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."
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?
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.
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.
The signal bandwidth of digital TV is much narrower than traditional analog broadcast, so much less actually has to be received to successfully construct the stream.
The extra bandwidth can be used to instead transmit redundant information and error correction codes, to make the signal much more reliable than it ever was with analog TV, and potentially multiple different streams over the same channel.
The failure mode is more catastrophic, but digital technology should also be much less likely to fail.
If the article literally means that we're all going to be crowded around computer screens to watch entertainment instead of sitting comfortably on our couches in the living room, then yeah, it's wrong. My wife and I probably spend way too much time on our computers (we're WoW addicts). But when we want to watch a "TV show" (usually a DVD of a TV show) we go into the living room.
What's stopping you having a computer in the living room hooked up to the TV, or sitting comfortably on your couch with a laptop? Admittedly, I agree we're a way off for this being commonplace for everyone, but we've moved on from the days when "PC" meant a single computer in the household, that wasn't in the living room, hooked up to a small CRT. HDTV means that most TVs will accept a computer input; computers are cheap and commonplace; and laptops are outselling desktops. I agree that for this to be mainstream, it needs to be packaged in something more userfriendly, but I bet it'll basically be a computer with an Internet connection.
I work in media and the future is in real HD content in RSS streams that can be subscribed to NOT the utter crap that is Youtube or anything like that.
Automatic subscription to my content that my equipment can collect. and I can view at my leisure. Every person I show that model WANTS that model and not the sift through garbage to find what I want model that is Youtube or the other current systems.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Right - I agree. And it's just a matter of time till Tivo or some company like them will make a Tivo that doesn't actually record anything but just downloads it. Then you can cancel your cable bill and pay more for your Tivo subscription, but what you'll get is a huge Tivo full of the sort of stuff you like, in HD. Every time you plop down in front of "the tube" it will look just like TV, except with micro-targeted ads. It will even have a "personal broadcast" mode so that you can flip channels between various arrangements of the stuff on your Tivo. It's like "custom channels made specifically for you."
That stuff will be interspersed with "breaking news" and local shit that the Tivo algorithm suspects you will find relevant.
I LIVE in a 'snowy broadcast' area. My new LCD TV has the digital channels perfectly clear, while the analog channels show lots of artifacts. I'd even rate one of the stations that did a flash-cut as 'unwatchable' before the transition, is now perfectly clear at 1080i.
Are you sure that you're not comparing the lower power temporary digital channels against the old full power analog? Many stations are transmitting both, but the digital station at a tenth or less of the power.
When they finally turn off the analog stations, most are going to put their digital broadcast on the original station at the old power.
I don't read AC A human right
Lovely. Ala carte eventually came about.
Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
The "TV is dead" line is all about broadcast technology, not the display device itself. People are already using various boxes to watch Internet content on their living room TV's. All you need to kill TV completely is to sell a tuner-free display which plugs directly into your home network.
Most (ALL?) new TVs are embedded computers. My reasonably affordable 32" LCD TV runs linux, has all the features you listed, and updates its firmware over TCP/IP
We are already there in terms of technology. The only ongoing challenge is the content owners who use legal structures to resist change.