Slashdot Mirror


Internet Usage Catches Up With Television In US

Hugh Pickens writes "Joshua Brustein writes that, according to a survey by Forrester Research, the amount of time people spend on the Internet has increased 121 percent over the last five years with Americans now spending as much time using the Internet as they are watching television. And while people younger than 30 years old have spent more time with the Internet than television for several years, Forrester's survey shows that this is the first year that people in older age groups are doing so as well. Forrester's survey also shows a significant increase in the number of people using the Internet to watch streaming video with 33 percent of adults surveyed this year saying they use the Internet to watch video, up from 18 percent in 2007. However the rise of the Internet is not necessarily leading to a drop in television consumption because the Internet, and particularly the mobile Internet, simply creates more opportunities for people to consume media, says analyst Jacqueline Anderson with younger viewers increasingly comfortable with the Internet as the place to watch their television. 'For the younger population, the TV is still important, but where they're getting that content from is changing,' says Anderson. 'For the generations that are coming up, that's where we're going to see the cut.'"

20 of 119 comments (clear)

  1. Some people do not even watch TV by Stregano · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I am one of the people that does not even watch TV. With stuff like Hulu and even Netflix, there is no need. You can watch all of your shows online. Sometimes for free like with Hulu, and sometimes for a small fee like Netflix. Even networks themselves have been catching on and playing episodes of their own shows online. That is how I caught the first episode of Walking Dead is because AMC had it streaming on their website. Some of us have no need for a TV outside of video games. I can catch any news I want through websites that are known to have good sources, television shows through streaming services, and even movies through streaming services. Depending on the movie, I will sometimes just catch a deal on a dvd or blu-ray from whatever website is running the deal. Either way, for many of us, there is no reason to even stare at a TV unless a pc is hooked through to it, we are playing a game, or popping a movie in.

    --
    The world is how you make it
    1. Re:Some people do not even watch TV by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Another AOL-style post here. When you watch broadcast TV, someone else is controlling the schedule. You are not the customer, you are the product, and you are being delivered to advertisers. I'd rather pay for my entertainment and have it ad-free and on my own schedule. I no longer own a TV, and find that I enjoy watching television programs a lot more when I get to decide when to watch them and can watch them all of the way through without interruption.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    2. Re:Some people do not even watch TV by John+Hasler · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I am one of the people that does not even watch TV. With stuff like Hulu and even Netflix, there is no need. You can watch all of your shows online.

      In other words, you still watch television.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    3. Re:Some people do not even watch TV by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's important to separate the content from the delivery method, because it affects how shows are produced. There is a finite amount of space on television channels. Shows don't get cancelled because they are not profitable, they get cancelled because something else could be more profitable on the same time slot. To be profitable, they need to be able to make enough money from adverts shown during the show to fund the development. In contrast, online distribution is effectively unlimited and viewers can pay directly. Shows don't have to compete for airspace - they can be made available for download when they are finished and distributed in parallel, so as long as they are profitable they can keep being made - if something else would be more profitable then it can be made as well. They can also be directly funded, without relying on adverts, so studios only have to convince the people who like the show that it's worth funding, not an intermediate third party.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    4. Re:Some people do not even watch TV by Rogerborg · · Score: 4, Funny

      I don't even watch Hulu!

      Pfft, I don't even have a computer to watch Hulu on. I'm posting this by shorting the terminals on a token ring cable.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    5. Re:Some people do not even watch TV by Eponymous+Coward · · Score: 2

      > if something else would be more profitable then it can be made as well

      This would be true if there were was more money, actors, studios, editors, etc... available. You said shows "get cancelled because something else could be more profitable on the same time slot". This is true, but it's actually more general than that. Shows get cancelled because the resources that go into creating some show can get a higher return if they are used to create something else. The time slot is only one of the scarce resources.

    6. Re:Some people do not even watch TV by camperdave · · Score: 2

      I'd probably go that route if Hulu or Netflix had any content, but alas, it's all "not available in your country".

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    7. Re:Some people do not even watch TV by poetmatt · · Score: 2

      people (network execs) are afraid of finding out that nobody gives a shit about cnn, nbc, abc, etc and just wants sci fi and mtv.

    8. Re:Some people do not even watch TV by rhalstead · · Score: 2

      "To me" watching a TV show on the Internet qualifies as watching TV. However, I send far more time surfing, doing business, and working on the internet than I do watching programs, be they on the TV set or the computer monitor. I spend a good 8 hours a day on the Net and I've been doing that was since I went to college and graduated at age 50. I retired in 97 and my Internet usage went up as did my wife's. OTOH we do have satellite TV with an HD set and the ability to watch over 20 channels off the air (OTA) with most in HD. I find very little of interest on the major networks and the news to be more entertainment oriented and biased to the point of near uselessness. We do watch the local news and weather. However I think the days of inexpensive movies and TV shows on the Net may be numbered. The studios are going to demand a lot more from NetFlix who pay a fraction for the same content that cable and satellite do. "Add to that" the likelihood that many ISPs will start charging for the amount downloaded AND possibly block competing content the price of entertainment on the Net may go up considerably. Of course I expect other suppliers to cost what ever the traffic will take and remain competitive. I am on a tiered system that is limited only by the speed you sign up for. IOW you can run it 24 X 7. There's quite a difference on how much you can download between 256K and 16 Mbs connections per month.

  2. Breakaway year for Internet appliances by suso · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I think 2010 has obviously been the break away year for Internet appliances like Bluray players with Youtube/Pandora/SocialFoobar built in. If the Internet is ever going to break, it might happen this holiday season with all the extra streaming.

  3. Goodbye Free TV? by commodore64_love · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Maybe it IS time to get rid of free, antenna-based TV (channels 2-51) and replace it with some kind of free wireless internet service. My only fear is that it won't really be free and end-up costing me ~$25/month.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    1. Re:Goodbye Free TV? by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 2

      Good point, but I also think you're missing the parent's rather subtle and clever point - Today, you can watch TV for free (granted you are required to give up some time for commercials, but you can always mute the TV or go unload the dishwasher).

      All you need to do is put up a piece of metal (an antenna) and there's tons of content for free - In fact in many locales, "free" over-the-air HDTV is of better quality than the compressed HD service you get from the cable company. There's no 'free' internet - So if all this content moves online, what happens to the free OTA options?

  4. Progression --- by ackthpt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    1940's person has dinner with the radio playing Fibber McGee, Jack Benny or Fred Allen

    1970's person has TV dinner, Pizza, etc., while watching Television

    2000's person has dinner at their personal computer.

    2010's person has dinner at their mobile laptop/device/tablet

    FWIW, I stopped watching TV actively about 10 years ago (excepting World Cups) The internet is far more entertaining that TV.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:Progression --- by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 2

      Actually, dinner time has become my only TV time. It's when I catch up on shows, but I watch Netflix DVDs 95% of the time, so does that count as internet? :-)

      Where do video games land here? My HDTV shows more video games than TV or movies.

    2. Re:Progression --- by Dystopian+Rebel · · Score: 2

      1940s many people have radios, few have televisions, neighbours still say hello

      1970s most people have televisions, neighbours watch other people getting stabbed out front on the street

      2000s many people use computers, being taken to war by a lying President seems ok

      2010s people talk Likelish, use SMS spelling (OMG LOL) in schoolwork, and Reality Television makes the challenges of scriptwriting and acting unnecessary

      2025 Idiocracy

      --
      Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
    3. Re:Progression --- by geekoid · · Score: 2

      It became normal to eat in front of the TV on July 20th, 1969

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  5. To quote Star Trek by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 2

    Data: I think he means television, sir. ... That particular form of entertainment did not last much beyond the year Two Thousand Forty.

  6. Re:I'm surprised it didn't happen more quickly TBH by Anrego · · Score: 2

    The fun thing is to watch an entire series over the course of a month or so.

    The realization that you've just watched like _7 years_ worth of programming in a month is always awesome and scary at the same time.

    Also watching episode after episode, you notice things (some good, some bad) that you wouldn't if there was a week between each episode. For instance Babylon 5 gets very depressing for like 2 seasons. I didn't notice it as much when I was watching it on TV .. but you watch it back-to-back .. and it's a completely different experience.

  7. Re:Obvious question by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 2

    >From my perspective, television offers no real benefit over the internet for transferring video.

    Except, of course, for the lack of network congestion when 6000 people are either transfering 2.5MB/s total to watch an episode of Star Trek or 15,000 MB/S to watch one episode of Star Trek, all at the exact same moment.

  8. tv is irrelavent by cdn-programmer · · Score: 3

    TV is irrelevant. It is a complete waste of time. I already know enough about soap and female deodorant products to last me a lifetime.

    They blew it. This is a one way street. There It is really nice not having a cable bill!