A TV That Knows and Shares What You're Watching

holy_calamity writes "A technology will be appearing soon in TVs that fingerprints what is onscreen and sends that information to an internet server able to identify the content, whether it's live TV or another source, like a DVD. Web pages and mobile apps using the same connection as the TV can access that information using an API, allowing online content to dynamically provide relevant information and ads to be more targeted. Startup Flingo, which developed the technology, says one of the top 5 TV brands in the US will launch a set with the Sync Apps system in coming months."

Comments

No thanks,

[Anonymous Coward]

I do not want this technology.

Re:No thanks,

[Stenchwarrior]

I'll tell you the same thing I tell those religious fanatics that try to keep women from being able to have abortions: If you're against it, then don't do it!

www.pornwatchers.org

[wsxyz]

Find out who is watching what: Only $10/month for unlimited access!

I actually WANT my TV reporting on me

[elrous0]

If my viewership can help the obscure shows I like get some advertiser love, I'm fine with my TV "reporting" on me. Back in the day, they apparently only gave Nielsen boxes to hillbillies in trailer parks (who apparently weren't big Firefly fans). I even volunteered to be a "Nielsen family," but I guess they didn't give them to single geeks. In fact, the only Nielsen family I ever even met was a family of local rednecks in my hometown when I was a kid. They were barely literate and I'm not even sure how they filled out their weekly paperwork (this was before the set-top boxes). I think they probably just randomly checked boxes, which may explain how "The Love Boat" ran for eight seasons.

Now, having said that, there *are* limits. DON'T YOU BE REPORTING ON MY PORN! THAT'S WILLIE'S TIME!!!

Re:I actually WANT my TV reporting on me

[Sentry23]

Now, having said that, there *are* limits.DON'T YOU BE REPORTING ON MY PORN! THAT'S WILLIE'S TIME!!!

If anybody needed a good example what a difference an apostrophe can make, this seems like a good one.

Re:I actually WANT my TV reporting on me

[slew]

I think you are mistaken on the economics of TV shows. The viewership (and the resultant ad-rates for the first airing), are only a small part of the equation. There's the aspect of the actual startup cost of the show too.

That's why there are all the reality shows out there today. Reality shows have lower production costs (but also have lower-re-run value) so although they make less money over time, they make more profit up front. "The Love Boat" (and similar series that feature washed-up actors/actresses), were also reasonably cheap to produce like soap-operas.

I'll be willing to bet that the shows like Firefly had reasonably high production costs and relatively lower viewership for the first airings.

So when Fox could air a different program in the same slot and get about the same amount of add revenue and pay a different production company less money, what do you think they will do?

Sure, they could take a piece of the action and invest in the show now and hope that it does better, but the production company is betting the other way (that they will make most of their money in syndication after the TV network takes some of the up-front risk). Unfortunately, most TV execs are very loathe to take any risks at all as much of the money in syndication is not made by them (but by the production company), but their job depends on the current revenue. Although production companies are designed to "lose" money initially, they don't necessarily want to charge too much less (gotta pay those actors, writers, and directors). So unless a TV show can generate a reasonable profit (revenue-costs) out of the gate, the networks won't give the production company enough time to make enough episodes to be profitable in syndication and the whole thing just dies out.

Re:I actually WANT my TV reporting on me

[Daniel_Staal]

I've actually been a Nielsen family twice. The first time I still had a TV, but no antenna or cable hookup. (I had a VCR though.) Second time, I didn't even have a TV.

I tried explaining this to them, but they could never quite get the concept...

Re:I actually WANT my TV reporting on me

[Anonymous Coward]

You Don’t Own a TV? What’s All Your Furniture Pointed At?

Re:I actually WANT my TV reporting on me

[elrous0]

I suppose you got all that education, and still don't understand the meaning of the word "family".

Yep. One of the things they taught me in my big, fancy college was the "Nielsen family" is just an expression. They're actually supposed to do a fair sampling of all demographics, including single people.

Hillbillies". "Trailer parks". "Rednecks". Wow, keep the class-based racial hatred flowing, shall we?

I apologize for insulting the redneck race.

Re:I actually WANT my TV reporting on me

[M. Baranczak]

I apologize for insulting the redneck race.

The preferred term is "person with a neck of color".

I have a solution.

[Skarecrow77]

See that ethernet port on the back of your tv? don't plug anything in to it.

Your tv have wireless (snazzy!) don't give it your wireless password.

Your tv secretly connecting to the 3g cellular network to report back information? A. who cares it doesn't know who you are anyway and B. start up a class action lawsuit... or C. search the web until you find www.sonytv-hacks.com and follow their instructions to load custom firmware on your tv that lets you use the secret 3g connection as a tether'd internet connection and subsequently torrent anonymously to your heart's connent.

TL;DR: you have nothing to worry about.

Re:I have a solution.

[elrous0]

I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't let you do that.

Re:I have a solution.

[sconeu]

No, you'll have to use a Sharpie around the edge of the screen.

If used as a replacement for Neilsen Ratings...

[Bloodwine77]

If used as a replacement for Neilsen Ratings then I would actually be all for this, as long as the data was properly anonymized (or only searchable/exported with an obscure TV ID or Viewer ID, and not easily identifiable information). I don't mind advertisers knowing which shows are more popular, but I'd rather that neither they or any other entity tracks all my TV viewership for the sake of either custom-tailoring ads/junk/spam at me or monitoring me specifically.

Judging by what is on TV right now, I think we need to try an alternative to Neilsen Ratings to see if that fixes anything ... or at least confirms that humanity isn't worth saving.

DVDs now? That's new.

[Sarten-X]

Every major cable provider tracks what you watch already. Your cable box asks the provider for a particular show, and that request is logged. The logs are collected and reports are generated. This has been going on for many years, and no, you don't need to consent.

I'm not saying this is a good thing, but I do wonder how many of the folks saying they'll never buy these TVs because of privacy concerns already use cable.

Re:DVDs now? That's new.

[jader3rd]

Because it risks unseating the current big players. I remember reading an article about this, and how the current big players hated the idea of actually tracking what people were watching. The idea is that if you're forced to write down what you watch, and when, you'll probably only write down the big episode viewing. But if the TV is recording exactly how long you stay on a channel, all of a sudden previously un reported channel surfing gets reported, and the big players aren't so big any more.

Does it find piracy too?

[Ken_g6]

As long as a TV is identifying content, does it also identify pirated content? (A show that looks like a known show, but in poorer quality, for instance?) If so, does it report me to the MAFIAA?

This looks like a slippery slope.

Oh okay, I will bite

[SmallFurryCreature]

One of the few shows I watch is Have I Got News For you. I also admit to having liked Miranda... so you are going to give me ads for loud shirts, big girls clothes and boring suits?

Well, they sure got my number.

Except I don't wear suits, my shirts are black and I am not a big girl.

Most people just don't ads, targetted or otherwise. Stop listening to focus groups, only inbred mutants ever volunteer for them. Ask around, who do you know that has ever been in one?

Now there is a group who likes ads but they tend to be the sort that are a bit... stupid. The kind who want a hat just like XXX who is having their 15 minutes of fame. That is not a large enough group for advertisers.

Stuff like this is very old, there are countless attempts to get people to consume advertising. QR codes? OLD hate, barcodes were earlier. CueCat anyone? Total failure. People just ain't that into ads. Most ads realize this and therefor different from the advertising in a supermarket where an ad is a sign telling you this item can be bought for this right now. Rather a car ad wants to create a feeling with you so that in future, that feeling might come back when you are considering buying a car. People aren't going to jump up from their TV show to google that car the criminal was driving. Or stop their movie evening to google what her names dress.

Oh a small percentage might but are they going to buy a new TV just for that?

So you have a subset of a subset and then they have to agree to buy THAT tv and not one of the countless other models.

Not enough of a market. These things NEED mass adoption in a small time frame to survive. Nothing has worked in the past. Just name one of the countless once introcuced over time that have made it. A free cuecat for the winner.

Re:bye bye....

[game kid]

On the contrary, this now means that Cablevision and friends will be carrying at least several million new channels, and they can up the monthly price! It's a win-win (for the cable guys)!