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."

Comments

Odd... I always thought the reason TV lost was...

[Doug52392]

... Reality TV.

Re:Digital broadcast

[tepples]

I suspect digital broadcast TV is going to swing the pendulum back a bit.

Not if people who used to rely on an analog broadcast signal can't get a DTV signal with the same antenna. This is reportedly a problem for people who live in the country between towns: a fuzzy analog signal could reach, but there isn't enough SNR for a digital tuner to sync to the carrier. Even in cities, all isn't perfect: I can get the FOX affiliate station in Fort Wayne, Indiana, fine over analog but not at all over digital.

Re:One word - ads

[dintlu]

But you are shelling out real money to watch TV.

18 minutes of your time for every hour of television you watch. When you consider that the average American watches 28 hours of TV weekly, you're looking at 8.4 hours of your time wasted every week. 436 hours a year. 11.3 workplace-years (2080h/yr) of you life, wasted watching advertisement.

In terms of income, a median American earner will pay $363,000 in lost opportunity cost over 65 years of television viewing.

One way or another you *are* paying for your entertainment.

Re:Digital broadcast

[David Gerard]

It works really well in Britain - digital is just superior in every way, and set-top boxes are more or less free with cereal - but Britain is rather more densely populated than the US. Even then, the BBC has had to start doing Freesat to fulfil its universal service obligations to areas that can't get a good terrestrial signal. In the US, I expect they're reluctant to compel TV stations to provide universal service at all.

Re:Digital broadcast

[porcupine8]

Most stations are doubling (or more) the power of their digital signal once they drop the analog signal - but of course, thanks to Congress, in many places that won't happen for a while. But once it does this should at least be less of a problem for most people. I can't get digital CBS right now, despite living right within the Chicago city limits. They admit right on their webpage that most people won't be able to get it without an outdoor antenna til June.