How long before TV dies?

[Gepard]

It is a little known fact... but Dennis is Apple's biggest fan. He is more Apple obsessed than any Mac user I've ever seen.

It is funny how he feels the need to stop by every pro-Apple, anti-Avatar or anti-Trek XI thread to drop a blanket unsubstantiated opposing opinion before driving off into the sunset. One would think a person truly comfortable in their viewpoint would have better things to do than that.

 

[Lindley]

Personally, I like MPlayer better than either of the "big two".....

 

[ProwlAlpha]

Nobody actually hit the real reason why TV will not die. Cost. Most people cannot afford or simply do not want a computer -tv because TV is free. Yes, TV sets are not, but the broadcasts for the average person is free.

If the internet ever becomes free and the ability to watch TV on your computer becomes free, yes the TV sets will become obsolete.

I find that difficult to believe considering the large number of people who are connected as well as either subscribing to cable/satellite.

Well there is a larger amount of people who do not subscribe to cable or are connected to the internet for the basic reason, not all people can afford those services. Until they became free or extremely cheap, TV in itself will never die.

 

[Hermiod]

It is a little known fact... but Dennis is Apple's biggest fan. He is more Apple obsessed than any Mac user I've ever seen.

It is funny how he feels the need to stop by every pro-Apple, anti-Avatar or anti-Trek XI thread to drop a blanket unsubstantiated opposing opinion before driving off into the sunset. One would think a person truly comfortable in their viewpoint would have better things to do than that.

I don't know what Dennis' reasons for entering such threads are, but it works both ways. There are plenty of posters here who feel the need to jump in and attack Apple whenever they are mentioned.

There are also those who continue to pass around half-truths about the closed nature of the App Store and the iPhone. It gets a bit boring having to, once again, explain the difference between a mobile phone and a computer.

 

[Deckerd]

It is a little known fact... but Dennis is Apple's biggest fan. He is more Apple obsessed than any Mac user I've ever seen.

It is funny how he feels the need to stop by every pro-Apple, anti-Avatar or anti-Trek XI thread to drop a blanket unsubstantiated opposing opinion before driving off into the sunset. One would think a person truly comfortable in their viewpoint would have better things to do than that.

His jeans are a bit too tight. It makes him short-tempered.

 

[John Picard]

Nobody actually hit the real reason why TV will not die. Cost. Most people cannot afford or simply do not want a computer -tv because TV is free. Yes, TV sets are not, but the broadcasts for the average person is free.

If the internet ever becomes free and the ability to watch TV on your computer becomes free, yes the TV sets will become obsolete.

I find that difficult to believe considering the large number of people who are connected as well as either subscribing to cable/satellite.

Well there is a larger amount of people who do not subscribe to cable or are connected to the internet for the basic reason, not all people can afford those services. Until they became free or extremely cheap, TV in itself will never die.

Never say "Never". And no, I'm not being cute -- I'm dead serious.

 

[ProwlAlpha]

I find that difficult to believe considering the large number of people who are connected as well as either subscribing to cable/satellite.

Well there is a larger amount of people who do not subscribe to cable or are connected to the internet for the basic reason, not all people can afford those services. Until they became free or extremely cheap, TV in itself will never die.

Never say "Never". And no, I'm not being cute -- I'm dead serious.

Dead serious? So you have a plan to make the internet and cable so cheap or free that some of the poorest people in the US can watch shows as they can right now. I seriously doubt that. They can't even make local land-based telephone free.

 

[Data Holmes]

Well there is a larger amount of people who do not subscribe to cable or are connected to the internet for the basic reason, not all people can afford those services. Until they became free or extremely cheap, TV in itself will never die.

Never say "Never". And no, I'm not being cute -- I'm dead serious.

Dead serious? So you have a plan to make the internet and cable so cheap or free that some of the poorest people in the US can watch shows as they can right now. I seriously doubt that. They can't even make local land-based telephone free.

http://broadband.gov/

 

[John Picard]

Well there is a larger amount of people who do not subscribe to cable or are connected to the internet for the basic reason, not all people can afford those services. Until they became free or extremely cheap, TV in itself will never die.

Never say "Never". And no, I'm not being cute -- I'm dead serious.

Dead serious? So you have a plan to make the internet and cable so cheap or free that some of the poorest people in the US can watch shows as they can right now. I seriously doubt that. They can't even make local land-based telephone free.

Are you even aware that most "poor" people in America have cable and/or a cellphone? The percentage of people receiving their entertainment via a cable/satellite package far exceeds those receiving the signal over the air.

And for the record, I have neither cable, satellite, nor over the air. I have an analog TV that is used to view DVDs only.

 

[Deckerd]

The percentage of people receiving their entertainment via a cable/satellite package far exceeds those receiving the signal over the air.

Are you sure that's true? It's certainly not true in the UK.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

The percentage of people receiving their entertainment via a cable/satellite package far exceeds those receiving the signal over the air.

Are you sure that's true? It's certainly not true in the UK.

It's true in the US. I don't have any stats handy, but I think something like a bit over half of all Americans have cable or satellite TV, with most of the share being cable.

 

[Sheep]

The percentage of people receiving their entertainment via a cable/satellite package far exceeds those receiving the signal over the air.

Are you sure that's true? It's certainly not true in the UK.

It's true in the US. I don't have any stats handy, but I think something like a bit over half of all Americans have cable or satellite TV, with most of the share being cable.

Prior to the Great Recession, the percentage of households in the U.S. with cable or satellite was around 65-70%. I don't know if that number has changed significantly in recent years and am too lazy to look it up.

 

[John Picard]

Disney-ABC, Cablevision Battle: More TV-Fee Fights Loom

 

[ProwlAlpha]

Actually, the numbers have shown to be around 53% according to Thisiscable.com. That is a decrease from 63% as reported in 2003 and 58% as reported in 2007.

Also, I live in a "poor" area, and the majority of the my neighbors do not have cable. They do have cellphones. Cellphones are entirely different, there are cheap, easy to replace, and portable.

 

[C.E. Evans]

To me, TV is already dead. Whenever I see something interesting in the listings, it's in the middle of a long commercial break. I switch to another channel--they're in a commercial break too. A try a third--yeah, in a commercial break as well. I finally do find something that isn't in a commercial break and then ninety seconds later, they go to a commercial break and the cycle begins again.

I'm really beginning to think that 50% of everything that's on TV are commercials. And then actual programming generally has lots onscreen clutter and annoying pop-ups, including commercials (promos) for other shows that I'm not remotely interested in that can ruin a pivotal scene.

More than a few times I've just turned the TV off and picked up a book or magazine...

 

[Hermiod]

To me, TV is already dead. Whenever I see something interesting in the listings, it's in the middle of a long commercial break. I switch to another channel--they're in a commercial break too. A try a third--yeah, in a commercial break as well. I finally do find something that isn't in a commercial break and then ninety seconds later, they go to a commercial break and the cycle begins again.

I'm really beginning to think that 50% of everything that's on TV are commercials. And then actual programming generally has lots onscreen clutter and annoying pop-ups, including commercials (promos) for other shows that I'm not remotely interested in that can ruin a pivotal scene.

More than a few times I've just turned the TV off and picked up a book or magazine...

Yeah, I've noticed that. I look through the Sky Planner and find every show I try to watch is in the middle of adverts.

 

[Jadzia]

I think Sky do most of their adverts at similar times don't they?

Is it 5 minutes past, 25 minutes past, and 45 minutes past. Each advert block is around 5 minutes.

Also at 55 minutes past if one programme ends and another is to begin on the hour. So 15-20 minutes per hour is adverts.

 

[Hermiod]

I think Sky do most of their adverts at similar times don't they?

Is it 5 minutes past, 25 minutes past, and 45 minutes past. Each advert block is around 5 minutes.

Also at 55 minutes past if one programme ends and another is to begin on the hour. So 15-20 minutes per hour is adverts.

They do mostly seem to line up, yes. Many channels also play fast and loose with OFCOM's "no cliffhangers" rule.

 

[Deckerd]

Channel 5 drive me crazy they way they crank the volume up for adverts.

 

[Jadzia]

I've made the comment several times, that we are a few short years away from TV dieing as a medium for entertainment transmission. That it will be replaced with the internet.

How long do you think it will be before this happens, and what do you think will be the "final nail" in the TV Network model of business

I don't think it will happen for a long time, due to financial interests.

We can look at the question from a different point of view. Namely, from the government's point of view. Whenever a broadcaster launches a channel, they first need to purchase bandwidth, and maintain annual payments on that in order to keep it. I don't know the figures, but I'm sure that is a huge amount of revenue for the government departments that regulate it.

The motivation for "going digital" is probably in part due to the increased revenue of having 100's of channels instead of less than 10 that we had previously, which is over a 10 fold increase in revenue.

Does digital increase the number of quality programmes being broadcast? No, they're just spread thinner.

Does digital increase the number of viewers? No, and the public don't need all those channels.

The people who benefit the most from digital are those who sell bandwidth.

So I don't think television will die out for a long time because that government department won't want to see a loss of revenue. Through customer incentives and extended contracts will want to keep the television service afloat for as long as possible. At least until something else comes along demanding bandwidth that they can license out to in place of television.