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

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.

The biggest reason why the government was pushing for the digital change over was because it wanted to reallocate the RF spectrum reserved for tv broadcast for other uses. It has and the vast majority of that spectrum was picked up at auction by telecommunication companies for use for mobile phone and wi-fi use.

 

[ngc7293]

(rather than read all the pages, here is my view so sorry if I repeat)
We live in an area where there isn't any cheap broadband. Satellite service gives us the main Network channels but not all the ones we used to get before they went Digital. In order to get THOSE other stations, we have the antenna on a 30foot tower and even then we only get SOME of the stations we want.
I agree that the Internet is where it is at. We have phone coverage via Vonage and there is Hulu. But broadband has to be offered EVERYWHERE at a reasonable price in order for TV of all kinds to go away. That won't happen in my generation. Let's say 20 years?

 

[Robert Maxwell]

But the Windows version of QuickTime is absolute garbage. Bloated, slow, unreliable, unstable. You can't pin that on Microsoft--plenty of other third-party media players seem to work just fine, with a much smaller footprint. It's pretty sad when something like Media Player Classic is more reliable for playing MP4 videos than QuickTime is.

Windows Media Player fit a very similar description when running on OSX. Up until MS stopped making it altogether, of course.

I didn't know MS ever even bothered. What a waste of time and effort. I'm not really a fan of WMP, either.

As media players go, QuickTime has always been junk. I've used it off and on for over 10 years, and it only ever seems to get slower and more bloated.

Apple agrees. That's why they're phasing in Quicktime X, which is a complete rewrite from scratch. It doesn't yet have all the capabilities of QT 7, so it has the ability to "hook in" to QT7 functionality when such features are requested, but over time more and more of that will be phased out in favor of new code.

Well, that's reassuring. I'm glad they've listened to users and realized their software has a bad reputation, and are thus doing something about it.

Also, thanks for the reasonable and informative response. Sure beats the smug propaganda Shaw likes to push around here.

Looks like my first action as mod around here is to give myself a friendly for this one. The snide comment was unnecessary and I shouldn't have gone there.

So, sorry for that, Shaw.

 

[Hermiod]

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

OFCOM have told them to cut that out too.

 

[Shaw]

So, sorry for that, Shaw.

Wow... thanks.

I know normally it is comments to PM, but for the record, you didn't need to say anything publicly.

Anyways... I'm impressed, and everyone else should be too.

 

[John Picard]

Windows Media Player fit a very similar description when running on OSX. Up until MS stopped making it altogether, of course.

I didn't know MS ever even bothered. What a waste of time and effort. I'm not really a fan of WMP, either.

Apple agrees. That's why they're phasing in Quicktime X, which is a complete rewrite from scratch. It doesn't yet have all the capabilities of QT 7, so it has the ability to "hook in" to QT7 functionality when such features are requested, but over time more and more of that will be phased out in favor of new code.

Well, that's reassuring. I'm glad they've listened to users and realized their software has a bad reputation, and are thus doing something about it.

Also, thanks for the reasonable and informative response. Sure beats the smug propaganda Shaw likes to push around here.

Looks like my first action as mod around here is to give myself a friendly for this one. The snide comment was unnecessary and I shouldn't have gone there.

So, sorry for that, Shaw.

DAAAAANNNNGGGGGGG

What the hell A moderator with a sense of humility? Knock that crap off or you'll tear a hole in the Space/Time Continuum.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I didn't know MS ever even bothered. What a waste of time and effort. I'm not really a fan of WMP, either.

Well, that's reassuring. I'm glad they've listened to users and realized their software has a bad reputation, and are thus doing something about it.

Also, thanks for the reasonable and informative response. Sure beats the smug propaganda Shaw likes to push around here.

Looks like my first action as mod around here is to give myself a friendly for this one. The snide comment was unnecessary and I shouldn't have gone there.

So, sorry for that, Shaw.

DAAAAANNNNGGGGGGG

What the hell A moderator with a sense of humility? Knock that crap off or you'll tear a hole in the Space/Time Continuum.

Well, I wouldn't have said anything about it had someone not notified on it. I think the other staff considered this my "trial by fire." I knew I was pushing it with my original post, though, so I'll swallow my pride when I know I've gone too far.

Anyway, let's get this thread back to its original topic: prematurely exaggerating the demise of television!

 

[Data Holmes]

Just some news, the national broadband plan specifics are starting to get out there... In it, it apparently specifies and calls for the following within the next ten years:

• Connect 100 million households to affordable 100-megabits-per-second service, building the world's largest market of high-speed broadband users and ensuring that new jobs and businesses are created in America.
• Affordable access in every American community to ultra-high-speed broadband of at least 1 gigabit per second at anchor institutions such as schools, hospitals, and military installations so that America is hosting the experiments that produce tomorrow's ideas and industries.
• Ensure that the United States is leading the world in mobile innovation by making 500 megahertz of spectrum newly available for licensed and unlicensed use.
• Move our adoption rates from roughly 65 percent to more than 90 percent and make sure that every child in America is digitally literate by the time he or she leaves high school.
• Bring affordable broadband to rural communities, schools, libraries, and vulnerable populations by transitioning existing Universal Service Fund support from yesterday’s analog technologies to tomorrow’s digital infrastructure.
• Promote competition across the broadband ecosystem by ensuring greater transparency, removing barriers to entry, and conducting market-based analysis with quality data on price, speed, and availability.
• Enhance the safety of the American people by providing every first responder with access to a nationwide, wireless, interoperable public safety network.

 

[Data Holmes]

Apple is pushing hard to lay the ground work to kill tv as it currently exists, but it looks like networks are pushing back because they have no understanding of where the future is going to be.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703523204575129862264704190.html

 

[Robert Maxwell]

It's still going to be decades before TV as we know it is "killed." Apple isn't really paving the way in this regard, they're just trying to get TV and other media onto the iPad so the damn thing will sell!

 

[Data Holmes]

http://www.appleinsider.com/article...ntroduce_connected_hdtv_within_2_4_years.html

Apple is expected to join the lucrative home entertainment market, estimated to be worth $31.8 billion in the U.S. alone, in the next two to four years by offering a $2,000 Internet- and content-connected HDTV.

In a note to investors issued Tuesday afternoon, analyst Gene Munster with Piper Jaffray said the move makes strategic sense for Apple, as the Cupertino, Calif., company has a history of success in redefining mature markets.

"As connected TVs gain traction, software, content and portability will become the key differentiators and Apple is uniquely positioned to deliver a premium all-in-one solution (different than Apple TV)," Munster wrote.

The analyst said he believes Apple will combine hardware, software and content in one product with a competitively priced $2,000 HDTV. When combined with a potential iTunes TV subscription plan priced between $50 and $90 per month, users would no longer have a need for their monthly cable bill.

The need for a cable box and DVR could be replaced with an iTunes TV pass priced between $50 and $90 per month.

Another important component of the living room experience is games... With a connected TV with access to the existing App Store, Munster believes Apple could enter the market quite easily.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I don't know, that pricing doesn't really look very competitive, unless one genuinely believes an Apple TV can replace a Blu-Ray player and game console and cable TV service.

 

[Data Holmes]

I don't know, that pricing doesn't really look very competitive, unless one genuinely believes an Apple TV can replace a Blu-Ray player and game console and cable TV service.

Direct access to games through the app store.
Direct HD streaming of movies.
Direct HD streaming of TV shows.
No need for cable TV or associated DVR because you can download any tv program anytime you want directly.

On paper it does seem to kill those three.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I don't know, that pricing doesn't really look very competitive, unless one genuinely believes an Apple TV can replace a Blu-Ray player and game console and cable TV service.

Direct access to games through the app store.
Direct HD streaming of movies.
Direct HD streaming of TV shows.
No need for cable TV or associated DVR because you can download any tv program anytime you want directly.

On paper it does seem to kill those three.

The game thing is never going to happen unless Apple builds a bona fide gaming console into their TV. Not only that, they'd have to get buy-in from game developers. Good luck seeing anything more advanced than the "toy" games you find on iPhones.

HD streaming is only going to be available in areas with very fast broadband. Today's 3G connections aren't nearly fast enough for truly HD streaming. And if they don't go the wireless route, what will they do instead?

I'm not saying this stuff will never happen, just that it's not nearly as close as you think it is. Even if Apple does go through with something like this, it will never see the kind of market share needed to represent a genuine threat to broadcast TV. It's just not going to happen for several more years, for a whole host of reasons.

 

[Data Holmes]

I don't know, that pricing doesn't really look very competitive, unless one genuinely believes an Apple TV can replace a Blu-Ray player and game console and cable TV service.

Direct access to games through the app store.
Direct HD streaming of movies.
Direct HD streaming of TV shows.
No need for cable TV or associated DVR because you can download any tv program anytime you want directly.

On paper it does seem to kill those three.

The game thing is never going to happen unless Apple builds a bona fide gaming console into their TV. Not only that, they'd have to get buy-in from game developers. Good luck seeing anything more advanced than the "toy" games you find on iPhones.

Well, I'm sure that if presented with such an option that more... substantial gaming will come to the app store. Also, there is the news that Valve's Steam is coming to Macs points to a bit of a shift in the gaming industry toward offering more options to apple owners:

http://www.theticker.org/about/2.8220/valve-s-steam-brings-fragging-to-mac-1.2197139

Steam, the leading digital distribution manager of the videogame industry, is expanding to Mac OSX this April. Not only will this change the position of Steam’s developer, Valve, as the premier videogame developer for Macs, it will also will expand audiences for both companies.

Initially released in 2003, Steam was one of the first programs that allowed users to purchase, download and play through a video game manager solely over their Internet connection. Back when the others were still looking at selling games on HD-DVD and Blu-Ray, Steam embraced downloadable content as the future of the gaming industry.
Self-proclaimed as the “The Nexus of PC Gaming,” Steam’s digital library has grown to include major publishers such as 2K Games, Activision Blizzard, Electronic Arts and Ubisoft to name a few.


According to John Cook, the director of Steam Development, Mac users will have access to the same games as Windows and console users.


“We are treating the Mac as a tier-1 platform, so all of our future games will release simultaneously on Windows, Mac and the Xbox 360,” said Cook.

Also, you have to look at how the iPhone, iPod Touch, and iPad will play into this... Thanks to the WiFi features of these things, you could see them serve as the controllers to such "console" games. So you now have motion control similar to the Wii, you have configurable, software based control programs. Also, such a TV unit would no doubt be enabled with the apple wireless cards, which would also enable Bluetooth devices such as the magic mouse and apple keyboard to work on these units as well as any other bluetooth peripherals.


Also, for those who already own a TV/monitor and don't want to replace that, they can still have access to all the apple services less the screen with the AppleTV Box.

HD streaming is only going to be available in areas with very fast broadband. Today's 3G connections aren't nearly fast enough for truly HD streaming. And if they don't go the wireless route, what will they do instead?

Do note they specify no longer needing cable tv. Most likely you will still need, and want, some form of high speed internet provider, be it from a former cable or telephone, which will both see a restructuring into primarily being internet service providers that offer "other features" such as a digital streaming, download, and VOIP services.

Wireless will never become the primary form of ISP in a home, outside of rural areas where wired networks just are not within the cost and return spectrum for companies to fully cover everyone.

I'm not saying this stuff will never happen, just that it's not nearly as close as you think it is. Even if Apple does go through with something like this, it will never see the kind of market share needed to represent a genuine threat to broadcast TV. It's just not going to happen for several more years, for a whole host of reasons.

US broadband plan... 100 million people with 100mb/s down within ten years.

Also, given Apple's target market, I'm sure they are more looking at urban and suburban middle class and above as the target market. Areas which will see the higher internet speeds the soonest. Heck, my area, the NY/NJ metro and suburban area already has access to the 80 down verizon fios and the 100 down optimum ultra. What is Apple's Computer penetration in NY and the surrounding area?

http://www.ifoapplestore.com/db/2006/02/23/metrics-are-part-of-retail-reality/

How about the stores themselves? Apple officially reports that its stores average $33.2 million in sales per year (extrapolated from the latest quarterly results). In fact, several mature stores are on track to deliver sales in the $40 million range this year, with new and smaller stores racking up $25 million in sales. Sales figures for Apple’s flagship stores skew the sales average considerably higher, with sales three to four times what standard stores generate. For example, the SoHo (NYC) store tallied almost $150 million in fiscal 2005.

Now, any such service from apple would also carry over to their portable line... I'm sure that there will be issues with bandwidth, and problems with streaming in particular... but apple and it's partners are still building toward that future.

http://www.phonenews.com/apple-consolidating-av-cables-ahead-of-iphone-hd-launch-7648/

http://gizmodo.com/5124126/sling-up...ming-to-mac-iphone-sling-app-scheduled-for-q1

http://www.akamai.com/html/solutions/iphone.html

http://www.macworld.com/article/145136/2009/12/eyetv_update.html

 

[Teiwaz]

Back when TNG came out, there was a reference to TV not surviving beyond the middle of the 21st Century. I did'nt believe it then (late 80's). Now I'm not so sure.

It's not survived for me, it's increasingly filled with reality TV drivel, or (thanks to the BBC) a nicely mixed balance of reality TV drivel and pretentious highbrow blather. Perhaps it's just me but I fail to find anything worth watching, and if I'm tempted, I just go to my ISP's home page and read their 'What to watch' column to cure me of the temptation.

I survive on games, books and DVDs (supplemented with an extensive archive of programmes videotaped from when TV was a little more varied).

From what I can gather, the mainstream population still find something to watch on it. Analog TV is cut here in 2012, given that a TV set (do they still call them that, they used too) has a life expectancy of more than five years (you'll be lucky if a PC lasts that long) and the recent investment in digital broadcasting I'd expect at least another ten years on current equipment.

In the long term it'll be around a good while, only becoming a deadland of soft porn chatlines and commercial presentations only when the watching audience falls right off of the world ends (I think I'd prefer that to no other alternative).

This current generation and probably the next one will still use the technology, so it's not going away.

does anybody remember Max Headroom - 20 Minutes into the Future - Now there was a vision of a TV future...

 

[sojourner]

^The only real flaw I see in that Apple TV pricing model as presented is it forgets to mention that a good portion of people get their broadband from their cable TV provider (in the U.S.). So they'll still have to pay for cable to use the Apple TV.