About twenty years ago people noticed computers and TV were on a collision course and started to speculate about what they'd produce when they converged. We now know the answer: computers...Why TV Lost (via Negatendo)The somewhat more surprising force was one specific type of innovation: social applications. The average teenage kid has a pretty much infinite capacity for talking to their friends. But they can't physically be with them all the time. When I was in high school the solution was the telephone. Now it's social networks, multiplayer games, and various messaging applications. The way you reach them all is through a computer. [3] Which means every teenage kid (a) wants a computer with an Internet connection, (b) has an incentive to figure out how to use it, and (c) spends countless hours in front of it...
After decades of running an IV drip right into their audience, people in the entertainment business had understandably come to think of them as rather passive. They thought they'd be able to dictate the way shows reached audiences. But they underestimated the force of their desire to connect with one another.
A recent article in the Wall Street Journal described how TV networks were trying to add more live shows, partly as a way to make viewers watch TV synchronously instead of watching recorded shows when it suited them. Instead of delivering what viewers want, they're trying to force them to change their habits to suit the networks' obsolete business model. That never works unless you have a monopoly or cartel to enforce it, and even then it only works temporarily.
Why TV Lost: a merry jig on the gogglebox's grave
Leave a comment
More items
To the anonymous gay teen who asked for help in a Boing Boing comment thread
[PHOTO: "Jessie," a CC-licensed image by LeTiger.] A few weeks ago, I blogged a funny video created by a Canadian high-school student titled "Hiding Your Sexual Orientation From Your Parents 101." One of the many people who commented on that post was an anonymous commenter who wrote: Ok, my pa... More.
Cult of Done Manifesto: a name for my disease
Bre Pettis and Kio Stark's "Cult of Done" manifesto is basically how I live my life -- fail fast and often, get stuff done, get more stuff done, fail some more, learn, blow something up, fail, learn, do more stuff, do more stuff, do more stuff. Seriously: reading these 13 bullet points are like dis... More.
Humanizing Psystar
Psystar, the company that makes and sells Mac clones, is the subject of a piece in SF Weekly. It talked to the young brothers behind the firm and asked them why they've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars fighting Apple. The boys loved to tinker. Robert vividly remembers his mom's fury when she... More.
Brian Despain's new show of robot paintings
BB's favorite robot painter, er rather... painter of robots Brian Despain has a show of new paintings opening tonight, November 13, at Seattle's Roq La Rue Gallery. Above, "The Prodigal Son" (oil on panel, 15" x 19").Also showing is John Brophy, whose paintings mixes up iconography from various cu... More.
Just Thinking About the Charmin Bears Makes Me Cringe
According to this story on mental_floss, nothing is more American than Mom, apple pie, and the freedom to wipe your butt with commercially produced toilet paper. ... More.
RSS Feed
"Max Headroom" had it right years ago.
"From gogglebox to googlebox," I guess...
TV lost because I can't interact with TV outside of "Power On" and "Power Off", "Channel" and "Volume." Even when they added more functions, like record any show, TV was upset because we used it to fast forward through ads. I can't do anything with my TV. My computer, on the other hand, much more.
In my kids' school, anyone who uses twitter is called a twit. They are all on facebook and Google Chat, though, which seems little different to me...
America lags behind Europe and Japan in embracing new technologies because the American business model is:
1. Overcharge the customer.
2. Use the customer's money to lobby Congress in order to prevent competition.
3. goto 1
Strangely enough, in other nations, the citizens' desires are often taken into account. In the US, the corporation is king.
I don't like to carp too much about the protracted "demise" of the telly.
Yeah, I probably spend much more time using Internets than I do watching TV, but that's not that hard because I *never* watched that much TV anyway. That said I probably still do waste too much time online, but that's a different story. I think what is said in the article about why the shifts happen is right, but that said, sometimes I like the fact that I have to spend an hour in one place where (hopefully!) somebody more talented than me has produced something high quality for my entertainment. The obsession that TV networks have with interactivity now bores me. As it is said, I can interact with something via computer any time I wish so why would I want to do this with the TV? This is a very personal thing, I know, but the only things I really like on TV are quality drama shows (including Dr Who...I think it's magic) and the kind of documentary that BBC4 produces. I'd really prefer less TV but more quality produced.
Has TV actually lost yet, though, if we're still discussing it like this?
My biggest complaint about TV is their failure to recognize (or just plain ignoring) that they have a world audience who want to watch their stuff. And it is not just American TV that are guilty of that. My favourite show is Dr Who. The last episode broadcast by the BBC has yet to show in the US. It is not available on ITunes and I don't believe the BBC will sell their license to foreigners outside the UK so that I can access their programming on the net (I'm hoping I'm wrong about that last bit).
It really annoys me that my only option is to torrent it when I would be more than happy to pay for it, even with minimal DRM strings attached.
I increasingly hate the internet. Sure, there's tons of neat stuff, but it also seems like there's a troll and/or someone I vehemently disagree with on every thread. At home, I just want some entertainment. I turn on the TV or watch a DVD. My home computer is broken and I really don't care very much. Social networking has no meaning to me at all. I am a loner IRL and a loner digitally.
Of course, it's a lot easier to kill pop-up ads online than it is on the TV. I'm lookin' at you, TNT…
My cable crapped out over a year ago, and the jerks at the cable company were seriously too lazy to fix it.
I quickly realized that I had been getting little to no enjoyment from TV, and wasting half of my life in front of it. Even with a DVR, you are still a slave to their scheduling to an extent, and can easily get caught up in a pattern of very passive, yet deliberate regular time-wasting.
Sure, there is still a show or two that I find enjoyable, but those can easily be found on-line, at my leisure, and take up a very small percentage of my time. And I can watch on my nice LED laptop screen, which is infinitely better than my 90's TV from Sears. In the kitchen, or even bathroom, if I so choose. Take that, TV!! Now I just have to figure out to do with this damn clunky CRT monster in my living room.
Of course, now I waste half of my life on teh internets. But yeah... I'm uh, networking and, umm... being productive and stuff. Yeah, that's it. Commenting on a blog post is productive. Right guys? Right?? Back me up here. :)
Network television pays the bills in this household. That said, we watch no live tv (other than news/weather) and very little of any real time television. When we do it's maybe a movie we ran across and decided to watch as long as it has no commercials and we don't have it in our library, or the odd old show in syndication. The only show that I know when and where it's on is Anthony Bourdain's No Reservations because I LOVE that show! And it is set to record on my DVR. In fact, anything I watch with any regularity, which isn't much, is via the DVR. Although we've a good 42" HDTV and HD satellite service we don't subscribe to any of the premium channels (HBO, etc.) We prefer to VOD or PayPerView a movie in HD if it's not in our library.
Anything else I watch online via the usual sites or an "underground" site that costs me next to nothing via an anonymous account. Yup, I'm biting the hand that feeds me but that's how it is. The real thing to look at is WHY.
It's SO much nicer to skip commercials, let's face it! When I got my first VCR in the early 80s I discovered the joy of no commercials and haven't looked back. It's also extremely nice to be able to pick and choose what I want to watch and when.
If the day ever comes, and I'm not holding my breath, where I can pick and choose...meaning ala carte...what I want to receive then I may end up watching more TV. Right now, even without the premium packages, there's soo much crap to sift through that too often it's just not worth it to turn the darn thing on beyond the DVR! I'm loving the VOD service, no extra fee so far, but the offerings are still slim, IMO. But I've hopes for its expansion.
Even though I've an excellent widescreen monitor on my desktop computer, and a 17" widescreen on my bigger than a laptop laptop, and could stream from the computer over our network to the tv system, it's already on the network, I still like the ease of flipping on the receiver and turning to a channel....but hate, hate, HATE all the filler!
All of THAT said, the recent digital switch-over of the station that feeds this household tells me that there is a HUGE amount of people who are quite satisfied with local TV only, via terrestrial signal, and not only don't own a computer but won't go near the one at the library, even if it's to look up something that might help them to better receive their TV signal! So, don't hold your breath for the demise of TV.....from what's gone on here the past few weeks I highly doubt it will die easily.
Oh..and the past few weeks have shown that people are dedicated beyond what seems healthy to me to "their" shows, don't listen, can't read (sadly, literally), won't listen/read, and live for their American Idol. Wouldn't it be nice if people cared half as much about each other as they do American Idol? And yes, people can be complete idiots and beyond rude, even when they're getting free help and a free signal. Oh, I forgot, it's their RIGHT to get a TV signal. :-/
I suppose none of you have any idea how bad German television is. I've stopped watching it ages ago and don't even miss it. Most people here complain about the "quality" of the TV, so I don't get why we in Europe should be any more tech-forward than the US. I personally have resignated and mostly use the TV for games or DVDs.
And following, an extremely short rant about "region codes" - who needs them? What are they good for? Annoys me even more than the copyright.
He could have mentioned the TiVo, itself a computer but in a form factor that made it look like a piece of A/V equipment. I knew old TV was dead when I realized I'd never watch a show on someone else's schedule again.
Now TV manufacturers are building Internet interfaces into the televisions themselves, making them network appliances or essentially dumb computers. Convergence achieved, now it's just down to people making content. Too bad the broadcasters got left out in the end, but the one to many model is so twentieth century after all.
I really think this is a pointless argument. I have an HTPC serving up OTA broadcast,among other media sources, to a screen. I don't say "turn on the computer." I say, "turn on the TV". I have a feeling that as home servers become more common, this false dichotomy will fade away. Does it really matter where the media is coming from, if they have a fixed time schedule or not, or whether there is advertising? If you are sitting in the living room watching media on a glowing box, you are watching TV, and that is unlikely to change anytime soon.
"TV versus internet" is just a silly false dichotomy. The internet is changing the role of television in much the same way that television changed the role of radio, but that's no reason to get all Highlander. There can be more than one.
I just don't see the point of paying dozens of dollars a month that I may use an hour a day, if that.
Besides, I prefer TV in the UK, which can be hard to find in the US unless you order a DVD of them. Why should I pay for something I may not know I'd like? No thanks; stream for me, please.
(Well, I would stream if I didn't have a crappy ISP. My neighbors have cable [yes, I know! grr] yet the company hadn't deemed this house worthy enough to string their lines to us. Instead, we have to have awful satellite service which limits me to 425mb/day and has a "FAP" [yes, that's what they call it] policy that will restrict my service if I go over that limit. They give me 3 hours at night to download something which, frankly, with their slow speeds it could take several days to download something that's 1gb. I know I complain about this everywhere, and this is completely off topic, but no one will listen to me. Might as well bitch online because none of my congresspeople, local ISPs, and local politicians listen to me. I'll stop now.)
With few significant exceptions I didn't consume any TV between 1976 when I became too busy to turn it on and 2001 when I lived in hotels 15 days a month and had no other entertainment. I now watch maybe 2 hours a month, but will watch a few shows on DVD if I feel like it. I'm so far behind in popular culture that tonight's Netflix delivery will introduce us to the second season of Buffy. I'm just too impatient to watch broadcast TV. Turn it off for a month and the commercials will irritate you. For a year and they'll make you furious.
For me, the internets win hands down. In fact, I'm pinned and conclusively defeated. I don't know what I did all day before I had broadband but I'm pretty sure it was more productive than having a 5 way argument about dielectric dissipation factors and their audible effects like I did today.
This is a fascinating topic, to be honest but I choose to belittle it by remarking that TV initially lost the plot by not featuring billions of hours of free pornography.
Jokes aside, the means of producing TV and movie quality video get cheaper and cheaper but the means for monetizing content get less extravagant as well.
I just got rid of my cable TV service a few weeks ago because I wasn't watching and it was a waste of money. I upgraded my internet service (100GB/month bandwidth instead of 60GB, and a higher speed), and I'm still paying $40 less than I would with my previous service + cable.
This article describes, better than I could EVER have done, the deep sense of liberation I experienced when I decided to use the Internet as my entertainment source, rather than my television.
I think TV has lost, but the networks haven't realized it yet. Sure, there is a large group of people who will never change over, but guess what? They'll die. And what's the TV penetration like of the younger generation? Networks are already seeing advertising revenue down, and it's going to keep getting worse as their loyal viewers die off and are replaced by the connected generation.
I worked in TV for 22 years and upon retirement my present to myself was to never watch it again. At the network level they have been locked in the 1950s since the 1950s. In Genesis it is not decreed there shall be news, sports, and weather. News is usually yesterdays newspaper read to the illiterate with added video clips. When the local newspaper goes kaput that effectively ends TV news too. Some of the activity that has replaced TV amongst the younger set appears to be self-absorption 101. Where that will lead I can't say. If a computer expands your horizons that's wonderful. But technology is deceptive. For all the work that went into the National Geographic Specials there was always more hard information in two pages of the magazine than in a beautiful hour of the TV show.
I can see a new Buggles song comming on.. "Internet killed TV star"
While it's an interesting piece, I notice there are no numbers in the article, just the declaration "tv loser, Internetz winner" (that's oversimplified, but oh well). I think that's because there aren't actually numbers justifying this eulogy.
Even if the elite (that's us, my mutant brethren, loudly declaring into our beloved Screens how little we ever watch the pathetic Box) are leaving TV in droves (and have been probably since the boomers discovered Acid and birth control) and TV audiences in general are shrinking, every single network and basic cable show gets way more eyeballs than anything but the most successful youtube clip, and they keep them for at least three times as long. For instance, people actually finding the time and resources to make long-form web vids or animations are still hoping desperately to get picked up by cable or OMIGOD A NETWORK and broadcast. Are, for the most part, doing it IN THE FIRST PLACE in the hopes of getting "discovered". Going viral is just a means to an end, and that end is ABC, NBC, FOX, SNL, TNT, MTV and other TLAs. So yeah, big bad old broadcast TV has gots to adjust its business model, and is losing more audience than it would if it weren't, you know, huge, slow, old, contemptuous, and corporate, but like Brainspore said @ 15 FTW, Internet's not going to kill (broadcast) TV just like TV didn't kill radio. TV's just gonna have to tighten its belt. Or, rather, trade in those stained, crusty old sweatpants for some new slacks and get off its ass.
Also, that idea in the comments of the original article about the potential audience for streaming high school sports is brilliant and someone should make a million dollars off it.
@ #23 posted by Spikeles:
You're about 9 years late for that idea.
Haha! awesome!
People have been claiming the death of TV for two decades. Oddly, the data doesn't support these claims and it actually shows the exact opposite is true.
In the two hours that American Idol airs each week there are more people watching (and interacting) than are using Google in the 24 hour period proceeding.
Worldwide internet advertising spending is a fraction of worldwide television advertising spend.
The number of hours the average television is in use has INCREASED in the last ten years to almost 7 hours a day. Does anyone on here spend 7 hours a day actively on the web just cruising around? You may USE the web for work but you're not actually USING the web they way you use your TV.
"In the two hours that American Idol airs each week there are more people watching (and interacting) than are using Google in the 24 hour period proceeding."
I would love to see some citations for this "fact."
#27, Anonymous:
Apparently it's more like five hours.
A quick search suggests that Google sites get around 151 billion users per month; i.e. about 5 billion per day. American Idol is getting about 25 million viewers per episode.
This story is hauntingly familiar. Oh, right. It's just like the music industry vs. the MP3 player. When will these large and faceless corporations understand that we just won't sit still while you force what YOU want me to watch/listen to/think etc.
And if I may say, I'm a 51 year old man who streams NetFlix through a PlayOn server into a PlayStation 3 80GB and from there into my HDTV. The incentive to use the Watch Instantly content on a screen bigger than my laptop was all it took.
And what's next, where's the next analogy here? The music industry as it was known 30 years ago is in its death throes due to gross mismanagement and the inability to adapt to the times. The US car industry is guilty of the same thing, but a benevolent government is trying to do something about that, and mores the pity.
My main beef against broadcast TV is the amount of time occupied by commercials. Lat night my wife and I sat down and watched four 1 hour TV program episodes on DVD. It took 2.86 hours. We saved a full 69 minutes that we would have spent watching pointless stuff if we had watched the same shows on broadcast. In this day and age, what product can compete that's loaded with 28% of what its consumers don't want?
@BRAINSPORE
That video really made me smile...
Oh crap. I'm growing nostalgic for internet history!
I do think internet distribution is the future of TV. (Though remember who you pay for broadband: odds are it's Comcast. The status quo won't be wholly upended.) I watch the few things I watch through Hulu, Netflix, and iTunes.
But it's pure middle/upper class geek solipsism to imagine that TV is anything like dead. SuperBowl ads, people.
I stopped watching TV years ago, because 99% of what I wanted to see isn't available on TV in my part of the world.
The only way TV will get me back is if it stops being TV and becomes the internet. Showing me what I want to see, when I want to see it, how I want to see it.
And without monopolistic cable-company price gouging.
That's great that you guys all decided to not watch TV, since you don't like it, but it's nothing but triumphalism to declare that it "lost." The last time I checked, millions of households still tune in every week to their favorite shows. And "Two and a Half Men" is still the most popular comedy in this country.
@ #32 posted by urshrew
I know what you mean. I gotta believe it's been at least a decade since anybody downloaded a Ricky Martin song, legally or otherwise.
I propose a drinking game for every use of the phrase "obsolete business model" or whenever someone assumes that their own technophiliac habits are representative of the general populace as a whole.