final history of TV is written, people will point to the time of the switchover from analog to digital TV as a watershed moment. In one fell swoop it'll kick off a whole bunch of mostly-older folks who don't have the interest/capacity in getting the digital converter setup. (A year or two ago I assumed that would be me, until my TV died early and my girlfriend & I discovered we preferred watching shows on the computer anyway as a stopgap.)
Not that it's causative. There are in fact all these other forces pressing on TV, encouraging a switchover to internet viewing. But it will be seen as significant that all this stuff just happened to occur around the same time as the DTV switchover. Someday some analyst will be kicking DTV as the idea that caused the death of TV.
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
Now yes, from a strict legal point of view, I've no doubt that still counts of piracy.
IANAL, but I believe that unless it happens on the high seas and involves forcefully robbing or commandeering a vessel, from a strict legal point of view it is not piracy.
weirdest thing I ever saw: scientology advertising on slashdot.
In this case better means cheaper, more flexible and easier to distribute. Once content became digital, as opposed to only existing on videotape, and computers got connected - which is what made digital better than broadcast, the rest was inevitable.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
Not needing a separate room to use your computer: Priceless (and helps heat bills if you have zoned heat).
Not needing to purchase, maintain, pay electricity for, and replace a separate dedicated player: Priceless.
Double clicking a file you just (legally) downloaded and watching it in 1080p even though you don't have HDCP: Priceless.
[note: when I say Priceless, I'm joking. I know there's a measurable price to all of these things. Buy a Kill-A-Watt unit and measure for yourself.]
Slashdot at 52 inches diagonal: Priceless.
COmputer Desktop able to display 400 randomly generated photos from your collection changing every 2 minutes: Priceless.
Observe. This is how it's done: http://www.flickr.com/photos/clintjcl/3253972437/.
Additional cost past tv and computer most of us already own: $15.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
I believe the the point when the convergence began is when TV monitors and PC monitors were increasingly designed to be compatible with both types of video signals. Last year I merged my entertainment center with my PC using a 52" HDTV monitor/receiver. I have found that I now spend even more time online for my video entertainment and little to none watching non interactive television. As predicted not too long ago, the PC and TV have become one.
Ronald Reagan drove the nail in the coffin lid of television. He passed legislation that allowed far more ads to be run every hour of the day. That killed conventional TV. Cable was also shot in the rump as without over the air competition the cable companies purchased far too little entertainment.
Worse yet regulations were relaxed or at least no enforced which allowed shockingly loud ads which got to the point that some channels were impossible to watch.
"Television? The word is half Greek and half Latin. No good will come of this device." - Charles Prestwich Scott, 1936.
Should this not be titled: Why TV is "Losing"?
Isuggest the author of the story leave the house at least once per month.
There is a world out there.
This guy has been posting inane or trolling comments for a couple of hours that immediately get modded up, pushing him to +3 (links below). I am fairly certain that this is sock-puppetry and would like to kindly request that some of you take corrective action.
Thank you.
Other examples:
http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1152795&cid=27106721
http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1152795&cid=27106911
TV is certainly on the ropes but I reckon its way too soon to call it.
All TV shows are broadcast first. The bulk of the money is made through traditional broadcast advertising. Most people who aren't Slashdot users will watch shows when broadcast.
And internet TV shows need to make money. At the moment you can get a few on a reasonable budget because of the novelty. You can either sell the DVDs or have a single sponsor who knows that it's worth being linked directly to something with enough mindshare.
The reason that TV lost is because people choose to be actively involved in how they spend their entertainment and downtime, rather than being spoon-fed what someone else wants you to watch. Piracy is popular because while people like the shows they want to watch them how and when they want them (sans interruptions like ads). Gaming is popular because you're the hero rather than watching some overpaid action doll doing all the fun stuff. TV is passive. The internet is active. Come get some!
Blog
Computers have not won...yet. And their eventual triumph is doubtful. "Convergence" hasn't really happened yet, although it is unfolding; its future configuration will be shaped by how long and how widespread the economic downturn becomes. Much of the computer hardware we are used to is finding its way into TVs; HDTV needs processing power and graphics rendering of high orders. OTOH, computer CPU power is not increasing at is old-time rate.
But more important is that the article ignores the insights of Marshall McLuhan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_medium_is_the_message . TV was a 'cool' medium, meaning we had to put its picture together in our heads. To prove that point, look at any paper Newsweek or Time cover picture of an event on a TV screen. Why does their picture look so much poorer than our TV at home? The answer is from McLuhan through psychology: the electrons (of a CRT) go through the glass and into our bodies.
His theories predicted the popularity of the Simpsons, North Beach, adult swim and countless other animated shows and series. It predicted tribalism, and TV, being real-time, is tribal by its very scheduled nature: you can watch TV with your friends at precisely the same time even if you are not together.
Computers are a very different medium. They have the potential to be very, very hot: good audio, great video; but they are not. A truly hot medium is immediate. It does not have to boot for a minute or two. It does not wait fifteen seconds for a show to load. Hot is IN YOUR FACE rightnowmutherflicker! Computers have not yet achieved that level of hotness. But random-access helps. That we can watch whenever we like a youtube video we missed and everyone else saw is much hotter than having missed a network TV show that can't be seen again until the series goes into reruns.
No, I doubt TV has lost. It has gone HD and over cable. The cable providers will be using computer-like interfaces and our home computers will gain HDTV tuners. The media they create/disseminate will be the true convergence.
... Reality TV.
"Software evolves faster and cheaper than hardware."
On a sort of related note, I'm confused as to why TVs haven't completely merged with computer monitors. They're similar enough now that they should be one and the same - they do pretty much the same thing - that's for sure.
Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
...about TV dying a sad death. Because TV is alive and well at my house. Mythtv has been a godsend with regards to being able to focus on content rather than (as pointed out by another observant poster) being continually interrupted by sales pitches.
Not that there is much content on TV worth watching. That's OK; my Netflix account keeps me loaded up with just about any movie I choose to watch (I prefer foreign movies). Why would I even think about watching a movie on a screen that's 17" from corner to corner?
Maybe I'm just an outlier. But for some reasons, I couldn't help but think of Chicken Little when I RTFA.
i recently bought a 20 inch LCD HDTV that has a VGA & HDMI ports in the back, it basically turned the PC in to just another channel on television. i really dont want much TV and spend more of my free time on the PC, i do watch a few shows with it and it makes going to the computer to the television show more convenient for me...
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
I would ditch my Satellite TV service before I would ditch my 'net connection.
With things like Hulu popping up (and how little I watch the "idiot box"), I may cancel my TV service within the next month or two.
If I can find a clearer guide to making a DIY HTPC in the next week or so, it may happen even sooner.
Oh my! How clever and powerful, three words that explain the death of TV! BRILLIANT! /sarcasm Well I have three words in return: "You are wrong."
I'll agree with this when I can only get my favorite shows through Facebook, and when if I want to sit down and casually surf the channels I have to do more than press a single button.
Nothing compares to being able to flop onto the couch, press the "On" button on a television remote, and immediately have my regularly scheduled prime time show on the screen.
Show me any computer setup that can have my show on the screen in the time it takes for me to get home tired from work, toss my shoes off, plop on the couch and just press "on" one time to be where I want to be.
Some of you resourceful nerds out there probably have such a setup, but I will offer two things preemptively to respond to that:
1) You are not nearly the norm, most people don't want the hassle of setting something like that up, and,
2) Even if they did, what does this have to do with Facebook again?
Please excuse my french, but seriously, the statement "Facebook killed TV" is just fucking stupid.
I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
Facebook? Come on now..
You can't take the sky from me.
TV will hang on for a while yet, as will newspapers, and as will the odd brick and mortar game or music store, but the end is nigh for all of these things.
The problem here is that we are the technical elete, and many of us have blinders on that prevent us from seeing the significant number of people who do not have these types of computer based solutions, nor want them. As long as they exist and keep sending money to Jesus and buying things as seen on TV, TV the way we know it now will continue to exist. Too much money in it.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
The second point on Moore's Law and bandwidth does not seem to apply to rural communities. Options are still very limited, the available bandwidth is slow, and none of the heralded 3G networks will ever cover our communities.
I don't ever see this situation changing since the profits available in rural areas are slim compared to those in urban centers.
The convergence on computers is more than just broadcast TV, it's telephony with full video, music, sharing, social nets, etc.
An interesting statistic emerged recently with the switchover to HDTV (Or ATSC). It turns out that in my region, only about one quarter of folks get the stations over the air.
This gives me an idea though, something that would compete with the cable companies. Hmmm. I should develop the business plan and see if I can get a few investors.
Because Paul Graham assumed a result and did research that backs up his assumption. TV is still winning by a factor of thousands. Even when I watch TV on anything other than a TV, it's been pulled off my Tivo. Even for the most tech savvy people, cable/sat/OTA is still the most convenient TV delivery method.
if your friends would rather watch TV when they visit you than talk to you. Especially if they are eating your food.
Content. Or rather lack of. TV has become mostly a waste of time and more commercial then valuable content.
TV committed suicide.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I actually RTFA (I know, I just don't fit in here...) but it's nonsense. It may be accurate in some tiny subculture, but it's so far off the beam for the general public, I really don't even know how to address it. I am reasonably up-to-speed, tech-wise, and my buddies and I all live right here in good old Santa Clara county, Silicon valley defined. But I don't know many people that actually have abandoned TV for a fucking computer. There are far more posers "stating" that they don't watch TV any more, as if that makes them somehow superior, but that is a tiny minority of the tiny minority (and most are just lying about it).
For the general American public, virtually *no one* has replaced their TV with a computer. The Facebook argument is nonsensical because the majority of people don't even know what the hell it is aside from buzzword/fad at 14 minutes, 55 seconds, and counting. The article sounds as if it was written from the perspective of a bunch of geeks huddling in their mom's basement arguing over who is watching TV the least between downloading Natalie Portman pictures. It may be true in that crowd, it may be highly represented on slashdot clientele, but it's so far off for normal people (you know, those who admit they watch TV, and are making Simon Cowell a billionaire) it's frightening.
Brett
There's one other important thing (at least in the US): lack of wireless access.
Back in the 70's and 80's luggable battery operated TV sets were somewhat popular. You could use them in on the porch, on the boat, at the game, even in the car. For a while Casio was making them smaller and cooler, eventually AA battery operated with LCD screens. But then, something happened, which as usual with our country, involved short-sighted greed. More and more people started getting cable TV, the exact kind of heavy watchers who would be more likely to buy a portable TV device. BUT, and this is where greed came into play, there was no way to access your cable channels with the portable TVs, and as cable and satellite became more and more powerful, the little TV sets became less and less useful. Instead of being used on trains, buses, and everywhere radios and mp3 players were used, they were stuck in their same little niches, the boat, the ballgame, etc. And eventually, professional sports made lucrative deals with pay cable and that further diminished portable TV's usefulness. And now, of course, the few remaining portable sets will be rendered useless by the digital switchover. (Meanwhile in Asia, digital broadcasts capable of portable reception are ubiquitous).
So, instead, people who wanted to watch TV wirelessly had to pay for the overpriced sports packs on their tiny cellphone screens. But since cellphones are just another little kind of computer, TV found itself flanked on that side as well. Basically, vanilla broadcast TV and cable are just running out of environments where they are more convenient than IP.
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
Because it is the best programme at the moment!
I heard you on the wireless back in Fifty Two
Lying awake intent at tuning in on you.
If I was young it didn't stop you coming through.
They took the credit for your second symphony.
Rewritten by machine and new technology,
and now I understand the problems you can see.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
How about paying for a basic programming package, then paying a premium for specific channels, then still having about a third of the airtime devoted to repetetive mindless commercials that are CRANKED SUPER LOUD SO YOU HEAR THEM IN THE NEXT ROOM, THEY WAKE YOU UP, OR YOU CAN'T TALK OVER THEM?
Forget that, I'll just download a show over bittorrent in sometimes better than realtime speeds.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Even 10 years ago, it was pretty evident that it was only a matter of time before TV became obsolete. Once you could inexpensively publish online, and once a PC could do full motion video, it was only a matter of time.
I can count four steps to get PCs to replace TV networks:
I more or less agree with the summary up until it claimed Facebook killed TV. Of all the reasons I don't watch TV, face book isn't on that list and I suspect that's the case for most.
I would agree with the idea that piracy did a lot more to kill TV but it's also people's lack of care about quality. I think both digital audio and video has been a bit of a step backwards in quality (for the most part) and that's a shame.
I'm sure companies like that because they can offer the same music in a better bit-rate later and people will buy the music again and not realise the quality may still be inferior to the CD they could have bought instead and they could have created their own DRM free mp3s. The same goes for video.
If by delivery method, I think you might be right. Cable is probably on the way out and perhaps satellite to the consumer is as well. Not sure that holds true for digital broadcast.
However if by "TV" you mean the display device I have in the living room, then I think you are way off course. I do not want to watch something longer than 10 minutes on a computer. In the living room I have a nice comfy couch to sit on. I can share it with friends. You can have a date over to watch a movie (oh, wait I'm commenting on Slashdot, some members of the audiance might not understand that reference).
In the living room I enjoy watching movies from Netflix, Simpsons from Fox, and video podcasts from the internet. For example: http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/features/hd/hdfeed.xml
Think Deeply.
TV for anyone = the shows they watch.
Most of the time, therefore, TV is not actually "on" for most people.
You can tape or DVD, but you have to
1) Operate a clumsy machine that does nothing else
2) Buy tapes/DVDs, not too cheap
3) Know in advance exactly what you want to see
4) Go to effort to record #3
With computernet, TV is always on, and these problems all go away:
1) You're using the computermachine often anyway
2) No extra stuff to buy, computerTV is included
3) You don't have to think ahead, watch anytime!
4) Thus, no extra effort; you're online anyway, just pop in a new URL/search term and away you go!
Computernet won because it's TV+, not because TV itself is a bad idea. Computernet just gives it to us faster, cheaper, and easier. It's like a microwave compared to a propane grill. No comparison in convenience, speed, or unobtrusiveness.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
My TV is locked into using one decompression algorithm over broadcast.
My YouTube uses TCP. If the "signal breaks up", TCP asks for a retransmit. No burpy, jerky, break-ups, just a slight pause. It may not even pause if enough data buffered.
If a better codec comes along, Flash can be upgraded. The TV has a chip that decodes a signal in a format that was determine... how many years ago?
YouTube and TCP, that's what might kill TV. The only thing TV still has going for it is that I don't have to make any effort to get a remote or to kill ads. There is always an annoying frame on YouTube. These are problems that could be hacked around with an Open Source/Free platform though, so it doesn't look so hot for TV in the long run.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
DVI-to-HDMI cable from computer to TV: $15
TV set that has an HDMI input: $500. Or a VGA-to-composite adapter so that my aunt can use the CRT SDTV set that she already owns: $50 at sewelldirect.com.
Not needing a separate room to use your computer: Priceless (and helps heat bills if you have zoned heat).
But sometimes you want a separate room so that the kids can make noise around the TV while you get work done on the PC. Not everybody has the money for a second PC to put in the TV room.
Double clicking a file you just (legally) downloaded and watching it in 1080p even though you don't have HDCP: Priceless.
Someone still on SDTV might ask: "What's 1080-Pee? Some snowboard game?"
surf the channel and youtube killed tv. why the facebook plug?
I'm watching tv right now. I hope it's ok... I just read it's dying.
Firstly, most HDTVs these days can accept a computer input.
Not everybody owns an "HDTV these days". Please read my other reply.
Reality TV!
Seriously.. used to be that TV and commercial studios had their place producing content that your average high school kid with a video camera couldn't do.
Now with reality TV being much easier to produce, cheaper, _AND_ appealing to the type of people who buy into advertising.. the quality of your average TV program isn't much higher than youtube.
If I could shift my monthly cable bill to an internet service that let me watch ALL the shows I enjoy whenever I wanted, I would.
Unfortunately, there is no one-stop-shop for every show my wife and I watch now, so I'm stuck with cable.
Who the f*ck needs it and its ripoff artist founder.
Time for "Internet killed the video star".
Trying to install linux on my microwave, but keep getting a kernel panic...
Although I have doubted myself at times, I must say that I am glad I never started a Facebook account. Nor did I register on Myspace when that was hip. I made all my Internet mistakes when I was much younger.
as we get deeper into this recession,(bailing out the bankers again,and no one else)we are starting to see the decline of broadband.
cant afford the new car,house payment,college ed.,etc.etc,...
food?,utilities?,why no!but i'll be damned if i cancel my internet.
ya sure.
bye net.
dtv is poised to rock.
good stuff free again.
you are all to full of yourselves regards,
mike
Radio killed Theater ; TV killed radio ; Facebook killed TV. WE NEED A HERO TO KILL F*CKBUK
TV schedules like video and audio tape require watching in a linear fashion, with only a slow FF and RWD function to alter it. CDs, DVDs are slightly better, but computers can jump to any point immediately and give us our multimedia fix at the click of a mouse.
Video on Demand beats the hell out of video only when the network schedules it. I don't even pay for cable anymore... why should I when everything I want to watch is available for free over the 'net at my convenience, with fewer commercials?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
I admire the internet for its democratic approach which allows for free expression and creation of content, sharing of ideas among all people. It is the first true realisation of free speech. I do think there will still be a place for movies and shows and so on, but this will be more driven by writers of these and directors rather than large corporations marketing departments. And I say, good riddance to those who have given us britney spears and endless remakes of old movies rather than something new, and waht is new is unimaginative. I do see DVD and
physic
al
media remaini
ng a ma
jo
r method of cont
ent di
stribution simply
du
e to the
fa
ct that movies
still t
ake 4-40 GB. I
nt
ernet connections are
not re
ally up to that yet. A
nd as
w
ell, eve
n w
hen i dow
nloa
d the
m, ju
st a few
movies fill up a
$100 HD so i still need to burn them onto DVD anyway, and a
DVD which will not last as long as a commercially pressed one. So this idea
tha
t DVDs
a
r
e not a good distribution method still are a little misguided.
They're making a terrible product. People _want_ to skip the advertisements. Unfortunately, the ads are made by the customers, not the TV companies, so there's nothing they can do about that.
People don't want ads but ads pay for TV. Without advertising money there is no TV. You can say pretty much the same about P2P downloads. People don't want to pay for software/movies/music but if nobody pays software/movies/music there won't be any money to make more. Contrary to popular opinion you can't have your cake and eat it too.
The screen size issue can be solved when people realize that giant screens (as long as they are high def)
And that's a big "as long as". In this economy, a lot of people don't want to go into $600 of debt buying a 32"[1] HDTV to replace a 27" CRT SDTV that's paid for and still works. And unlike for ATSC converters, there's no federal coupon program for the $40 converter needed to run a PC through an SDTV.
are great for computer usage as well as watching TV :)
I've tried word-processing and coding with a 32" Vizio TV as a monitor. It was disconcerting at first how I could see the pixels; I had to turn the font size way down to compensate. My neck got tired of moving my head to see the whole screen. I had to use pillar-boxed 1024x768 because 1280x720 was blurry and 1360x768 (the panel's native resolution) was unavailable, as you mentioned. And a single TV usually[2] can't display TV and computer signals at the same time, except possibly through a picture-in-picture feature that blurs text to oblivion.
[1] By the Pythagorean theorem, you need 22% more diagonal inches to get the same picture height on a 16:9 monitor that replaces a 4:3 monitor.
TV has warm glowing warming glow. Until computers can do that, TV has nothing to worry bout.
So use the s-video connector on your laptop to connect to your standard-def tv set.
We have two laptop PCs in the family (an ASUS and an Acer); neither one has an S-Video connector. What's the next option?
Home theater enthusiasts on the edge of technology already know that through the use of a big screen LCD TV you can hook a DIY Media PC relatively cheap up to it and use it to play all your favorite programing through it.
There's no need for specs, but a basic "I want my PC to play streaming video/download video/hook up cable" does not take much computing power.
With a wireless mouse and keyboard, IR remotes, the ability to hook up cable to PCs, and the ability to download or stream your favorite shows, you will see cable boxes replaced by media PCs in the living room.
(I think I've heard good things about using the 1080p screens for this kind of thing).
A 1080p-class display with the 96 DPI typical of PC displays would only be (sqrt(1920^2+1080^2)/96) = 23" diagonal. The dimensions of the Apple 24" Cinema Display and the 24" iMac bear this out.
Move the display further back (this way more, people can see it too)
This would need new furniture. Existing computer desks aren't deep enough to hold a 32" or bigger monitor at a comfortable reading distance, and existing coffee tables aren't built to hold a keyboard or other similar text entry device in a comfortable position.
Really? Only if you're talking about bug counts - the faster and cheaper, the quicker those bugs evolve!
It honestly seems that some stations try to commit suicide in Australia, Channel 7 in particular. So far, they have licensed Scrubs, 30 Rock, Arrested Development, Firefly, Boston Legal, Futurama, Family Guy and probably some others. All of these have either been removed or are randomly thrown on at around midnight on varying nights of the week. I never would have discovered Arrested Development if I hadn't fortunately stayed up late enough to watch Scrubs one night. It premiered right after it at some crazy hour. Meanwhile, what was Channel 7 putting on primetime? Hope & Faith. Yes, you heard me.
TV are easily startled, but they will soon be back, and in greater numbers
> Moore's Law worked its magic on Internet bandwidth.
This is imprecise. Bandwidth is a finite resource, and Moore's law doesn't apply. Dialup modems ain't gettin' any faster in the next 18 months.
The capacity (or largest achievable data rate) over a given chunk of bandwidth has an upper limit, as shown by Shannon. Moore's law enables more advanced communications technologies that get epsilon closer to the true capacity, but rates aren't doubling every 18 months (unless bandwidth is added, for example by adding wires, as was done in going from Cat5 to Cat6 ethernet cables, i.e. from 100baseT to 1000baseT).
Advertising may be integrated into a show - but they do not go away unless its producers can find other ways to pay their bills.
Product placement - a geek favorite - is particularly corrupting:
The girl next door inhales more smoke than Pittsburgh in the Forties because the sponsor is a tobacco company.
Please, do not give facebook that much credit.
Facebook simply targeted the first real 'child' generation of computer users in their late teens early 20's with an social network medium to keep track of all their friends once they left high school and entered college. There is a reason it started out with college only students- they are the ones that had computer's as children, the money to already have been exposed and a desire to keep track of their friends once they moved away.
Absolute genius, and a little bit of luck, yes. But, the downfall of television, absolutely not.
Now, we haven't made computer's our TV's. WebTV failed- and I think one of the biggest reasons (aside from massive compatiblity issues with the web) is that our computer's are personal. We look at our e-mail, we write in journals, do work stuff, watch porn, etc. Its not nessisarily the stuff we want everyone to see.
Families don't get together to watch dad check his e-mail, but they do get together to watch a movie. TV has been less and less useful, with the internet able to provide video's, and removal of ads.
However, TV is still alive and kicking. The whole distribution system- ad driven phenomena has just moved over in different ways. Internet adds are prevalent in the same way TV adds are. But add blocker, firefox and general ignoring has made it a mindless sort of 'avoid the add' task. I use to do things during commercial breaks, but now I find myself trying to click away advertisements. Also, TV companies are catching on to the internet thing- they are offering shows online for free or subscription, and have their own ways to advertise. CNN does the stupid ad before the clip shows, and there are others out there to.
The TV industry hasn't figured out exactly how to move arched serial television to mesh and co-exist with computers successfully and profitably. But, they will find a way. I hardly think that the 30 minute reoccurring motion picture is going to die any time soon. Even if I don't own a tv.
Get in the cart. *whack!*
I'm 33. Most of the video I watch, either broadcast or DVD, is on a TV. The same is true for most of my friends. So...if TV's dead, I'm certainly not seeing it.
Lovely. Ala carte eventually came about.
Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
in a three-word-nutshell, Facebook killed TV
tho i dont know how you managed to pull it out of your ass, after explaining so many more important factors.
Read radical news here
I quit going to Hollywood blockbusters when they became vapid moron-mind food about big fish and apes in the 70s. And because our metro was particularly rich in access to foreign film.
I quit TV in the 80s because I was fed up with the same inherent lack of quality. Sure, the ZX-81 and Commodore came along and took up a lot of my time because they were more interesting -- but not for the reasons this late-comer is spouting off about.
Maybe we should call it the vulgar media instead of the mass media. They're near synonyms. Just don't blame computers because TV is cram.
That's the only "broadcast television" I ever see. I've had no interest in TV other than that since around 2001, maybe.
There's been nothing worth watching for years. My TV set only comes on when my kids want to watch their Miyazaki movies or 'Shimajiro'. (My wife is Japanese...)
Television killed television.
The device?
The broadcasting business?
The device is a method of delivery. It is highly affected by current technologies.
The broadcasting business is basically producing content on the whatever device. Financing content for the whatever device prefers concentration of investment capital, market and distribution as they all make ad sales (the return on investment) the most effective. Tv content production is still surprisingly expensive. Simply, it requires many people with different talents and lots of time, labour and fairly complex co-ordination of the entire process.It's like a symphonic orchestra, hard to do it in your garage or basement.
You do realize they have the most powerful mobile data stream transmitters ever put on-air in this country now after the DTV switch right? There's very little distance between "DTV transmitter" and "Data transmitter"... just plop the data inside the sub-channels they're using for stupid weathercasts and second "channels", in whatever new format works that doesnt confuse what will then be "legacy" ATSC tuners... and they've got the biggest most bad-ass wireless bit-pipes around... they just haven't figured it out yet.
+++OK ATH
Look up "Battlestar Galactica" on Hulu -
For a 1 hour slot:
the 1970's series averages in at about 48:45 per episode - the modern series - which the directors says many many times over during the audio commentary of the first season the network kept making him trim averages about 43:40 per episode.
Star Trek is a better reference, there's multiple decades to reference for those, but they're not on Hulu.
Lets look at sitcoms:
Bewitched averages in at about 25:20
I Dream of Jeannie about 25:15
King of the Hill about 22:00
The Office about 21:50
The newer the show is, the more commercial is on during a slot and the less TV show is available!
No wonder people turn it off, they're running on advertising drain.
I've got ads blocked in my browser, I turn the radio off quite a bit, I've moved closer to work and I see less billboards, I don't have cable, and I can barely stand to check my mail for the advertising that in it.
At least with Hulu (and you can prod me for advertising that if you like) there are LESS ads when I watch a show. I actually buy the DVD sets of shows I want to see these days anyways.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
It's stupid to think TV is going away. Yes, computers and the internet has changed things and forced TV to run their business differently. But if you think that people are not watching the Superbowl, Heroes and Lost on thier giant (and now reasonably priced) TVs you're crazy. When TV got popular that thought it was the end of people going to the movies. The same with radio... people thought that radio was dead. Those mediums are stronger than ever. TV does have to change their business. Easier on-demand thru the TV or cable box. Product placement replacing commercials (which is already getting more and more popular) is another step. Cable stations are now producing the best shows while the big networks are doing talk shows and reality. But if you think I have replaced watching Turner Classic Movies with youtube, or watching a streaming Baseball game instead of on a TV you're nuts. Lets have some perspective. How many people have totally done away with their TV service... really? Listen, the internet and small computing devices have dropped viewers of TV but that's because there was a void.... TV had no competition in the past. Now their both here to stay.
Firstly, TV doesn't appear to be quite dead yet. But when it dies it will not be Facebook e.a. that will deal the last blow, but Bittorrent, Youtube and their successors. Why? Well, first of all it's free and convenient. People don't say no to free and convenient and if the government tries to do something about it then the market will try to make goverment irrelevant or if that doesn't work the people will vote for whatever party that gives them their free and convenient video back. Secondly, the quality is, even in the case of low-quality fansubs, often better than both analog TV, which is low in resolution and noisy, and digital TV whith its jarred up video and schreeching jittery sound caused by not being tolerant enough of reasonable noise levels. And lastly, and I think this is the most important, it can do more. You don't have to watch at specific times, you don't have to mis episodes, you can often turn subtitles off if you don't need them, you can pause if you want, and you can watch programs from all over the planet, even from far of places like Japan, whose television programs can be worth watching but which would never have been aired by the cable stations.
I can see it now, at first bandwidth will only allow them to send stuff non-living stuff. That would shut down the mail system and companies like UPS. Then I will become viable for personal transport and shut down car companies.
The Internet...Making shit obsolete since 1969.
*nt*
Everyone here keeps saying "But wait, I don't want to watch TV on my computer, I want to watch it on my TV" is like saying "I don't want to listen to music I downloaded of off the Internet on my computer, so the CD still has a market for portable applications" that argument became irrelevant when they invented the MP3 player, and so will the TV one once those MythTV/Hulu/Youtube boxes become more mainstream.
The post about McLuhan was great. Also, see the work of Arthur Kroker in the early 90s. Mashups and social networks predicted. "Spasm" - it came with a cd!
There was also a post about newspapers persisting despite the net. Misses the point of this, and this is why tv won't die. The media companies make money with a business model that uses established dino media like newpaper and tv, to drive traffic to money making web based businesses. Pay some attention to what you are being sold, in a paper and on tv. Advertising is about an exchange of influence, not a messaging system. Paying big money for a campaign buys you stuff. That's why you do it. The ad message is largely irrelevant. The transaction is the important business, buying you important regulatory and oversight relief. Funny, eh?
I am all a twitter over facebook!
Gag me with the media hype.
#Internet killed the video star#
#Internet killed the video star#
In my mind and in my car, we can't rewind we've gone to far ...
Really? Facebook killed TV? And I was trying so very hard to take you seriously.
Quality is a joke. And it's getting filled up with stupid fake videos and porn spam crap.
Or reason #5, there's nothing worth watching. What's there is mostly a bunch of gay tripe. As cheap as that is to make and as obnoxious as the gay lobby is, no one else wants to watch it. With the computer competing for attention, there's no contest which wins.
They connect to the projector whatever data source they have got: computer with a downloaded show, DVD box, etc. This way the equipment is really compact and mobile. From a small notebook and projector one can get a huge picture size. I cannot imagine an LCD that big.
I see the future in projectors and portable wearable glasses-screens. Whatever box with whatever media file one connects to it is another story.
This way the computer and the TV get rid of the bulky part - the LCD screen. So a home movie center can become the size of the MP3 player plus a paperback-size projector. Or computer can be the size of MP3 player plus foldable keyboard, plus glasses-screen. It can be a mobile phone at the same time. One can have a powerful computer about all the time. For example, while jogging one receives an urgent phone call. The keyboard is unfolded, the glasses-screen is put on, 3G is connected, and the work starts wherever place it is, say, on a bench in the park.
Why not? Some people see the real world through glasses all the time, why we cannot see a digital word via glasses? Including watching movies. Who listens to podcasts via usual sound systems? People use headphones instead, and the headphones go through immense innovation. Why we should watch movies on usual screens? We could also have more portable and personal devices.
Dude, seriously. TV lost? Watching shows on a computer is more convenient that on the couch in front of one's flatscreen? Your Grandma bought a computer just so she can use facebook? Making ridiculous claims does not help proving your point.
Also, pirating shows can't be the solution. Imagine everybody did that. All your favourite tv shows are made because people out there are putting up with ads and are buying DVDs. Pirates are just freeloaders.
Couldn't part of the reason for this win be that people over the age of two don't actually like being spoonfed their entertainment, their desires (mu-u-u-st SHOP!), and their political opinions?
No.
With kind regards, reality tv.
When an internet poll gets the kind of call in or use participation that Idols gets, then you can start claiming that people don't like mass entertainment.
For that matter, when napster returns and you can actually find rare media on the internet and not just endless torrents of rips from TV then you might have a point.
The internet is many things but for the masses it is even more shallow then TV. Slashdot is often a good example. How many times does a slashdot story barely have any content, have a shallow and totally pointless comment by the editor, linking to a blog with all the indept analysis of a ad where the first post/in russia comment contains more insight?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
We have reached new heights of ridiculous, premature geek hyperbole. TV is nowhere near dead. Go to any random neighborhood, of any income level, and poll the residents. How many of the households use their computers for their primary (an important distinction) means of receiving and watching video content versus how many are getting it on a dedicated receiver via cable, satellite, or OTA? TV as a distinct medium is alive and well, and isn't going away anytime soon. TV programming delivered online is certainly becoming another choice, among many, to get our daily dose of information and escapism. But it has hardly become anywhere near the conventional, common, default option. Come talk to me in about 20 years and maybe we will be having a different conversation.
This is so typical of the demographic that tends to be attracted to sites like Slashdot. Younger, better educated, technically savvy, etc. A small subset of the citizenry that tends to be automatically and passionately enamored of anything new, different, and "cool." Hardly descriptive of the U.S. population as a whole. Networks and cable channels are still viable business entities, advertisers and content providers still make money hand over fist, and TV sets are still flying off store shelves every day. Guys, I hate to burst your bubble, but you are in the minority here -- you are the unconventional freaks and not in any way representative of the typical American.
Right now, this is not about obsolescence or a wholesale quantum shift in the way we do things -- it is about having different options for achieving the same goal, and about expanding choices, not locking everybody into some new paradigm. TV via the Web is just another available option, among many. It is an excellent choice for people who spend much of their lives in front of their computers anyway. Most people -- most normal people don't use their computers as a 24/7 umbilical cord. Sure, they surf the Web, and maybe even watch some videos there (especially unusual, quirky, or amateur content that is not available through conventional TV). They also watch TV, listen to the radio, listen to ipods, read books, go to the theater (cinema or stage), attend live concerts, take long walks, play with their kids, indulge in a hobby, screw their significant others, and have pleasant conversations with their friends and loved ones (whether by phone or -- horror -- face to face), and more. All of these activities are still regarded as rather distinct entities, all are important to a well-rounded life, and they do not have to be all combined, integrated, and streamlined into a single delivery source in one magic box.
This thread reminds me of that guy a few weeks back who was beside himself figuring out how to set up a computer to provide live, streaming video of the Inauguration to his students via the Web, when the simplest, most practical and effective solution was to simply drag a TV into the classroom and turn it on. Folks, everything doesn't have to be accomplished in some new, flashy, and high tech manner -- sometimes, perhaps most of the time, the tried and true solutions still work best for most of us.
"Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
Show me any computer setup that can have my show on the screen in the time it takes for me to get home tired from work, toss my shoes off, plop on the couch and just press "on" one time to be where I want to be.
Show me any TV setup where I can view all back episodes of all aired shows ever, at the click of a few buttons and a little patience.
In fact, show me a TV that sends me 16:34 news when I want them at 16:34, and also sends 17:08 news when my neighbor wants them at 17:08.
Show me a TV that I can pause. Show me a TV I can carry into my kitchen and watch while I cook. Show me a TV I can have in my airplane hand luggage.
I'm not trying to be rabid pro-computer or anti-TV. Both have their strengths, and I happen prefer those of the computer.
This post brought to you by Fair And Balanced.
Why TV? LOST!
I think this may be true for a small segment of folks, mostly found here on /., but until things like live sports can be delivered in a better medium than cable or sat dish, I do not see it 'dying' for a long time.
I have yet to find any reasonable quality sports delivery on the Internet other than scores, unless you like those tiny, incredibly poor quality, jumpy 'live' broadcasts
News of the demise of TV is somewhat premature
As an early TiVo adopter, I stopped making appointments to watch TV and watching ads long ago. With a two tuner TiVo, I don't care what network programs what content against some other network. I couldn't tell you when or where the few shows I still watch come on. I just check "Now Playing" when I feel like watching TV.
But...what is killing this last vestige of broadcast programming for me is the ever more obnoxious crap they're putting in the lower third of the screen. It's taking more and more space, covering up more of the actual program and swooshing in and out or dribbling across the bottom of the screen.
Let's see, I'm losing market share so let's see if I can make my already crappy programming even harder to tolerate. Great business model.
Why did TV won?
Text monitors were replaced first by graphics, then by animations. Now even Video is present!
How?
Graham identifies four forces: 1. The Internet's open platform fosters innovation at hacker speeds instead of big company speeds. 2. Moore's Law worked its magic on Internet bandwidth. 3. Piracy taught a new generation of users it's more convenient to watch shows with computer, now changed into a multimedia box. 4. Social applications made everybody from grandmas to 14-year-old girls want MULTIMEDIA computers â" instead of raw computers,"
Face it: TV killed Computers, they are now best to play MOVIES!
They even HAVE TO be better TVs to be sold !!!
The death of TV is a good thing! No, your TV's are not obsolete, but they are just a conduit for much more than they ever could be. Through products like your X-box 360, Slingbox, PS3, PC, and hell, even Flash Drives and those little memory cards that we used to use for Camera's or Cell Phones. Your TV is no longer a TV by traditional definitions. I find this to be a great thing.
I'm tired of GREAT FINANCING OPTIONS.
I'm tired of SHAMWOW.
I'm tired of SAVING BY ZERO.
I'm tired of HAVING THE RIGHT ONE, BABY.
Advertisers will continue to try and shove these things down our throat through new and inventive means. The internet, and technology has offered a well needed reprieve. Having grown up in THIS age, I feel like we may be alone. I watch my parents adapt to technology now, and say "Wow, you can record this and SKIP through the ads." in amazement. I WANT ad-free content, I want movies to be available on my portable devices, I want to be entertained when I have free-time. I go to work to deal with BS like advertising and finance. To all of you out there who are making available this content, I thank you. Please continue to fight the good fight and make available "free" content. I pay for my internet, I pay for my cable, I pay. We all do. If it weren't for our desire to have these things, they wouldn't exist. Advertisement, I say to you, Quit taking the things we love, the things we have invented, our technology, and turning them into Ad-spewing machina.
Because you can implement a TV from a computer, but not the other way around.
2. Moore's Law worked its magic on Internet bandwidth.
Moore's Law says nothing about internet bandwidth.
Advice: on VPS providers
I have been saying this for a while, but people still are not getting it. This makes sense because, although I am right, the idea is so different from what everyone has been taught by the news and entertainment media over the last century and a half.
In a nutshell, all these forms of entertainment, broadcast media, music, books, comics, newspapers, movies, video games, and what have you, are just speech. In the real world, divisions exist between these things. The words in books are bound to paper. The stories in movies can only be accessed by buying entrance to a screen owned by someone else. Music comes on optical disks. Newspapers have a different size, shape, feel, and smell than books. Comics are books with more pictures.
On the internet and from the point of view of computers, these are all the same: just ones and zeroes. From the point of view of people, they are just words. If one has a conversation about a song, the conversation is rendered unintelligible if both participants have not heard the song. The song is therefore necessary for the continuation of the conversation and people will include a necessary song in a conversation if one of the participants has not heard it. Singing to someone is also a way to communicate.
In the real world, news is also distributed differently. In the real world, one might ask someone to look in the newspaper. Online, one just cuts and pastes the relevant passage, sends a link to the article in question, or just copies the entire article.
Movies and books are the same way. In the real world, people share books and movies that they have read or seen so they can talk about the concepts communicated through those media. Lending a friend a DVD has never been a criminal offence and neither has lending someone a book.
Online, we are now told that all of these previously legal and moral and even commendable activities are crimes. Everyone becomes "pirates" for engaging in activities that were normal in the real world. This is really where copyright is coming in conflict with everything, and it is copyright, not biologically programmed social behaviour that needs to change. Copyright is now in direct conflict with Mother Nature herself, and I, for one, never bet against good old Mother Nature. She is too powerful, and we are too small.
This phenomenon with TV going online is no exception to this. TV is rejoining its brethren as one manner of communicating ideas. It is going to subsumed into the cacophony of world communications. People will use shows and clips to speak to others, to enhance their points in arguments, to introduce newly learned concepts, or to point out erroneous ones.
Further, as this article quite elegantly points out, what we call TV will be destroyed by this change. It is because all of this information is speech that all of these forms of speech will cease to be delineated so clearly. They will meld into different combinations and outcroppings that will more or less destroy all of the categories for speech that we know today.
This is all inevitable. The only question that remains is: how much will the copyright holders punish us, the public, for exercising our First Amendment rights before they are ultimately evolved out of existence like the dinosaurs?
All data is speech. All speech is Free.
Low resolution killed TV.
1. The TV has not "lost" anything. 2. Normal people don't watch tv shows on their computer. 3. Facebook hasn't killed anything TV related. 4. WoW cuts into my normal TV time significantly.
This is absolutely the future. HD content sent to your "computer", which is actually nothing but a 46 inch, 1080p monitor with a hard drive attached. What the naysayers don't realize is 1080i is a lot of pixels! You can finally pull stunts on your "TV" (aka a big monitor) that you were unable to on old TV's.
Remember WebTV? Remember why it sucked? Not the lack of a keyboard or mouse. It was the fact that your TV had such a shitty resolution you couldn't display rich media. Guess what, 1080i is a lot of space to display a website!
Know what else? Watching video on your computer or laptop sucks. Video is ment to be watched from a couch and controlled with a remote. Period. If Paul Grahm thinks we are all gonna gather around your laptop or desktop and watch the latest Office episode, he is sadly mistaken. What the future will be is your SageTV/MythTV monitors the RSS feed for The Office and sucks down the latest show. The future will be what NBC did with the Olympics website, only integrated with your TV's software so you actually watch the videos. The two major things holding it back was shitty resolution and lack of bandwidth. 1080i displays will fix the resolution, and bandwidth is always going up.
The computer as we know it today is what will loose. Video on computers suck. The TV will win.
You'll be watching Sister,Sister and the "computer" in your TV will notify you of friend updates on Facebook. And why shouldn't it? 1080i is plenty of screen space for "real" web content.
Your high-def TV is the most expensive monitor in your house. Use it for something!
And a "convergence" issue. It you have the right software, you can buy one of these puppies so you can keep the Compy86 upstairs and still stream video content from it.
That is because the "general desktop PC" will not exist as we know it. Computers are becoming closer to a mesh than solo devices.
Dude, it costs way more to produce a season of shows than it does to create your latest nSync album. If you think that producers are gonna somehow be able to make their keep with live shows and t-shirts to pay the broadcast shows, you are living in a dream world.
Now pay-for-play... that *might* work. The problem is how will you discover new content when it is locked up behind something you gotta pay for? Most of the shows I now record I've found by random browsing.
"Dirty Jobs + Ford"
Pretty much every show on the discovery channel has some form of product placement.
The other "trick" is the super-quick "this show sponsored by blah" ad that is put at the end of a segment. It is fast enough and bold enough to get its message through before you can react and start skipping commercials.
And yes, all of these are a direct result of TiVO and jackasses like myself who use comskip programs to auto-skip the commercials.
Because in the future (which is now if you use SageTV or MythTV) you'll be able to go to IMDB and get the credits using your remote control. The computer will converge with the TV, not the other way around. Paul Grahm is wrong--the TV is going to win.
I use ShowAnalyzer, which creates a marker file to instruct my SageTV where the commercials are.
We comskip users are huge minority, even among users of our own PVR software. It is just complex enough that most people will not bother.
Bingo. It also the most expensive monitor in your house and you can't even browse the web on it.
hey, my pc is in the living room, tower connected to the hdmi port on the tv. The woman uses it for tv SOMETIMES but generally if I plan ahead and download the day before I can get most shows w/o comercials via torrents (use google: moviename torrent") Games play nice on here, WOW would prob look great still, divx (avi) and mp3 are the only format I want to see online. The flash videos are great for being so small. Youtube looks nice on here too. "TV, yer just not that good anymore" (mop/broom comercial): "baby come back, you can blame it all on meeee, I was wrong and I just can't live w/o you" No TV. You had your chance and now Internet land has all you offer and more. It misses news, CSI on 20 channels out of the 60, weather, and some sports...but I can live /w that!
Internet has:
torrents (downloads) from google
mp3 albums to download
tv shows (seasons at a time)
movies (w/o the riaa b/s already cut out)
e-books (pdf files of books made digital)
software (vlc and winamp are good downloads)
TV has force fed junk and advertisers cutting other advertisers like local cable company overlapping the ads from a network in America.
Basically, by cutting out TV I've saved 20 mins from every hour watched due to comercials, can pause vlc media player /w spacebar (pee break, food break, smoke break, etc), and auto goes to the next show if I set up a playlist of shows to watch (good for going to bed /w star treks. :D)
Get the video card /w the white dvi port as well as the regulat blue monitor one. go to best buy, buy the no name 6 foot dvi-hdmi cable (40-60 bucks) then use yer tv as the computer monitor. ...oh yeah, forgot youporn ain't bad either ;)
If you live alone and have no friends. There is a social aspect to sitting around a TV watching stuff that will never be replaced by sitting around a laptop or desktop.
6. unlike TV, the internet allows every person to be in control of their schedule as to when and what type of information/entertainment they want to view.
update the MTV launch video
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
... the last thing I want to do is park myself in front of a screen for entertainment.
From the article, "The second is Moore's Law, which has worked its usual magic on Internet bandwidth. "
From where I sit, that sounds like a cruel joke, particularly when juxtaposed with news stories about how far behind the USA is in broadband penetration.
I've been on Wi-Fi for I forget how many years now (a decade at least?), during which time my computer has gone through a couple of replacement cycles and is now several times as fast. During that same time my internet bandwidth has increased not at all. (I tried DSL at one point, but it was no better.) So where is Moore's Law for bandwidth? I don't see it here.
I can't even watch a YouTube video without having to pause for buffering every once in a while. Is this supposed to be the replacement for my satellite TV? I have Dish Network with a tivo-like recorder and HD now, so it has arguably improved more during the last decade than anything on my computer.
Nor is there any immediate prospect for improvement on the computer side. I talked to my ISP about this. A couple of years ago the CEO was talking about going to Wi-Max, but wanted to wait until the technology was more standardized and proven. Now he's saying it's unaffordable, and it wouldn't help anyhow because the real bottleneck is his connection to the next regional hub.
The other thing to remember. . . For what it does -- distributing the same information to a large number of people -- broadcasting is several orders of magnitude more efficient than the internet can be, by the very nature of its design. It may have a smaller role, but broadcasting isn't going to disappear anytime soon.
I have a computer and I have a projector. With the advent of services online like Hulu and Netflix Watch Instantly, I see no reason to ever have Cable Television service again.
My projector cost me $1200 about 3 years ago (which means my max is 1080i, 1080p wasn't mainstream yet). It's 1700 lumens, bright enough for daytime watching in a room with curtains drawn, and is natively XGA resolution. I have my computer and PS3 hooked into it, and it's displaying on my wall at around 80" diagonal.
With that, online content is a far superior delivery mechanism than over-air or cable providers.
Tell me where I could find a "television" that would provide all that, and would virtually disappear in my room when it's not on?
Television is long dead in my house. (Note: a big concern about projectors is lamp life and replacement cost. Incidentally, I've run my original lamp through 2 3000hr cycles by resetting the projector counter, and I have yet to experience a noticeable loss of quality.)
Down with the career politician! SUPPORT TERM LIMITS
Advertisements.
ANYONE who has ever watched an episode of their favorite show on TV, vs. the same episode on DVD, knows TV makes shows Almost un-watchable if you've never been exposed to something better, and Completely unwatchable if you Have been exposed to something better.
Imagine going to the theatre to watch one of your favorite movies: now imagine every 8 minutes, there's 2 minutes of commercials. That is why TV sucks, and that is why it is dying.
Now if only there were a better way to create shows WITHOUT urinating adverts all over them...I'm a fan of Elizabethan patronage, myself...
My wife and four kids left moved a month and a half ago. At the old house we had the Dish DVR with two large, analog TVs. With all the fixings, we were paying close to 100 dollars a month. I used to rave about the DVR which let me watch my fave shows on my schedule, pause to take a leak, etc.
But when we moved, we left all that behind, and just ordered DSL with a 5 dollar upgrade to 3 Mb. While we've been sorting everything out, we've just been watching shows on Hulu, fox ondemand, Netflix instant play, and the like.
Broadcast television is simply doomed.
I watch shows when I like, even if I never heard of it befre. Instant play is a game changer. It's a breeze to watch shows in sequence, and so dramatically improves the experience!
Firefly was an awesome series. Meerkat Manor takes on a whole new life when you can see them come and go... insequence! My whole household is right now rivited into Heroes- an awesome show when seen back-to-back!
Of course it's not perfect, yet. Mythbusters isn't available without doing the Chinese youtube thing and clicking thru every 10 minutes. Also, WTF SNL? where are ye? And I do sort of miss the remote. But the freedom of choice far outweighs the stupid remote, and I could just buy a wireless mouse/KB even if it is a bit excessive...
But most shows ARE available online, in good resolution, instant play, to anyone with 2 or more Mb of low-latency bandwidth which is so low a bar that even in small-town California, it's commonly available.
I'm typing this on my new HTC Mogul phone - something I'll rave about, but in some other post...
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
I'm reminded of the scene in Back to the Future 2. They had this huge, high-res screen in the living room which was used for a variety of things, like displaying scenery and watching shows, either of which you might call TV.
But later, Marty used that same screen to have an interactive video phone call (which displayed vital statistics about the person to whom you were speaking) and the screen was clearly tied into some of his office equipment including a card reader and fax machine. His boss, using a similar setup, was able to type text that appeared on Marty's screen.
Sounds to me like a computer. Video chat with some facebook-style information showing, printing, office gear, IM.
Why is it so hard to believe that the television as we know it -- a large screen essentially dedicated to one thing and one thing only -- will vanish, and be replaced by a computer which can display passive shows if that's what you want it to do, but also do all the things you'd use a computer to do?
It's not as though the technology isn't around, unlike the flying cars and holographic Jaws. Large-screen, high-resolution screens are extremely commonplace. The bandwidth to stream high-definition video is available, since that's essentially all the cable companies are doing now. The only missing piece of the puzzle is for someone to step up and provide a service that feeds to a computer, rather than a TV or converter box, and that's a matter of waiting for corporate politics -- the technology to do it has been around for years.
Hell, something like youtube could do more or less what you want from a TV. You come home, flip the remote, and see your selection of channels. Pick one, select the stream, and now you're watching Fresh Prince, or whatever the hell you people watch today. And later you'll be able to pause or stop the show, and get some work done, or play a video game, or whatever else.
Nothing compares to being able to flop onto the couch, press the "On" button on a television remote, and immediately have my regularly scheduled prime time show on the screen.
What's the problem? That can be done today, easily. Your computer is always on. It's always connected to the internet. Come home, click an IR remote, and your computer streams from whatever online service and displays it on your nice big HD screen. The difference is that the "TV" in this case will be able to do a lot more than just display streaming video from a service provider. No one's bothered to mass-market anything like this yet because it'd be pointless as long as cable providers operate the way they do currently, but again, that's just politics and corporate procedure. From a technology standpoint there's nothing stopping this from happening.
mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
"Who would win, TV or computers?"
What do you want to do with a TV? Watch advertisements every couple of minutes? Moronic heads babbling nonsense? Listening to some religious crap?
Yes, I've heard the argument "But I only watch important bits, like " - but I've never seen it followed. Ever.
I never had a TV. TVs are for idiots. Sit on a nice comfy couch, have some prezels and a beer (which can stand comfortably on your belly), turn on your TV, turn off your brain, and waste a couple of hours every day.
Very relaxing, I'm sure.
A computer, on the other hand, can do more or less anything. Fascinating. Absolutely fascinating. Create some art, write a game, do some proton therapy planning, design a house, play a game, read (high-quality) news, chat with friends, crack some serious math problems...
And if you want to watch a nice movie with your girldfriend and some candlelight - hey, look, there's a DVD drive in that computer! How useful!
Free PC version of ChipWits at http://www.breueronline.de/klaus/chipwits/
Why do all of his mindless screeds get front page treatment on slashdot? Don't you kids understand that he is full of shit yet? He's the John Dvorak of Lisp.
Tv is far from dead.
Downstairs I've got Windows on there with TVU, PPStream, Winamp and desktop links to Joost and a few other video sites. When I want to watch real TV I can just switch over. The advantage is that I can watch UK and US TV channels as well as anything on the Internet.
Most internet TV stations aren't as high quality as HD but I expect that will improve over time.
Upstairs in my room I have a normal TV with digital box and a desktop with a normal monitor. I can be watch BBC news on the TV and have Fox News playing on the computer at the same time. Now I really can be fair and balanced ;-)
I am moving into a new apartment and the only cable thing I am getting is cable internet. The TV will only be used for DVD's and that's it. I can live without the cable TV part since I can find everything I watch online.
Computers are like Old Testament gods; lots of rules and no mercy.
It's not replacement, it's convergence. The past 20 years has brought the two technologies closer together. Replacement would mean that you'd take a Commodore 64 and put it where your TV used to be. But in the interest of convergence, yes, the internet's sped up, as have computers. Displays have become bigger and cheaper. Does anyone really think that doesn't tie into TV at all? I mean, 20 years ago, I'm pretty sure anyone with half a brain could've predicted the way things would've gone, and this is one of the most useless slashdot articles I've ever seen.
...SAXA!
The Rise and Fall of Online Community