How long before TV dies?

[Data Holmes]

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.


Me I still think that it's going to be in the next two to five years. I think that the big shift is going already in the works and it will be the roll out of two things from Apple which will do it.

The Apple thing is an intertwined two fold introduction of a new product line and a new service.

The product will be the introduction of a line of Apple branded TV's. they will be simple HD LCD's and will probably range in size from 30" up to the mid 50" range. Their big thing will be that they will not be simple monitors but will also have the current apple tv built in.

This will coincide with apple launching a monthly based pay service with live broadcast/unlimited streaming component to the iTunes program, which will allow access to your iTunes stream account from any device.

One monthly membership and you can watch live broadcast/unlimited streaming of Movies, tv shows, and live events such as american idol or the news, from your new Apple television or on your tv through an Apple TV box, on your home computer, your laptop computer, on your iPad, on your iPhone, or on your iPod.

The people I talk with all seem to accept that this "could happen" but that it was farther off than a short two years, but I'm not so sure. The reason I'm not is looking at apples recent moves.

They buy 50 acres of land next to it's headquarters for expansion, Final price tag for this endeavor is estimated to be as high as $500 million. Why does it need this new office and other space?

They build a 500,000 sq foot server farm in North Carolina at a estimated price of $1 billion. What does it need this for?

Apple, this past December, purchased the streaming music service Lala. Why? Perhaps it's a case similar to PA Semi, where apple had no real interest in the company but wanted access to the engineering and experience base for future use... Note, apple bought PA Semi in 2008, developed the ipad's new PA Semi crew designed chip in 09, and is bringing it to market in early 10.

Steve Jobs has told the apple shareholders in Feb, when he was asked about the possibility of a dividend or buy back program for apple stock, that the company was better off holding on to it's cash reserves for "big, bold investments". Apple currently has roughly $25 billion in cash and short term investments as of Dec.

 

[Amaris]

While I'm not sold on the two years estimation (I think 5 to 10 years), I agree that things are shaping up this way. I have a Roku box which lets me watch Netflix movies, but also gives me access to thousands of music stations, independent television stations and even Amazon.com where I can rent movies or buy and the movie purchase gets stored on their server.

 

[Data Holmes]

Another interesting thing I would mention...

Cablevision, who killed ABC from their lineup yesterday in a fight over fee's, introduced a new top tier internet service in the middle of last year... Optimum Ultra, which tops out at 101mbps down/15mbps up, for $100/month.

It's also seen a large chunk of it's north jersey customers go to sat tv and opt for just the online or online/voip service over the "triple play" savings package because they don't like the cable tv side of the deal.

 

[Amaris]

Another interesting thing I would mention...

Cablevision, who killed ABC from their lineup yesterday in a fight over fee's, introduced a new top tier internet service in the middle of last year... Optimum Ultra, which tops out at 101mbps down/15mbps up, for $100/month.

It's also seen a large chunk of it's north jersey customers go to sat tv and opt for just the online or online/voip service over the "triple play" savings package because they don't like the cable tv side of the deal.

Yeah, we get a somewhat decent deal (compared to everyone else around us) with our cable package, but it's still three times as high as a satellite package. However, with our poor credit, satellite companies want a huge sum as a down payment and they want us to buy our equipment outright (at higher than market prices), and that's just ridiculous.

So we stick with cable. We have the digital package because the analog package is $10 a month cheaper, but only has 60 channels compared to the digital pack's standard tier of 221 channels. Plus, analog cable television in our area looks positively atrocious. Now, I don't watch much cable television, aside from a few movies, and I have to say most cable is garbage. Out of those 221 channels, I would say that easily, 150 of them are nothing more than shopping/infomercial/access/PPV stations that no one watches. They're filler stations to make it seem like you have a lot of choices for the price.

If it were up to me, and it's not, I'd rather just have RoadRunner and the digital phone service, which are reasonably priced. Seriously, on a $160 cable bill, $100 is directly tied to the cable, and that's after I whittled it down to just the standard digital tier.

Cable prices are insane, and I think that will push more people away.

 

[Sheep]

One could argue that TV is freely available to everyone as a means of mass communication (not entirely sure I buy that, but let's proceed anyway). If one assumes that's true, OTA broadcasts aren't going anywhere anytime soon since there's a large portion of the population that has no internet access, and most of this group has no desire to get it.

Another problem is that the conflict between cable companies and ISPs. In a lot of places, they're one and the same which means that pretty much anything has to go through them and be subject to their whims about bandwidth and charging more for less as providers such as AT&T have already indicated they plan on implementing in the future. They could prove me wrong and actually charge people who use less a lower amount than they're currently paying (along with those who use more a higher amount, which actually makes sense), but I'm not holding my breath for that to happen--rates will NEVER decrease.

 

[Shaw]

There is an odd perception by those who chase the cusp of technology that when something arrives it will be adopted by everyone almost instantly.

The reality (and history) are quite different. Computers took years to come into use, the internet took years, TV took years, cable TV took years. No matter how revolutionary this stuff might be, it's adoption won't be as quick as two to five years, and it won't supplant other things (like TV) that fast either.

Who knows... ten years from now maybe all that stuff will be really popular, maybe even popular enough to start the final death spiral of TV as we've known it. But two to five years from now, no matter how good it might be, isn't going to bring that big a change.

Consider this... I fix Apple computers for a living. My clients are long time users of Apple technology, and should be the most open to much of this Apple stuff (if they were interested). Not one of them owns an AppleTV, a few have iPods (and one an iPhone), and most haven't ventured far beyond buying music via the iTunes Music Store (though I've interested a number of them in iTunes U).

Most people (including Apple users) don't chase technology like that. They don't like change, and are slow to adopt anything that is really new. That is just how people are... and have been for a long time.

TV has been losing viewers for a long time... and will most likely keep losing viewers. And yet more people watch TV today than did in the 1960s (and possibly the 1970s as well), so it is still a healthy business model and in no real danger over the next few years.

 

[Data Holmes]

I think that when this "death of tv" happens, that cable companies will simply become ISP's, and transfer their entire infrastructure over to that end.

 

[Amaris]

There is an odd perception by those who chase the cusp of technology that when something arrives it will be adopted by everyone almost instantly.

The reality (and history) are quite different. Computers took years to come into use, the internet took years, TV took years, cable TV took years. No matter how revolutionary this stuff might be, it's adoption won't be as quick as two to five years, and it won't supplant other things (like TV) that fast either.

Who knows... ten years from now maybe all that stuff will be really popular, maybe even popular enough to start the final death spiral of TV as we've known it. But two to five years from now, no matter how good it might be, isn't going to bring that big a change.

Consider this... I fix Apple computers for a living. My clients are long time users of Apple technology, and should be the most open to much of this Apple stuff (if they were interested). Not one of them owns an AppleTV, a few have iPods (and one an iPhone), and most haven't ventured far beyond buying music via the iTunes Music Store (though I've interested a number of them in iTunes U).

Most people (including Apple users) don't chase technology like that. They don't like change, and are slow to adopt anything that is really new. That is just how people are... and have been for a long time.

TV has been losing viewers for a long time... and will most likely keep losing viewers. And yet more people watch TV today than did in the 1960s (and possibly the 1970s as well), so it is still a healthy business model and in no real danger over the next few years.

You make a good point. When I purchased my iMac, it was because of Apple's excellent reputation and their high quality computers. I still don't own an iPod or an iPhone. Shoot, my cell phone barely works as a cell phone, so I'm nowhere near the cutting edge, even though I am excited to see new technologies. The only cutting edge I'm on, really, is Blu-ray and that's because my family bought me a player and I can get discs for $5.

 

[sojourner]

Apple can have my money when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers.

If your all for simple, controlling, invasive, and overpriced, go for it buy an Apple, otherwise join the free world and buy products that let you remain in control.

 

[Data Holmes]

Irrational Apple hate aside, they do tend to "drive the market" so to speak. If apple started marketing a line of LCD "tv's" which were sized from say 27" to 60", were 1080p, and included within them the internals of the apple tv box, are you telling me that other tv and computer manufactures wouldn't team up to make comparable devices?

Hell, apple is almost already there with the iMacs...

They would basically be selling a 55" iMac for only a little more than a high end TV. And given Apple's history, they would most likely be using Samsung LCD panels in such tv's.

So, you have a 55" LCD tv with fully integrated computer, wireless network access, and through that wireless, full access to the entire gamut of movies, shows, and music for download as well as potential access to a subscription based streaming service.

They would really shift the market by doing that.

 

[Amaris]

Apple can have my money when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers.

If your all for simple, controlling, invasive, and overpriced, go for it buy an Apple, otherwise join the free world and buy products that let you remain in control.

What do you mean? I'm a Windows Power User who also happens to like (and formerly owned) Apple computers. They're only as simple as you want them to be. As for invasive, how so? I had full reign over OS X. Regarding overpriced, I bought my iMac used, and for less than $500 for everything. It was an iMac 17" Intel Dual Core that not only ran everything I threw at it, but that it also worked flawlessly the whole time I owned it.

 

[Rii]

Consider this... I fix Apple computers for a living. My clients are long time users of Apple technology, and should be the most open to much of this Apple stuff (if they were interested). Not one of them owns an AppleTV, a few have iPods (and one an iPhone), and most haven't ventured far beyond buying music via the iTunes Music Store (though I've interested a number of them in iTunes U).

Whereas, back in the real world, people own iPods and iPhones and don't own Macs.

 

[Shaw]

Whereas, back in the real world, people own iPods and iPhones and don't own Macs.

I'm sure you had a point to make here... maybe you could be a little more explicit. We wouldn't want anyone to think you were making an attack on me and ignoring the topic of the thread.

 

[Rii]

I would've thought it was clear enough: that your experiences are not representative of broader adoption trends; and that by extension predictions concerning broad adoption trends based upon those experiences are not useful.

 

[sojourner]

Apple can have my money when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers.

If your all for simple, controlling, invasive, and overpriced, go for it buy an Apple, otherwise join the free world and buy products that let you remain in control.

What do you mean? I'm a Windows Power User who also happens to like (and formerly owned) Apple computers. They're only as simple as you want them to be. As for invasive, how so? I had full reign over OS X. Regarding overpriced, I bought my iMac used, and for less than $500 for everything. It was an iMac 17" Intel Dual Core that not only ran everything I threw at it, but that it also worked flawlessly the whole time I owned it.

Anyone who has installed quicktime on a PC can tell you about invasive, and pricing on a used computer doesn't really apply to how Apple prices things does it?

 

[MANT!]

I would've thought it was clear enough: that your experiences are not representative of broader adoption trends; and that by extension predictions concerning broad adoption trends based upon those experiences are not useful.

Hmm..the message is muddled in the language..are you speaking Pentagonese Rii?


I'm still listening to the radio..watching broadcast TV..running CDs in my players, DVDs in them as well, watching and loading music on my I-pod...I find that I simply ADD the new technology to my list of options, not drop the old stuff in favor of the new..

 

[Jetfire]

My TV died along time ago...I watch stuff on my laptop now...seems to suit me just fine.

 

[Shaw]

I would've thought it was clear enough: that your experiences are not representative of broader adoption trends; and that by extension predictions concerning broad adoption trends based upon those experiences are not useful.

Opinions vary... I get paid for my knowledge in technology, so someone must be listening.

But we could put a wager on this... see if what I've said pans out over time?

Anyone who has installed quicktime on a PC can tell you about invasive...

Actually, anyone who has installed Quicktime on a PC can see why Windows is a hostile environment for developers other than Microsoft. Microsoft doesn't want Quicktime (or Real Player, or soon Flash) to work well on Windows.

Any software that competes with Microsoft's offerings will always have an uphill battle on Windows. It was why the DoJ had originally ask to break up Microsoft.

Microsoft wants Apple products not to work well in Windows, Apple wants their products to work perfectly in Windows... and most users blame Apple if Apple products don't work as well as they should.

Doesn't matter... it won't change anything anyways.

 

[Geckothan]

I can't see TV dying in the next decade. On-demand services might become more common, whether they're through the internet or through satellite/cable providers, but I can't see TV dying outright, especially over here where TV news/weather, chat shows, reality shows and other shows that wouldn't work in an on-demand format rake in ridiculous money.

BBC iPlayer has pretty much killed TV for me, though. There's only a handful of shows I actually watch on Sky (and all of them are available on DVD anyway), and if I moved out, I'd probably abandon TV altogether and stick to watching DVDs and iPlayer.

 

[Rii]

Hmm..the message is muddled in the language..are you speaking Pentagonese Rii?

They have robots for that now.