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

I'm not dead yet

[Anonymous Coward]

Rumors about my death have been greatly exaggerated. tv

Re:I'm not dead yet

[dov_0]

When the PC boots up in 3 seconds, has a monitor at least 24" or more across, is placed in the most comfortable room in the house (after the bedroom), has no associations with work, requires ZERO brain effort, switches channels at the touch of one button and can be operated with one hand via a small remote control while the other hand holds a beer or fishes in a packet of Salt'n'Vinegar crisps for the last crumbs...

Then the PC will win. Don't see it happening though.

VOD

[Karganeth]

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.

Re:VOD

[fyoder]

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.

Also very strange, people considered it normal for their show to be interrupted periodically by attempts to sell you crap. After watching shows downloaded, going back to regular television is strange and depressing. Ads can spoil the best of programs. Yet I grew up with television and ads and it all seemed perfectly normal for years and years. Interesting how little time it takes viewing stuff without ads for it to become completely unacceptable.

Re:VOD

[feepness]

We got our first TV in the early 1970s. Within a week of watching it my dad had improvised a remote control to mute the ads

Throwing a beer can at the back of your head is not a remote control!

Piracy?

[mdwh2]

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.

Re:Piracy?

[nahdude812]

Oh brother. If his £140 not covering the salary of one person who worked on the production of the show doesn't entitle him to watch it, then why is that the price they choose to charge him to watch it?

Maybe you were being sarcastic, but I didn't get that. You're aware of course that they make their money not from the subscription fees of a single individual, but from producing a product that they sell to tens or hundreds of thousands of people, right?

I can't quite accept, "You paid for it, but you will watch it when we say you can watch it, unless you recorded it when we said you could watch it, then you can watch it later - but not if you didn't record it when we said you can watch it but instead got the same thing from somewhere else, then watched it later, that's just unacceptable."

He paid for it. Time shifting is legal. Time shifting does not dictate what mechanism is used to shift. Get over it.

Exagerrated

[Anenome]

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.

Poor reasons

[Dan East]

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.

Re:Facebook?!

[spire3661]

Facebook is a symptom, not a cause.

Re:One word - ads

[Reality Master 101]

I like ads. Let me repeat that... I like ads. If it comes down to a choice between having to shell out real money for entertainment (or more money, in case of certain entertainment types) and viewing ads, I'll take viewing a few ads every time. Somebody has to pay the bills, and I'd rather have that somebody be a company hawking their product.

Not piracy

[an.echte.trilingue]

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.

You Got Your Blinders On

[Frosty Piss]

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.

facebook killed TV?

[thetoadwarrior]

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.

Re:Digital broadcast

[Kell Bengal]

Exactly. It should have included a car, somewhere.

Re:Digital broadcast

[Slumdog]

That's possibly the worst analogy I've ever read.....

A bad analogy is like a leaky screwdriver.

Re:Digital broadcast

[westlake]

Digital broadcast TV is a huge disappointment in my book. With analog TV, bad reception results in some snow on the screen. Programs are still perfectly viewable because there are no frame dropouts, and the audio is still there.

Anyone who grew up with analog TV knows better.

You lost sound.

You lost horizontal and vertical sync. You had snow and you had ghosts. Color introduced you to whole new levels of pain.

The solution to bad reception was a good antenna.

Dad brought out the forty foot ladder to mount a big Winegard on the roof. You watched him drive a ground stake in with a sledge until his face turned purple.

Your neighbor who clung to his rabbit ears as "good enough" was full of it then - and he is full of it now.

However, the programs still suck

The Boston Symphony in live performance New Year's Eve does not suck. The Leafs and Sabres in overtime - also broadcast in 1080i - does not suck.

This is the experience YouTube can't deliver.