Slashdot Mirror


The Internet Is Finally Going To Be Bigger Than TV Worldwide (qz.com)

According to estimates from media agency Zenith, next year, for the first time, people will spend more time using the internet than watching TV. People will spend an average of 170.6 minutes a day, or nearly three hours, using the internet in 2019. That's a tad more than the 170.3 minutes they're expected to spend watching TV. Quartz reports: Zenith measured media by how they are transmitted or distributed, such as broadcasts via TV signals and newspapers in print. Watching videos on the web through platforms like Netflix and YouTube, or reading a newspaper's website, counted as internet consumption. Nearly one-quarter of all media consumption across the globe will be through mobile this year, up from 5% in 2011. The average person will spend a total of about eight hours per day consuming media in its many forms this year, Zenith forecasts.

In some parts of the world, TV will remain on top -- for now. Zenith forecasted media consumption through 2020 and did not expect the internet to overtake TV in Europe, Latin America, and the whole of North America in that time. In the U.S., it was projected to surpass TV in the U.S. in two years.

34 of 60 comments (clear)

  1. Repeat Post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This is already posted about 25 stories back

    1. Re:Repeat Post by LordHighExecutioner · · Score: 5, Funny

      The fact that internet is now being watched more than TV is just because TV is boring. Repeating posts on slashdot is just a way to make internet more boring, and to get even with TV.

    2. Re:Repeat Post by gustygolf · · Score: 1

      This is a rerun, actually.

      With reruns, the former TV watchers will feel right at home on the Internet too.

      --
      "Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 58 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment" -- slashdot, driving users away.
    3. Re: Repeat Post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Another reason to repeal net neutrality globally. to ensure big companies can take control of the content and further their political agendas. Go big brother go, you can do it!!!

    4. Re:Repeat Post by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The fact that internet is now being watched more than TV is just because TV is boring.

      It's not even that. People want the ability to watch a current show, even one on a network they already get, at times other than the one it which it is broadcast.

      Being able to time-shift is what draws most plebeians to streaming. Finding out that episodes are only available on the network's server for a short time, or not until a certain date, or only if you subscribe to the individual network, is what is drawing the plebeians to Kodi.

  2. TV? Oh, the Big Screen by mentil · · Score: 1

    The next generation won't know what 'television' means. Sure, you will still be able to buy a Television, but broadcast/cable/satellite will refer to Internet connectivity methods. They'll think it's quaint that people set their schedule around certain shows only being watchable at certain times.

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    1. Re:TV? Oh, the Big Screen by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      well in asia they still do a bit.

      granted, the shows tend to show like 3-6 episodes in one go and stuff..

      daytime tv is also big thing, varietee crap brodcast in the day.

      tv is where the official propaganda is at.

      I wouldn't believe for a moment though if they said that people watch tv more than smartphones in Thailand for example. it's simply not true. if only because they browse fb in their vendor kiosks while the tv might be on in the background.. the attention isn't there as much.

      anyways, my tv broadcast box _is_ iptv.. the cable provider provides the channels over ip over the fiber connection. so is it internet tv or not? could also look them on any other device.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    2. Re:TV? Oh, the Big Screen by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      The next generation won't know what 'television' means.

      Of course they will know what television means. They will just define it in a different way, as 'that big monitor on my streaming box.'

    3. Re:TV? Oh, the Big Screen by CastrTroy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      We've been able to time shift since the advent of VHS tapes. But people will still want to watch shows live, or as soon as they are released because there is a big social aspect to the entire thing. Talking with your friends the next day or in real time as the show is being aired is still very much a part of the TV watching experience. YouTube Live and Twitch show that watching something as it occurs is still an important part of the entertainment ecosystem. Sure we don't have a fixed number of channels like we used to with traditional TV, but I don't think a lot has changed. If anything, there is even more pressure for people to watch stuff live as the endings are so quickly spoiled on the internet.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    4. Re:TV? Oh, the Big Screen by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      You mean there won't be a release schedule for new programming....who knew....

  3. Statistic by ledow · · Score: 1, Redundant

    But...

    If you measuring by "time spent" you're already onto a statistical problem.

    It's SO MUCH quicker for me to watch an episode of something on Netflix than on TV that it's laughable. And I watch exactly what I want and then switch off. And I don't have ads, and intros, and recaps, etc.

    I imagine that Internet is already used much more than TV for such viewing. But because the Internet is about "I want to watch X and nothing else", and TV is about "I'll wait for X to come on, and then sit through any", it won't win on "minutes" but I bet it wins on "episodes".

    TV is dead. Scheduled programming is dead. It's either "live" (a minority of special events) or "on-demand" and there's no need for anything in between. It's just a question of how long, to be honest.

    (-- Does not own a TV. Does not watch broadcast TV. I have a projector, a smartphone and a laptop. The closest I get is TVPlayer, which I got for a year on a special deal and which relays broadcast TV legally over the web to your devices. It works. I barely touch it. For almost everything it's easier to just wait a few hours and pick up from catch-up at my leisure, with pause and all kinds of features to make viewing more comfortable. Maybe, just maybe, if aliens landed or something, I'd watch it for one source of live news, but that's it. But I'd still watch the majority online.).

    1. Re:Statistic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      TV is dead. Scheduled programming is dead.

      TV is about "I'll wait for X to come on, and then sit through any"

      Welcome to the year 1999/2000. That is how long scheduled programming has been dead.

      And if you pirate (and really, everyone should be pirating all their TV and movies) that's every single thing you ever watch, so that you don't have to fast-forward through ads anymore like you did back in 2000. It's all been so perfected, that..

      It's SO MUCH quicker for me to watch an episode of something on Netflix than on TV that it's laughable.

      ..Netflix is exactly identical to everything else. If I watch a CBS show or a HBO show or a Netflix show or a BBC1 show, it's all the same: find it in Thunar and click it. That's what TV is like now. TV isn't dead; it just got a fuckton better about 20 years ago, and people aren't going to tolerate regression.

      The biggest issue with TV right now is that if they aren't going to sell the files, if viewers' money is so unwanted, then how are they going to make the money needed to produce it?

  4. Same Same by dohzer · · Score: 2

    Is this that old "I don't watch TV, I only watch [insert internet-delivered TV service]" chestnut where people claim they're not one and the same?

  5. Gorgeous Sunrise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    When was the last time you enjoy the unbelievably gorgeous view of sunrise?

    Stop wasting so much of your life online (and in front of the idiot tube).

    Go out, live your life, as intended !!

    1. Re:Gorgeous Sunrise by lucasnate1 · · Score: 1

      Intended by whom?

    2. Re:Gorgeous Sunrise by devloop · · Score: 1

      You are so right! I felt so inspired by your post, that this morning I got up a little earlier. Brew a cup of organic fair trade dark roast double macchiato with gluten free almond milk, pulled up my MacBook pro (large Green Peace logo on the back, small "Feel The Bern" ones around it) and watched this: https://youtu.be/jswkS7895WY
      I posted 17 selfies on FB/Insta/Tweeter. Thanks for a great tip!

    3. Re: Gorgeous Sunrise by houghi · · Score: 1

      The last one was g om a ship sailing to greenland on a YouTube channel. Was nicer than the one I saw in Thaiti 5 minutes later or the one in the Alps kust after that.
      With my ohine I saw all that while outside.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    4. Re: Gorgeous Sunrise by MalaysBowman · · Score: 1

      I enjoy a sunrise, and go on many walks, etc... But I still want my electronic escape which I use when the time is right for it. Sorry, but the old "turn off the idiot box, go outside, blah blah blah" is so tired and worn, and rather idiotic as it's implying that you could ever only do one or the other, but never both.

  6. Huge day by day by ycv005 · · Score: 1

    It is growing continuously day by day.

  7. Social change by TJHook3r · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In the old days, people came into work and had conversations about soaps, now they have conversations about BuzzFeed articles and Twitch stars. Not sure much has changed - most people are passive consumers of low-effort content.

    1. Re:Social change by ausekilis · · Score: 1

      Not sure much has changed - most people are passive consumers of low-effort content.

      That explains "Reality TV" and twitch streaming. Sure the players put in effort to win, but it's not a lot of effort to point a camera at themselves while they do it.

    2. Re: Social change by houghi · · Score: 1

      It also explains why I hate it. If there is bad or no editing or bad sound I hate it. The is no excuse to yell "focus" to the camera and let me hear it.you reshoot and use voiceover or not use it and leave it on the cutting floor.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  8. so thats why the revolution wont be televised by FudRucker · · Score: 1

    because it will be live streaming on the internets

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
  9. What about streaming TV? Counting cord-cutters? by sabbede · · Score: 2

    Neither link says how they count streaming TV services like Sling or DirecTV Now. I made the switch a few months ago, how's my TV consumption being counted? What about when I open a Roku channel and watch live TV through it? Is it counted differently if I use it to watch something that aired yesterday?

  10. Netflix isn't TV? Bullshit. by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

    Watching videos on the web through platforms like Netflix and YouTube, or reading a newspaper's website, counted as internet consumption.

    If Netflix isn't considered TV but you're comparing TV with "internet" then their entire comparison is completely meaningless. Netflix is as far in the TV direction as you can get. Yes, behind the scenes it gets onto the TV by using the internet, but that has jack shit with human behavior and preferences, society or anything else. It's basically just a mundane technical detail about how a certain wire is multiplexed.

    --
    "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
  11. do we not remember TOS? by epine · · Score: 1

    The original TOS had terrible numbers, except among the demographic advertisers would later cherish above all others. (Advertisers are slow on the uptake.) So there it was, TOS hanging by a budgetary thread throughout its lame third season.

    NBC at first planned to move Star Trek to Mondays for the show's third season, likely in hopes of increasing its audience after the enormous letter campaign that surprised the network.

    But in March 1968, NBC instead moved the show to 10:00 pm Friday night, an hour undesirable for its younger audience, so as not to conflict with the highly successful Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In on Monday evenings, from whose time slot Laugh-In producer George Schlatter had angrily demanded it not be rescheduled. In addition to the undesirable time slot, Star Trek was now being seen on only 181 of NBC's 210 affiliates.

    Roddenberry was frustrated, and complained, "If the network wants to kill us, it couldn't make a better move."

    He attempted to persuade NBC to give Star Trek a better day and hour, but was not successful. As a result of this and his own growing exhaustion, he chose to withdraw from the stress of the daily production of Star Trek, though he remained nominally in charge as its "executive producer".

    This is what you get when you grant an implied equivalency to exhausted eyeballs playing out the string to the tune of Maury Povich or Kim Kardashian to a smart-ass teenager with a working brain binge-watching Crash Course History.

    This particular "more than" bucket (Internet v. television) is fit to make a clueless Mad Man weep a saline river for the lost marketing paradise of Atlantis—where all eyeballs were equal unto the market, as stipulated by the Nielson Ratings Equivalency Act of 1951 BCE.

    [*] Altanteans routinely over-simplified their public sphere by decree, all the better to free up more time for "doing it" in such an immense variety of non-procreative ways (nascent gills add so many buoyancy options) that finally God was forced to summon up a wet, wet, wet collective express train to hell. Turns out, there are some cultural channels that even God can not bear to watch, day in and day out. Povich apparently makes the grade, where Atlantis didn't. These Altanteans, so much skin, and their guts don't even churn—simply unbearable. Be gone, channel, be gone.

    Good grief, spare a clue for what you're lumping together.

  12. Re:There's an enormous difference. by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

    LMOL TV is broadcast....ok Potsy....

  13. Ummm by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

    "Zenith measured media by how they are transmitted or distributed, such as broadcasts via TV signals and newspapers in print. Watching videos on the web through platforms like Netflix and YouTube, or reading a newspaper's website, counted as internet consumption."

    So watching YouTube on TV counts as....

  14. Re:What about streaming TV? Counting cord-cutters? by NotFamous · · Score: 1

    This is exactly the issue. Not that "Internet" is being mean to "TV". Media Programming comes to your house. It could be by a "dedicated" cable, which is probably a misnome,r since that very same cable may be bringing you Internet. Or it could come by Satellite. Or it could come via an application running on your Desktop/Laptop/Tablet/Alexa/Toilet? What is going away is having a single way to watch the media content. So the loser here isn't "TV", but Cable/Satellite providers who can no longer monopolize your access. However...with the recent death of Net Neutrality, and the approval of AT&T's purchase/merger with Time Warner, we may quickly wind up in the same boat, with our media coming from our "Internet Provider", who is now free to offer a "Package" of content and block/hinder other media delivery. Well, it was fun while it lasted!

    --
    Some settling may occur during posting.
  15. They Got The Poll Questions Wrong by mschwanke97402 · · Score: 1

    They left off one more option in the answers:

    C) I watch TV and surf the web simultaneously.

  16. Re:Guess what? You still are a prole. by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

    That's where you're wrong, my friend.

    My TV has a 16:10 aspect ratio.

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  17. Re: In the '90s it would have meant something by MalaysBowman · · Score: 1

    Between the Eternal September### I don't think it was the flood of AOL newbies when that online service began offering Usenet access in 1993 that killed Usenet, it was all of the spam, flooders, kooks of all stripes, and finally the rise of web based forums, and ISPs deciding to shut down or not have their own Usenet servers which killed it. Usenet is still around, but it is just a very faint shadow of it's former self. I miss Usenet

  18. TV is not dead at all by MalaysBowman · · Score: 1

    The delivery method and how people watch their shows is changing, but the shows and popularity are still the same. TV isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

    1. Re: TV is not dead at all by MalaysBowman · · Score: 1

      isn't going anywhere anytime soon### Should be "TV isn't going *away* anytime soon" :/