Traditional TV Is in Trouble(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Traditional TV Is in Trouble
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/13/business/media/television-advertising.html
141 comments
Traditional television is behind the push to destroy the net in general.
Look at us here in Australia - look up "NBN". we had a plan (that was already 10% complete and working great) to install gigabit fibre in 93% of homes. Then Rupert Murdoch handed the election to the Coalition, in exchange for them:
- Immediately stopping work on the fibre network
- Replacing the bulk of the remaining rollout with a VDSL system (ancient technology, my parents got it and instead of gigabit fibre their internet went from 13 Mbps to 19 Mbps - and this costs 2400$ per house to install)
- Using loans and taxpayer money to expand the Fox cable TV\internet network to double the number of homes, and paying Foxtel hundreds of millions of dollars for the privilege, while continuing to grant them exclusive rights to broadcast on it on all frequencies they want, including the ones that are optimal for internet
- Purchasing and decommissioning the Optus cable TV network which competes with it, replacing it with VDSL service
It's a national tragedy, wasting fifty billion dollars and a decade, just for the sake of protecting a conservative TV monopoly.
Look at us here in Australia - look up "NBN". we had a plan (that was already 10% complete and working great) to install gigabit fibre in 93% of homes. Then Rupert Murdoch handed the election to the Coalition, in exchange for them:
- Immediately stopping work on the fibre network
- Replacing the bulk of the remaining rollout with a VDSL system (ancient technology, my parents got it and instead of gigabit fibre their internet went from 13 Mbps to 19 Mbps - and this costs 2400$ per house to install)
- Using loans and taxpayer money to expand the Fox cable TV\internet network to double the number of homes, and paying Foxtel hundreds of millions of dollars for the privilege, while continuing to grant them exclusive rights to broadcast on it on all frequencies they want, including the ones that are optimal for internet
- Purchasing and decommissioning the Optus cable TV network which competes with it, replacing it with VDSL service
It's a national tragedy, wasting fifty billion dollars and a decade, just for the sake of protecting a conservative TV monopoly.
Do you have any sources on this? I always wondered why NBN was such a disaster.
You know not what you ask!
I didn't post what you're replying to, but I'm also an Aussie who's been reading articles about the NBN disaster for its entire duration.
Sources are difficult because the NBN has been on on-going project for over a decade now, so there's an absolute haystack to search through, and all the hay and most of the needles are strongly coloured by political ideologies.
Whirlpool has what looks like a comprehensive timeline / article here: https://whirlpool.net.au/wiki/nbn
I always found http://delimiter.com.au/ to be the best source of information around the progress (or otherwise) of the NBN. Here are a couple of semi-targeted articles that demonstrate the depth and density of this political quagmire:
http://delimiter.com.au/2013/01/17/fact-check-the-nbn-wasnt-...
http://delimiter.com.au/2013/07/19/breaking-the-rules-how-nb...
http://delimiter.com.au/2016/03/29/qa-panellists-agree-polit...
The whole issue goes back before NBNCo was created, however, to when Telstra, the government-owned monopoly infrastructure owner, was sold without being broken up into wholesale and retail arms, thus meaning their retail plans directly competed with those of their wholesale customers. The Australian Government at the time didn't see that as being a potential problem in the future, and yet here we are...
I didn't post what you're replying to, but I'm also an Aussie who's been reading articles about the NBN disaster for its entire duration.
Sources are difficult because the NBN has been on on-going project for over a decade now, so there's an absolute haystack to search through, and all the hay and most of the needles are strongly coloured by political ideologies.
Whirlpool has what looks like a comprehensive timeline / article here: https://whirlpool.net.au/wiki/nbn
I always found http://delimiter.com.au/ to be the best source of information around the progress (or otherwise) of the NBN. Here are a couple of semi-targeted articles that demonstrate the depth and density of this political quagmire:
http://delimiter.com.au/2013/01/17/fact-check-the-nbn-wasnt-...
http://delimiter.com.au/2013/07/19/breaking-the-rules-how-nb...
http://delimiter.com.au/2016/03/29/qa-panellists-agree-polit...
The whole issue goes back before NBNCo was created, however, to when Telstra, the government-owned monopoly infrastructure owner, was sold without being broken up into wholesale and retail arms, thus meaning their retail plans directly competed with those of their wholesale customers. The Australian Government at the time didn't see that as being a potential problem in the future, and yet here we are...
There is an interesting comparison with what could have been. When I moved to New Zealand in the early 2000s, Internet access was worse than in Australia.
“Broadband” was 256kbps ADSL at best, insanely expensive, with punitive data caps, and the monopoly telco had no interest in investing to increase service or drop prices. There were other ISPs but they had a hard time competing due to underhanded tactics by the monopolist as well as having to build out their own infrastructure entirely whereas the monopoly had inherited all its infrastructure from the taxpayer built state owned company that was privatised for a song.
Around 2007, the government removed this monopoly power and broke up the company into infrastructure and service companies, with the infrastructure company having to provide equal access to any ISPs.
Then the initiative to build fibre to the home started in 2008. Luckily, the government of the day did not compromise on the technical approach and it remained fibre to the home, not the node.
Roll forward to today, and I have gigabit fibre to my home, with no data caps, for a decent price.
There’s still a fair bit of build out to happen but the option now exists for people in most urban areas.
“Broadband” was 256kbps ADSL at best, insanely expensive, with punitive data caps, and the monopoly telco had no interest in investing to increase service or drop prices. There were other ISPs but they had a hard time competing due to underhanded tactics by the monopolist as well as having to build out their own infrastructure entirely whereas the monopoly had inherited all its infrastructure from the taxpayer built state owned company that was privatised for a song.
Around 2007, the government removed this monopoly power and broke up the company into infrastructure and service companies, with the infrastructure company having to provide equal access to any ISPs.
Then the initiative to build fibre to the home started in 2008. Luckily, the government of the day did not compromise on the technical approach and it remained fibre to the home, not the node.
Roll forward to today, and I have gigabit fibre to my home, with no data caps, for a decent price.
There’s still a fair bit of build out to happen but the option now exists for people in most urban areas.
I've read the occasional article about the New Zealand rollout. Rest-assured, the Aussies who care about the NBN are jealous of what New Zealand now has.
It really pushes the point home about how much politics and special-interests (as opposed to real things like technical limitations) got in the way.
Now I'm angry all over again.
It really pushes the point home about how much politics and special-interests (as opposed to real things like technical limitations) got in the way.
Now I'm angry all over again.
Thank you! I should have checked Whirlpool first, seems like the obvious place. Such a great resource in general, but that NBN wiki is very detailed.
I'm lucky enough to live in an apartment with full FTTP NBN 100/40 and in a way it sucks because if I have to move the chances of me getting it again are so low.
> I feel like the decline of traditional television is behind a lot of the push to destroy net neutrality.
It's the decline of TV, news and traditional media in general. Look at what the news industry has been able to do against social media/tech companies. Brow beat them into serving as spammers for their own news content so that news companies can make more money. The same thing is happening with TV. Youtube is now spamming traditional tv content at the expense of regular youtube content. I used to get variety of recommendations from programming to sports to "trending comedy". Now I get recommendations for things I've never watched on youtube - John Oliver, Late Night Shows, Saturday Night Live, CNN, etc.
They couldn't compete in the new internet/social media environment, so traditional media is forcing the environment to change for them. It's been working for them in the short term, but will it work in the long term? I hope not, but who knows.
The changes have been incremental, but people truly don't understand how much google search, youtube, reddit, facebook, etc has changed in the last 4 years.
The internet/social media has gone from local/non-traditional media content to predominantly corporate content. And it's a trend that's going to accelerate as tech/social media is pushed to favor corporate content over ordinary user content.
It's the decline of TV, news and traditional media in general. Look at what the news industry has been able to do against social media/tech companies. Brow beat them into serving as spammers for their own news content so that news companies can make more money. The same thing is happening with TV. Youtube is now spamming traditional tv content at the expense of regular youtube content. I used to get variety of recommendations from programming to sports to "trending comedy". Now I get recommendations for things I've never watched on youtube - John Oliver, Late Night Shows, Saturday Night Live, CNN, etc.
They couldn't compete in the new internet/social media environment, so traditional media is forcing the environment to change for them. It's been working for them in the short term, but will it work in the long term? I hope not, but who knows.
The changes have been incremental, but people truly don't understand how much google search, youtube, reddit, facebook, etc has changed in the last 4 years.
The internet/social media has gone from local/non-traditional media content to predominantly corporate content. And it's a trend that's going to accelerate as tech/social media is pushed to favor corporate content over ordinary user content.
I think the perfect example is "The Expanse"
- Easily the best sci-fi show in 10 years(1)
- Latest season has a 100% score on rotten-tomatos
- The visual effects are absolute top of the art (2)
- The fanbase is franticly close to the show (look at twitter how much they interact w/ the cast etc)
- Season 3 and we are about to start the big turn of the story arch
BUT… Canceled by Syfy because not enough people catch it at the time they happen to transmit it into the air.
If this show would be on Netflix it could become on of the defining sci-fi shows of our generation. Now we have to hope Netflix or Amazon happen to pick it up before the team disperses. (3)
(1) seriously watch it… the first few episodes are a bit slowish worldbuilding but it gets really good
(2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yKn_EqA0ik (shitty rip unfortunately)
(3) Please sign: https://www.change.org/p/netflix-or-amazon-please-buy-the-ri...
- Easily the best sci-fi show in 10 years(1)
- Latest season has a 100% score on rotten-tomatos
- The visual effects are absolute top of the art (2)
- The fanbase is franticly close to the show (look at twitter how much they interact w/ the cast etc)
- Season 3 and we are about to start the big turn of the story arch
BUT… Canceled by Syfy because not enough people catch it at the time they happen to transmit it into the air.
If this show would be on Netflix it could become on of the defining sci-fi shows of our generation. Now we have to hope Netflix or Amazon happen to pick it up before the team disperses. (3)
(1) seriously watch it… the first few episodes are a bit slowish worldbuilding but it gets really good
(2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yKn_EqA0ik (shitty rip unfortunately)
(3) Please sign: https://www.change.org/p/netflix-or-amazon-please-buy-the-ri...
While I love RottenTomatoes for Movies, I find it abysmal for TV Shows. Here are some shows with a >90% score:
- Almost all seasons of Supernatural
- Seasons 3 & 4 of Veep
- Seasons 4, 5 & 7 of New Girl
- Season 2 of The Flash
- Season 2-4 of Arrow
Now I'm not saying that those shows are all shit (tho they are certainly not in my ballpark), but I doubt anyone thinks of them as 100% shows, in the same sense that Moonlight is a 98% movie.
The problem comes with few reviews (which is also a thing with more niche-y movies), which is probably amplified in later seasons, where reviewers who don't like it stopped watching.
- Almost all seasons of Supernatural
- Seasons 3 & 4 of Veep
- Seasons 4, 5 & 7 of New Girl
- Season 2 of The Flash
- Season 2-4 of Arrow
Now I'm not saying that those shows are all shit (tho they are certainly not in my ballpark), but I doubt anyone thinks of them as 100% shows, in the same sense that Moonlight is a 98% movie.
The problem comes with few reviews (which is also a thing with more niche-y movies), which is probably amplified in later seasons, where reviewers who don't like it stopped watching.
To a far greater degree than the vast bulk of movies, TV shows, especially genre ones, spawn pretty fanatical followers. And, as you suggest, rather than ragging on a series for wasting 2 hours of their life, they just stop watching.
Among the series you listed, I see several that, for me, were basically meh superhero shows I might have watched an episode of and then tuned out. There’s too much good TV for me to bother with stuff that I suspect I’ll be indifferent to in the 5 hours or so if TV I watch in a week.
Among the series you listed, I see several that, for me, were basically meh superhero shows I might have watched an episode of and then tuned out. There’s too much good TV for me to bother with stuff that I suspect I’ll be indifferent to in the 5 hours or so if TV I watch in a week.
It's been on Netflix outside the US and Amazon Prime in the US since season 1. You can't blame this one on the lack of a streaming option.
Edit: Wow, those are some fast downvotes. Here are sources if you don't believe me
Amazon Prime acquires US rights in 2016: http://archive.li/yc23D
Netflix acquires international rights in 2016: http://archive.li/Ww3Z0
Edit: Wow, those are some fast downvotes. Here are sources if you don't believe me
Amazon Prime acquires US rights in 2016: http://archive.li/yc23D
Netflix acquires international rights in 2016: http://archive.li/Ww3Z0
In all fairness, they’re just distributors in this case and don’t hold the purse strings. It seems like a fairly dysfunctional distribution arrangement all around.
I agree with what I think your broader point is though that a second tier cable channel like SYFY is probably not in the position to produce expensive fairly niche programming any longer.
I agree with what I think your broader point is though that a second tier cable channel like SYFY is probably not in the position to produce expensive fairly niche programming any longer.
Minor correction: Syfy doesn't produce The Expanse.
The Expanse was entirely conceived, financed and produced by Alcon, an independent film production company. Outside the US, Netflix has the exclusive distribution rights, and in the US, the show is also carried by Amazon. Alcon also produced Blade Runner 2049 and Villeneuve's earlier film Prisoners.
No doubt Alcon needs someone else to pay for the distribution rights now, and I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up on Netflix or Amazon, both of which are pushing sci-fi pretty hard. Amazon would be a good fit: The Expanse was co-produced with the Sean Daniel Company, who are also working on the new adaptation of The Witcher, and whose new production startup Mythos recently signed with Amazon Studios.
The Expanse was entirely conceived, financed and produced by Alcon, an independent film production company. Outside the US, Netflix has the exclusive distribution rights, and in the US, the show is also carried by Amazon. Alcon also produced Blade Runner 2049 and Villeneuve's earlier film Prisoners.
No doubt Alcon needs someone else to pay for the distribution rights now, and I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up on Netflix or Amazon, both of which are pushing sci-fi pretty hard. Amazon would be a good fit: The Expanse was co-produced with the Sean Daniel Company, who are also working on the new adaptation of The Witcher, and whose new production startup Mythos recently signed with Amazon Studios.
None of this discussed the 'why' traditional TV is in trouble, it just said that younger viewers aren't there. The actual WHY is that it is a terrible product which is being successfully outcompeted by a much better product. Television networks got large because they solved a very valuable problem - distribution. With the Internet, distribution is worthless. A clever 12 year old can do global media distribution on their free time as a hobby. It's not something to build an empire on. And it's certainly not something people are going to pay you $100+/mo just so you can lace it with ads and fill it with garbage content that exists not because an audience is wanting it but because some programming director wanted to make a name for themselves by going in a 'bold new direction'.
Public response to creative works is random. Truly random. Maximum entropy. There are no patterns to discern. So humans do what they always do when they face randomness.. they invent myths and replace reason with bullshit. If you control distribution, you can still force a win by leaning hard on your successes and kicking out your losses as fast as possible. But once the audience has extremely broad choice... you are screwed.
The future for media distributors is death. The future for media production companies is probably either working for Netflix, Amazon, or similar services or being supported by viewers who want their content directly via Patreon or a similar avenue. The creatives will be fine. The suits will be jumping off ledges.
Public response to creative works is random. Truly random. Maximum entropy. There are no patterns to discern. So humans do what they always do when they face randomness.. they invent myths and replace reason with bullshit. If you control distribution, you can still force a win by leaning hard on your successes and kicking out your losses as fast as possible. But once the audience has extremely broad choice... you are screwed.
The future for media distributors is death. The future for media production companies is probably either working for Netflix, Amazon, or similar services or being supported by viewers who want their content directly via Patreon or a similar avenue. The creatives will be fine. The suits will be jumping off ledges.
What's most fascinating to me is that the 50-64 age group spends vastly more time overall viewing nearly every medium except streaming TV and video games.
My own experience with my parents bears this out; the TV is always on and they're also on their phones as much or more than teens. But it looks like if habits don't change, there will be fewer hours overall spent on "consuming content" as the population ages.
My own experience with my parents bears this out; the TV is always on and they're also on their phones as much or more than teens. But it looks like if habits don't change, there will be fewer hours overall spent on "consuming content" as the population ages.
I wonder if the real reason advertising companies are worried about millenials is that they just avoid advertising whenever they can. There is a growing awareness about the effects of advertising, and the popular trends are towards reuse and recycling, even if those trends are mostly bullshit.
In Australia we have a popular TV show called Gruen Transfer which does nothing but breakdown ads and explains how they do what they do.
Finally, a biased anecdote from a millenial: Myself and many of my friends avoid ads by using ad-blockers and subscription services and not leaving the TV on when there is nothing to watch. Whereas my parents (about 60) watched far more television and didn't use ad-blockers... although recently they have been turning the TV off and using their ipads instead.
In Australia we have a popular TV show called Gruen Transfer which does nothing but breakdown ads and explains how they do what they do.
Finally, a biased anecdote from a millenial: Myself and many of my friends avoid ads by using ad-blockers and subscription services and not leaving the TV on when there is nothing to watch. Whereas my parents (about 60) watched far more television and didn't use ad-blockers... although recently they have been turning the TV off and using their ipads instead.
I wonder if the real reason advertising companies are worried about millenials is that they just avoid advertising whenever they can
I don't think advertising companies are worried about millennials; they can target them and measure results far more effectively with online advertising than they ever could via television, and thanks to smartphone addiction, screen time/ad exposure time is the highest it's ever been.
Myself and many of my friends avoid ads by using ad-blockers and subscription services
That may be true of sophisticated users like yourself and your peers, but I'm fairly sure you're in a small minority. Most people just use Facebook and Instagram and Snapchat and YouTube and read news articles unfiltered, and outside of that, brands can insert their message directly into the content via sponsorships and product placements with online celebrities.
Broadcast TV may be declining as millennials spend their time and dollars elsewhere, but the advertising industry has never been stronger.
I don't think advertising companies are worried about millennials; they can target them and measure results far more effectively with online advertising than they ever could via television, and thanks to smartphone addiction, screen time/ad exposure time is the highest it's ever been.
Myself and many of my friends avoid ads by using ad-blockers and subscription services
That may be true of sophisticated users like yourself and your peers, but I'm fairly sure you're in a small minority. Most people just use Facebook and Instagram and Snapchat and YouTube and read news articles unfiltered, and outside of that, brands can insert their message directly into the content via sponsorships and product placements with online celebrities.
Broadcast TV may be declining as millennials spend their time and dollars elsewhere, but the advertising industry has never been stronger.
idk about ad companies. But publisher are kinda worried about ad blockers :), I head numbers as high as 50% of users with ad blocks. normies use ad block now.
Not enough normal people do. It usually "breaks their site" they like to visit.
I’ve been holding to the opinion for a few years now, that ever since end of the 2nd term of George W. Bush, TV, print, movies and music have all suffered a nigh-catastrophic brain drain, and fewer and fewer nerds drift in the direction of such career paths.
Because of this, the candidate pool is smaller, filled with weaker options and the ones that do land in the field are mostly mediocre and surrounded by the mediocre examples of the old guard that can’t (or won’t) retire.
After that, the rest is deterministic. Bad decisions compound, nothing is good any more, and the shit that really sucks isn’t even laughable, it’s either confusing, tragic or repellant.
I made the mistake of watching cable in a hotel room, and it was like grazing my eyes with a red-hot shrimp fork, while running an angle grinder right next to my ears, and telling me my parents were killed in a horrible accident.
The things happening on that TV were decisions so awful, that I questioned whether those responsible even understood their own motivations for operating what doesn’t even seem to be a business anymore. Everything was a chum bucket. Everything was clickbait. Everything was dark patterns. To watch TV and feel that way, for every channel I tried, means that almost all of TV has been reduced to the lowest internet tabloid trash by default.
I remember what it used to feel like when nothing was on, but this seemed beyond nothing being on. I don’t know how the story ends though. The only thing I do know, is that TV is still a different enough game, such that no tech company really represents a credible DIRECT threat to TV at large, except Netflix, and only Netflix distinguishes itself from other tech companies by producing original shows that people actually talk about.
Because of this, the candidate pool is smaller, filled with weaker options and the ones that do land in the field are mostly mediocre and surrounded by the mediocre examples of the old guard that can’t (or won’t) retire.
After that, the rest is deterministic. Bad decisions compound, nothing is good any more, and the shit that really sucks isn’t even laughable, it’s either confusing, tragic or repellant.
I made the mistake of watching cable in a hotel room, and it was like grazing my eyes with a red-hot shrimp fork, while running an angle grinder right next to my ears, and telling me my parents were killed in a horrible accident.
The things happening on that TV were decisions so awful, that I questioned whether those responsible even understood their own motivations for operating what doesn’t even seem to be a business anymore. Everything was a chum bucket. Everything was clickbait. Everything was dark patterns. To watch TV and feel that way, for every channel I tried, means that almost all of TV has been reduced to the lowest internet tabloid trash by default.
I remember what it used to feel like when nothing was on, but this seemed beyond nothing being on. I don’t know how the story ends though. The only thing I do know, is that TV is still a different enough game, such that no tech company really represents a credible DIRECT threat to TV at large, except Netflix, and only Netflix distinguishes itself from other tech companies by producing original shows that people actually talk about.
What is the cause for this brain drain?
The internet changing the world, and all of the technology companies offering jobs that attract the best technical resources with better compensation packages, and unicorn dreams.
Contrast this with what used to be the 20th century version of the tech industry’s unicorn narrative: becoming a super star on old media, appearing on TV, in movies, on the cover of magazines, or maybe making it big in music, or being a mogul thereof.
These things still happen, but it’s obvious that fluffy celebrity stardom, or becoming the star maker, is shakier ground than it used to be, and technology-oriented success is an alternate path to fame and wealth. Because of the new things that have emerged over the past 20 years, the brain drain began some time ago, when alternate paths to success became evident, and old media suffered for it.
Contrast this with what used to be the 20th century version of the tech industry’s unicorn narrative: becoming a super star on old media, appearing on TV, in movies, on the cover of magazines, or maybe making it big in music, or being a mogul thereof.
These things still happen, but it’s obvious that fluffy celebrity stardom, or becoming the star maker, is shakier ground than it used to be, and technology-oriented success is an alternate path to fame and wealth. Because of the new things that have emerged over the past 20 years, the brain drain began some time ago, when alternate paths to success became evident, and old media suffered for it.
Depends a lot on the person. I see a lot of 60+ year olds watching TV but younger tech-savvy 50 something’s watch TV substantially less or not at all. I have a TV - only gets turned on for elections, major political announcements or certain annual sporting events.
My teen years were in the early 80s and TV was simply the prime source of media at that time. My family religiously watched the national news at/before dinner. My parents still have that habit - but they’ve learned to record it and zip thru ‘crap’. Sometimes they now zip thru 30 minutes in a couple of minutes.
It also seems that the quality of the content has massively declined. On the rare occasion I am waiting somewhere and there is a TV on, I’ve been stunned by how low quality some of the advertising is - poorly produced voice overs that would have been inconceivable in the 80s.
I’ve met a few people who have their TV on all the time. I have never formed a positive opinion of people who have that habit.
My teen years were in the early 80s and TV was simply the prime source of media at that time. My family religiously watched the national news at/before dinner. My parents still have that habit - but they’ve learned to record it and zip thru ‘crap’. Sometimes they now zip thru 30 minutes in a couple of minutes.
It also seems that the quality of the content has massively declined. On the rare occasion I am waiting somewhere and there is a TV on, I’ve been stunned by how low quality some of the advertising is - poorly produced voice overs that would have been inconceivable in the 80s.
I’ve met a few people who have their TV on all the time. I have never formed a positive opinion of people who have that habit.
I'm not sure if that's universal. My mom was a phone+TV person until all of her friends migrated to Whatsapp and Facebook. Nowadays she's on her smartphone a lot more than the landline. I guess the TV is still always on.
My dad was a TV+book+newspaper person but now he's always online. He'll watch news clips online and read online. It's not that big of a change for him though, when he watched TV he used to watch these channels that would show text of the news along with news clips, very much line the news websites he checks out now.
My dad was a TV+book+newspaper person but now he's always online. He'll watch news clips online and read online. It's not that big of a change for him though, when he watched TV he used to watch these channels that would show text of the news along with news clips, very much line the news websites he checks out now.
Yeah, my mom is about 80, and she now spends her most of her screen time with a laptop or a Nook e-reader.
I'm 52 and watch less TV than I ever have. I only have basic cable because it's cheaper as a bundle than internet alone (Comcast). I don't think I've watched any traditional TV since the super bowl.
I also don't have a data plan on my phone.
I also don't have a data plan on my phone.
Can't agree, this weekend my mom asked me about how to cut cable and if she can get a TIVO to record the things from Amazon and Netflix... So one step forward at least! Had to explain the whole point of streaming is you don't need to record it.
If my mom is moving towards cable cutting, TV is in trouble now.
If my mom is moving towards cable cutting, TV is in trouble now.
> Had to explain the whole point of streaming is you don't need to record it.
That depends on whether you think the problem with streaming over-the-air is that you have to watch it at a certain time, or that you won't be able to watch it again once it's over.
Have you seen how content rotates in and out of every streaming platform? If you record it, you'll have it.
That depends on whether you think the problem with streaming over-the-air is that you have to watch it at a certain time, or that you won't be able to watch it again once it's over.
Have you seen how content rotates in and out of every streaming platform? If you record it, you'll have it.
We just buy it once it's gone. Still save a ton of money and have the really good stuff on archive.
Just make sure she has a good streaming box and healthy internet bandwidth. It can easily get frustrating, and become a complete turn off.
I watched TV ( for background noise) in my hotel room while on work trip. All the ads were for skin tightening, erectile dysfunction, joint aches and sharp knifes( old ppl need these?).
Everybody who cooks needs a sharp knife.
The biggest danger in the kitchen is a dull knife.
I don't think they mind the ads. They've always had them, and when the internet took their generation mainstream it already had an ad problem like TV.
In my experience, people of this age don't seem to get into streaming TV because it's just such a jarring experience from what they're used to. They'd much rather flip through the channels on a guide, or leave the TV on and watch the news, compared to going to Netflix for A, Amazon Prime for B, and some proprietary streaming app for C. Even if it means less ads.
In my experience, people of this age don't seem to get into streaming TV because it's just such a jarring experience from what they're used to. They'd much rather flip through the channels on a guide, or leave the TV on and watch the news, compared to going to Netflix for A, Amazon Prime for B, and some proprietary streaming app for C. Even if it means less ads.
[deleted]
What I find weird about most of my generation is not that they don't buy overpriced cable subscriptions, but that they don't buy TV screens and instead choose to stream video at home on a 15" laptop screen at best or a 4" phone screen at worst. TVs are obscenely cheap these days -- to the extent that it blows my mind that anyone doesn't have one.
(And then once you have a TV screen you might as well pay another $10 for an HD antenna, which gives you completely free access to unlimited content, most of which is admittedly total garbage. But even if you use it once a year to watch the Super Bowl, Olympics, or live coverage of some local emergency, the tiny cost is easily justified. The existence and free-ness of HD antennas seems more or less unknown to most millennials, who have a "mind blown" reaction when they come over to my apartment to watch the Super Bowl or NBA finals or whatever and find out I'm paying nothing for it.)
(And then once you have a TV screen you might as well pay another $10 for an HD antenna, which gives you completely free access to unlimited content, most of which is admittedly total garbage. But even if you use it once a year to watch the Super Bowl, Olympics, or live coverage of some local emergency, the tiny cost is easily justified. The existence and free-ness of HD antennas seems more or less unknown to most millennials, who have a "mind blown" reaction when they come over to my apartment to watch the Super Bowl or NBA finals or whatever and find out I'm paying nothing for it.)
It's not the physical space, it's the psychological space.
When I had a 50" plasma (this was a long time ago) all my furniture was pointed at it.
Now I watch the occasional movie or show on a macbook pro sitting on a coffee table (great screen and not much difference in relative size due to proximity) and my furniture, and the people seated on it, face each other at all other times. I find the room more inviting and conductive to conversation now.
When I had a 50" plasma (this was a long time ago) all my furniture was pointed at it.
Now I watch the occasional movie or show on a macbook pro sitting on a coffee table (great screen and not much difference in relative size due to proximity) and my furniture, and the people seated on it, face each other at all other times. I find the room more inviting and conductive to conversation now.
A big part of the problem is effortlessly getting content from your phone (where it’s easiest to find) to your TV (where it’s best to watch) through the competing hostile ecosystems of Apple/Google/Amazon/Facebook.
Chromecast solves a lot of this. Rather under appreciated device.
My HDMI cable would disagree with you on that one.
I understand a lot of people want the convenience of wireless / push to screen functionality, but it always makes me laugh when friends sit there for several minutes trying to get content on a screen, and I just bung a cable into my laptop and it's up and running.
I understand a lot of people want the convenience of wireless / push to screen functionality, but it always makes me laugh when friends sit there for several minutes trying to get content on a screen, and I just bung a cable into my laptop and it's up and running.
In last few years, you can also connect HDMI cable to your phone; MHL has been a thing for a while.
For a lot of people like myself, the larger screen over a laptop is really only worth it when watching with other people.
Yeah, a laptop screen in your lap has nearly the same apparent size as a TV most of a room length away.
Having a bigger, further away screen may prove to help prevent myopia, though. Eyes focused on near objects all the time tend to go myopic. I'm not sure a few extra feet is that significant though, compared to looking out a window at the hills or clouds.
The picture-window-sized televisions that are common today look ridiculously large and tacky in a living room, IMO. I'd never buy one.
I'm with you on this, but numerous people i've said this to have snorted at it. Either it's a minority opinion, or people with massive tellies are so invested in having disfigured their homes that they can't admit it.
Anyway, i painted a wall silver-grey and bought a projector.
Anyway, i painted a wall silver-grey and bought a projector.
The strange pattern I've noticed is that the size of the TV is inversely proportional to the wealth of the owner.
They’re probably too big for some rooms they’ve been retrofitted to. When I added a room a few years ago I explicitly kept a space for a wall- mounted TV. I often use it as effectively a big digital picture frame if I’m not actively watching something on it.
It amazes me when I drive past some of the houses in my street and people are sitting 5 feet in front of a 60" TV.
Isn't that the necessary viewing distance to distinguish 4k anyway? I often hear people make the opposite scoff, that people sit too far from their TVs to take advantage of the resolution they're paying for.
I've got a 75" 4k about 10 feet from me right now. Plus it has the added advantage of being only about 15-18 feet from our dining room table, which means if we throw a game or the news on it during dinner, we don't have to squint to see the scores.
Most of the use of the TV is OTA (we don't have cable TV) but plenty of Netflix/Amazon/Apple/HBOGo type stuff. That said, we use it like old people; leave the news on as we do other things in other rooms. We don't have any shows we religiously watch.
I've got a 75" 4k about 10 feet from me right now. Plus it has the added advantage of being only about 15-18 feet from our dining room table, which means if we throw a game or the news on it during dinner, we don't have to squint to see the scores.
Most of the use of the TV is OTA (we don't have cable TV) but plenty of Netflix/Amazon/Apple/HBOGo type stuff. That said, we use it like old people; leave the news on as we do other things in other rooms. We don't have any shows we religiously watch.
Why do you need a separate antenna?
I live in the UK, and here, houses have antennas on the roof, with a coax cable running down to a socket the living room. TVs have a corresponding coax socket, connected to an internal tuner, so you just plug a simple coax cable into the wall and the TV.
How does it work in the US?
I live in the UK, and here, houses have antennas on the roof, with a coax cable running down to a socket the living room. TVs have a corresponding coax socket, connected to an internal tuner, so you just plug a simple coax cable into the wall and the TV.
How does it work in the US?
In your case, the antenna on the roof is your "separate antenna".
Depending on where you live and the transmission power, all you may need is a meter or two of a cable with a coax connector at the end, and you can watch DVB-T with that.
Depending on where you live and the transmission power, all you may need is a meter or two of a cable with a coax connector at the end, and you can watch DVB-T with that.
> TVs are obscenely cheap these days -- to the extent that it blows my mind that anyone doesn't have one.
TVs are big, stationary, and designed ad meatspace social gathering centers. Plus, people these days are used to always being engaged with personal portable gadgets, so using them for personal video consumption is natural.
> But even if you use it once a year to watch the Super Bowl, Olympics, or live coverage of some local emergency, the tiny cost is easily justified.
Is it? You can watch all of those (including live local TV channels) on a laptop, tablet, or phone screen, which has zero device cost for the purpose (because you have it anyway for lots of other purposes) low service cost, and you can do it nearly anywhere, and at typical use distances (except for the phone, unless you use an HMD, though that is an option) at least as much visual size and better resolution than a TV that is actually inexpensive.
Now, I’m a late Gen Xer and watch a lot of stuff on my TV (mostly through streaming services, but also satellite service) but I can totally understand Millennials not seeing a TV fitting into their life even with lots of video consumption.
TVs are big, stationary, and designed ad meatspace social gathering centers. Plus, people these days are used to always being engaged with personal portable gadgets, so using them for personal video consumption is natural.
> But even if you use it once a year to watch the Super Bowl, Olympics, or live coverage of some local emergency, the tiny cost is easily justified.
Is it? You can watch all of those (including live local TV channels) on a laptop, tablet, or phone screen, which has zero device cost for the purpose (because you have it anyway for lots of other purposes) low service cost, and you can do it nearly anywhere, and at typical use distances (except for the phone, unless you use an HMD, though that is an option) at least as much visual size and better resolution than a TV that is actually inexpensive.
Now, I’m a late Gen Xer and watch a lot of stuff on my TV (mostly through streaming services, but also satellite service) but I can totally understand Millennials not seeing a TV fitting into their life even with lots of video consumption.
I own several TV's but I end up watching a lot of TV and Movies on my iPad anyways.
It's nice to pick it up and take with me to the bedroom, my desk, my dining room table, the bathroom, etc. Wherever I want to go, it follows.
Also, movies in particular have terrible audio mixing for in home usage. The dialogue is way too quiet and the effects are way too loud. I end up adjusting the volume on the TV the whole time I'm watching it. This is less of a problem on the iPad because I'm a lot closer to it.
16:9 TV's are also bad for watching movies. If I want the movie to be a reasonable size on my TV, I need a much larger TV than I actually want to have. Again the iPad fixes this issue by being close to my face.
edit: Also, watching 90's TV on Netflix is fantastic on the iPad because it lets you zoom in to the center of the 16:9, remastered show for a full screen, 4:3 viewing experience. It's great for Friends, the West Wing, Buffy the Vampire Slayer (which is not on netflix anymore), etc.
It's nice to pick it up and take with me to the bedroom, my desk, my dining room table, the bathroom, etc. Wherever I want to go, it follows.
Also, movies in particular have terrible audio mixing for in home usage. The dialogue is way too quiet and the effects are way too loud. I end up adjusting the volume on the TV the whole time I'm watching it. This is less of a problem on the iPad because I'm a lot closer to it.
16:9 TV's are also bad for watching movies. If I want the movie to be a reasonable size on my TV, I need a much larger TV than I actually want to have. Again the iPad fixes this issue by being close to my face.
edit: Also, watching 90's TV on Netflix is fantastic on the iPad because it lets you zoom in to the center of the 16:9, remastered show for a full screen, 4:3 viewing experience. It's great for Friends, the West Wing, Buffy the Vampire Slayer (which is not on netflix anymore), etc.
If I lived alone, I'd probably agree with you.
I'd argue that there are still a large majority of millennials who are aware of antennae broadcasts. The oldest of this group is in their late-30's.
I've seen just as much shock and awe by older Gen X'ers and Boomers when they switched to HD broadcasts over the air and I showed them what's coming in now. "No more fuzzies!" was the generic response.
It probably is voodoo to my children's generation (Z). However, technology doesn't surprise them at all. They'd view the antennae as another app that just plugs straight into the TV. They're quite used to "there's an app for that"; even if they interact with a voice assistant to find it.
I'd argue that there are still a large majority of millennials who are aware of antennae broadcasts. The oldest of this group is in their late-30's.
I've seen just as much shock and awe by older Gen X'ers and Boomers when they switched to HD broadcasts over the air and I showed them what's coming in now. "No more fuzzies!" was the generic response.
It probably is voodoo to my children's generation (Z). However, technology doesn't surprise them at all. They'd view the antennae as another app that just plugs straight into the TV. They're quite used to "there's an app for that"; even if they interact with a voice assistant to find it.
Wait, what? Young people are not buying TVs anymore? I understand not watching terrestrial TV but I've always had like a TV plugged in to my laptop to play games and stream youtube/twich. More recently I just bought a roku TV and haven't really played much games so phone+roku TV seems sufficient.
Completely abandoning TVs but still watching videos of one kind or another seems weird.
Completely abandoning TVs but still watching videos of one kind or another seems weird.
buying a TV (capable of receiving broadcast signal) is not the same as buying a _monitor_ that you need to plug into a computer/device. everybody, i presume, must have bought a monitor, but some people no longer buy TVs.
I just gotta say, all the pro-watching-video-on-a-laptop-or-tablet folks simply astound me. I'm only 37 and don't watch all that much video content (see my thread about how I can't understand YouTube addiction) but I HATE watching video on a tiny screen with terrible speakers.
Yep, that's what I do. I haven't owned a TV for 3-4 years now. I just prefer watching content on my iPad or laptop in bed. I think it might have to do with sitting all day for work. After a full day of sitting, I'd rather not go sit on a couch. Laying in bed with my iPad is much more relaxing.
After the changeover to digital tv nothing you can find at best buy or walmart for 10-50 dollars works worth owning in multiple locations in different states.
The switch to digital pretty much just killed free tv for a way bigger chunk of the population that people seem to imagine.
A tv is a worthless investment unless its paired with a $50-120 a month cable tv and a decent tv still costs 200-300. You are talking about an investment of 800 in the first year and 600 per year thereafter.
If we look at the 5 year outlook you are talking about 3200.
Honestly a tv is generally just a bad computer monitor with good multimedia connections, garbage speakers, a tuner to hook up to worthless free tv, and hardware to display cable tv and cable tv is just bad netflix where you don't get to pick whats on.
I see no reason for tv or cable tv to continue to exist as they do other than inertia.
The switch to digital pretty much just killed free tv for a way bigger chunk of the population that people seem to imagine.
A tv is a worthless investment unless its paired with a $50-120 a month cable tv and a decent tv still costs 200-300. You are talking about an investment of 800 in the first year and 600 per year thereafter.
If we look at the 5 year outlook you are talking about 3200.
Honestly a tv is generally just a bad computer monitor with good multimedia connections, garbage speakers, a tuner to hook up to worthless free tv, and hardware to display cable tv and cable tv is just bad netflix where you don't get to pick whats on.
I see no reason for tv or cable tv to continue to exist as they do other than inertia.
I have a 60 inch TV in a room not connected to my cable. I use it to watch Netflix, DVDs, etc. it’s a much better experience especially watching something with someone than a laptop is.
Be aware that not everyone has access to OTA though. I live about 40 miles outside of a major US city and I have access to nada without a cable subscription.
One of the reasons traditional TV is in trouble is because it is a pain in the neck to deal with. The episode-at-a-time schedule is frustrating, now that I'm used to binging on Netflix. To get around this, I tend to watch network TV shows only at the end of the season, so I can save up an entire season and binge watch the show (I have a PVR and an antenna). However, you often find that some or all of your season is missing because the networks can't keep to a schedule.
Just last night, Golf on NBC pushed their primetime schedule back by 10 minutes, causing me to loose the last 10 minutes of the series finale of something that I was binge watching. This is ... disappointing.
Similarly, a previous episode of the same show was been 100% interrupted by overzealous local news/weather folks covering phantom "severe weather" which was basically some high wind and lighting.
Except for sports, I'm now planning to just ignore linear TV, and wait for the shows to appear on streaming services, which actually deliver the content..
Just last night, Golf on NBC pushed their primetime schedule back by 10 minutes, causing me to loose the last 10 minutes of the series finale of something that I was binge watching. This is ... disappointing.
Similarly, a previous episode of the same show was been 100% interrupted by overzealous local news/weather folks covering phantom "severe weather" which was basically some high wind and lighting.
Except for sports, I'm now planning to just ignore linear TV, and wait for the shows to appear on streaming services, which actually deliver the content..
The idea of "channels" seems so archaic now. Why should extended news coverage push back the schedule?
News going long? Spawn a temporary, new channel and the coverage can continue there for those interested while the scheduled content continues on the main channel.
I know why things are the way they are, but we have computers now: we can do anything.
News going long? Spawn a temporary, new channel and the coverage can continue there for those interested while the scheduled content continues on the main channel.
I know why things are the way they are, but we have computers now: we can do anything.
> we have computers now: we can do anything.
That's the title of my upcoming self-help book for millennials dealing with their aging baby-boomer parents' technology issues.
That's the title of my upcoming self-help book for millennials dealing with their aging baby-boomer parents' technology issues.
Will there be a chapter called, "Can't you just...?"
Brilliant. This phrase is so loaded with passive-aggression and condescension.
>One of the reasons traditional streaming is in trouble is because it's a pain in the neck to deal with. The upload at a time schedule is frustrating, I have to wait for my favorite YouTuber to upload something.
I don't see the difference here. If you need instant gratification, you will have trouble with episodic content no matter what the medium.
I don't see the difference here. If you need instant gratification, you will have trouble with episodic content no matter what the medium.
This strikes me as a strawman, at best.
After all, Netflix, Hulu and Amazon posts entire seasons at a time for (some) new shows. Perhaps more importantly, they do so for older shows and for movies.
Even waiting for a YouTuber upload isn't the same as waiting for an exclusive time-slot on a channel, which cannot actually be relied on.
After all, Netflix, Hulu and Amazon posts entire seasons at a time for (some) new shows. Perhaps more importantly, they do so for older shows and for movies.
Even waiting for a YouTuber upload isn't the same as waiting for an exclusive time-slot on a channel, which cannot actually be relied on.
Eh. Binging's not so great. Especially with serialized shows that reward discussion and measured consumption like Westworld, I much prefer traditional week at a time discussion. If you really prefer binging, you can always just stick your fingers in your ears until the season has been fully released and watch it then.
> It’s hard to keep up with the many devices and apps people now use to watch shows. And there is a host of material from Silicon Valley that is competing for viewers’ attention, including Google’s YouTube, Facebook and Netflix.
It's very hard to keep up with streaming services and knowing what's where too. It's a big mess since the streaming services seem to provide control on what to watch, when and where, but that turns out to be a kind of illusion when one can't figure out how to achieve that with content either moving around services or being produced and restricted to one service. While BitTorrent traffic may have reduced over the years because of streaming services, it still reigns supreme if you want to choose what to watch, when and where.
> Both NBCUniversal and the Fox Networks Group have said they will trim the total time of commercials shown during some of their shows; Fox has announced a goal of reducing ad time to two minutes an hour by 2020.
This is one of the worst aspects of traditional TV once you become accustomed to streaming services, especially ones with no ads. Traditional TV literally puts ads for about one third of the air time in many cases, and that's a huge waste of time for those who just want content (and there are many; how many times can one watch the same ad even if it's the best ad ever?).
The writing has been on the wall for a long time coming. Better user experience, with lower prices, will eat into traditional modes of content distribution.
It's very hard to keep up with streaming services and knowing what's where too. It's a big mess since the streaming services seem to provide control on what to watch, when and where, but that turns out to be a kind of illusion when one can't figure out how to achieve that with content either moving around services or being produced and restricted to one service. While BitTorrent traffic may have reduced over the years because of streaming services, it still reigns supreme if you want to choose what to watch, when and where.
> Both NBCUniversal and the Fox Networks Group have said they will trim the total time of commercials shown during some of their shows; Fox has announced a goal of reducing ad time to two minutes an hour by 2020.
This is one of the worst aspects of traditional TV once you become accustomed to streaming services, especially ones with no ads. Traditional TV literally puts ads for about one third of the air time in many cases, and that's a huge waste of time for those who just want content (and there are many; how many times can one watch the same ad even if it's the best ad ever?).
The writing has been on the wall for a long time coming. Better user experience, with lower prices, will eat into traditional modes of content distribution.
I tried watching a Star Wars movie the other day. The play time on TV was 7-10:30pm, 3.5 hours. The actual play time of the movie is 2.25 hours. And they cram most of the commercials towards the end. They do it so much so that I got sick of them cutting to commercial every 5 minutes and pulled out the blu ray and finished watching it. There was still 40 minutes left on the TV after I'd finished watching the blu ray.
Here I am, willing to pay for cable and watch it, and they ruin it by trying to milk every last cent out of it.
Here I am, willing to pay for cable and watch it, and they ruin it by trying to milk every last cent out of it.
I thought pay tv in the US had no ads?? Is that not the whole point of it? Are there ad breaks in game of thrones and silicon valley and all the other hbo shows??
Only premium channels like HBO and Showtime omit ads during broadcasts. However "regular" cable channels such as TBS and TNT retain them.
I believe HBO (Home Box Office) is different to most cable channels, most have lots of ads, HBO does not. I think.
Regular bundled cable has ads. (What IS the point?) HBO is a premium channel you pay for beyond the bundle. It has no ads except lots of self-promo in between shows.
As a millennial, I can proudly say that I never cut the cord, because I never even signed up.
Term you're looking for is "cord-nevers" [1]
[1] https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2015/10/14/44...
[1] https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2015/10/14/44...
Same here, but gen Z instead. Only been out of the house for two years (i'm 20) but I have never had an inkling of a desire to sign up for television service. I'm sure part of that is skewed by torrenting, but I still probably wouldn't sign up if such things weren't possible.
I'm more than double your age, and I haven't had a cable TV subscription in probably 15 years. Of course, like you I do torrenting (not that much really, I just don't have that much time for watching anything), but I agree, even if torrenting were somehow suddenly impossible, and everything I had archived was suddenly gone, I wouldn't sign up for a TV service.
I mean the article is referring to traditional tv, which doesn't need to be signed up for, just need an antenna. But, I imagine you also have no interest in the type of programming that comes with that.
Either way, I only own a TV in general because every now and then I like to clean with music on, and rarely watch a movie. Most everything I watch is on a monitor.
Same here, but British instead. Cable is strange and terrifying witchcraft here. I'll have my television beamed to me from outer space, thank you very much!
Stick to it. In your latter years you'll never wish you had watched more TV, but you might fondly remember that moment you walked on a beach at sunset instead and had an amazing encounter.
Same applies to your phone too though :)
Same applies to your phone too though :)
You must have had a pretty good life. I can name many encounters I have had for which I would have much rather have been at home watching tv. :)
Most of the time when you walk on the beach, you don't have an amazing encounter.
There's a long list of television shows I haven't started yet and wish I had. Game of Thrones, Sopranos, The Wire, Mr Robot, and lots of others. It's surprising how often conversations with friends and strangers revolve around our common culture.
I think a lot of people my age credit their love of sci fi while growing up in the 70's and 80's with putting them on their career path.
My advice would be to watch the TV you want to watch, then take your dog out for a walk after. Best of all worlds.
There's a long list of television shows I haven't started yet and wish I had. Game of Thrones, Sopranos, The Wire, Mr Robot, and lots of others. It's surprising how often conversations with friends and strangers revolve around our common culture.
I think a lot of people my age credit their love of sci fi while growing up in the 70's and 80's with putting them on their career path.
My advice would be to watch the TV you want to watch, then take your dog out for a walk after. Best of all worlds.
Man, this is literally my Plex library. <15 shows that I ever enjoy watching (ATHF, Mr Robot, The Wire, Sopranos, GoT, Squidbillies, House, King of the Hill, Silicon Valley, Buffy, Futurama to be exact.) They still take up a full 1.5TB because I like to get the highest quality rips possible.
Some shows like House I have edited personally to create 'binge versions,' with the intro and outro cut out, with only special episodes that have special endings or intros included. Saves a good chunk of time with House and The Wire when I rewatch them. I wish a lot of other people did this as well. Instead groups stick to following scene rules that leave us with ugly formats, poor management and naming schemes and more. They were created for a different era.
Maybe I'll try to put it out there.
Some shows like House I have edited personally to create 'binge versions,' with the intro and outro cut out, with only special episodes that have special endings or intros included. Saves a good chunk of time with House and The Wire when I rewatch them. I wish a lot of other people did this as well. Instead groups stick to following scene rules that leave us with ugly formats, poor management and naming schemes and more. They were created for a different era.
Maybe I'll try to put it out there.
> "It's surprising how often conversations with friends and strangers revolve around our common culture."
Fairly common (because, I suppose, birds of a feather...) but none the less not quite the same as the previous shared experience. That is, you saw Program X when I saw it. Same date and time. And not all that many years previous, everyone was in the same room watching the same TV.
I'm no Luddite, but I often wonder about the effects of personalization and the loss of the shared experience. If you remove live sports, how many (media) experiences now are common / shared?
Fairly common (because, I suppose, birds of a feather...) but none the less not quite the same as the previous shared experience. That is, you saw Program X when I saw it. Same date and time. And not all that many years previous, everyone was in the same room watching the same TV.
I'm no Luddite, but I often wonder about the effects of personalization and the loss of the shared experience. If you remove live sports, how many (media) experiences now are common / shared?
What exactly would ‘amazing encounters’ encompass? :-)
Let’s not get too proud of our cord cutting. It’s true that nobody on their death bed wishes they watched more TV. I’d argue that nobody on their future death beds will have wished they’d spent more time in Facebook or ChatAppOfTheWeek either.
I mean, I connect with the majority of my friends via Discord. I don't think I'd trade those experiences for anything.
I suppose that's not the same as Facebook.
I suppose that's not the same as Facebook.
I rarely use my phone either. I keep it to send the occasional snap, use Discord, Google Maps, Notion for business, Email, and Chrome.
The majority of time on my phone is for a hotspot or to read an article while waiting somewhere. Now to apply it to my PC, couldn't do it.
The majority of time on my phone is for a hotspot or to read an article while waiting somewhere. Now to apply it to my PC, couldn't do it.
Certain broadband packages only allow you to get the fastest speeds with a cable bundle. So I have cable, which does have the benefit of giving me HBO, but I use Roku streaming to actually watch.
Same here. I have cable but never use it. Nothing aside from the modem is even plugged into the cable outlet.
I do occasionally watch what might be considered "TV" but it's all through on-demand apps (Netflix, Hulu, HBO, and reluctantly Comcast's streaming app).
Broadcast television was a staple of my childhood and it's something that I miss (e.g., schoolyard discussions about last-nights episode of such-and-such tv show), but streaming television is so much better.
I do occasionally watch what might be considered "TV" but it's all through on-demand apps (Netflix, Hulu, HBO, and reluctantly Comcast's streaming app).
Broadcast television was a staple of my childhood and it's something that I miss (e.g., schoolyard discussions about last-nights episode of such-and-such tv show), but streaming television is so much better.
I was born in the 70s and never signed up for TV either.
Same here. Every time I visit my parents I remember why I never signed up for cable TV.
The dopamine-per-minute is so much higher with smartphones. Can’t compete with the super-instant-gratification.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-rated_United_States_televi...
Going all the way back to 2000, it's pretty clear that the top rated tv shows have always skewed towards older demographics. ER, CSI whatever, Lawyer drama #25.
Going all the way back to 2000, it's pretty clear that the top rated tv shows have always skewed towards older demographics. ER, CSI whatever, Lawyer drama #25.
That and the top raised shows have fallen dramatically, in the 50's you had 60 million people watching now it's capping under 12 and steadily dropping. Not to mention how much larger the population has gotten.
Maybe the traditional networks would make a decent comeback if they started producing view-worthy shows again. There was so much content actually worth watching and getting excited for one or two decades ago, now at most I’m looking forward to the next episode of Bob’s Burgers as far as domestic network shows are concerned. Anything else worth watching to me comes from Netflix or Amazon, or premium networks that are already preparing for the death of cable like HBO.
There just isn’t a modern day equivalent to ER, and THAT is why TV is dying (along with absurd price hikes).
There just isn’t a modern day equivalent to ER, and THAT is why TV is dying (along with absurd price hikes).
I'd argue another angle to it, which is there were fewer channels to choose from back then.
Modern shows aren't just competing to win their timeslot; they're competing against the choice to stream whatever you feel like.
Modern shows aren't just competing to win their timeslot; they're competing against the choice to stream whatever you feel like.
Maybe I’m just overly picky, but I am constantly at a loss as to what I want to watch. My wife gets more use out of our streaming services than I do, as I have mostly watched or own digital copies of everything I care about - so I get more use out of Hulu, Crunchyroll/VRV and iTunes to keep on top of current shows.
I think the era of strictly scheduled programming may be coming to an end, though there’s still people who like to channel surf - but I think the networks could find something in the middle if they tried (especially as somebody who doesn’t like the binge model that Netflix operates on).
I think the era of strictly scheduled programming may be coming to an end, though there’s still people who like to channel surf - but I think the networks could find something in the middle if they tried (especially as somebody who doesn’t like the binge model that Netflix operates on).
The new generation don't watch TV, period. TV is ancient, forced ads, too few choices.
The new generation is busy consuming content filled with forced ads via product placement. They forget this to their detriment.
Yeah, I was surprised that live TV was still on the top and tied with smartphones in terms of hours per week for 25-34 year olds. I figure live sports makes up a majority of that.
And live sports are slowly moving online. The biggest problem, in my estimation, is the cost to consumers is very high per game (to make up for the large advertising spend on traditional TV broadcasts).
Live sports, reality TV, premium cable...
The new generation doesn't watch TV. TV watches them.
"Fox has announced a goal of reducing ad time to two minutes an hour by 2020."
Is this correct? Two minutes of adverts per hour? Or is this a typo from NYT and 'by two minutes'. Two minutes of ads would be 4 slots an hour, they'd have to increase prices by ~7x per slot to make the same amount of money.
Is this correct? Two minutes of adverts per hour? Or is this a typo from NYT and 'by two minutes'. Two minutes of ads would be 4 slots an hour, they'd have to increase prices by ~7x per slot to make the same amount of money.
Just the other day my mother asked me why I don't sign up for a package deal to get TV for essentially $10 a month. Why would I? Why pay $10 a month to be force-fed overly loud advertisements that play for more than 50% of the runtime of the shitty shows that ruined the networks I loved as a child. The vast majority of my curiosity about history comes from the history channel and discovery channel, learning about wars and "science" and things, while my interest in tech can be traced back to Modern Marvels, a show on the History channel. All that was dead by mid 2000's, replaced by "Deadliest Catch" and "Did aliens do history? (probably not but we will lie to you and say they might have" and "Is bigfoot real? (OH COME ON)"
Sometimes I try to watch TV when I visit home, and it is infuriating in every possible way. An ad break every five minutes, sometimes twice in a row. The thirty minutes of ad space is populated by a grand total of two different ads that scream at the top of their lungs to get your attention. Sure the ads may have seemed funny or insightful or unique the once or twice the marketing department for a company viewed it, but I promise you after the tenth time seeing it it in one hour.
TV content used to enrich my mind, at least on certain specific and enjoyable channels. Now I view it as actively being cancerous, and am disgusted every time it's on in my mother's house. I worry for her mental health.
I mean for christ's sake, just look at "The Learning Channel"!
Sometimes I try to watch TV when I visit home, and it is infuriating in every possible way. An ad break every five minutes, sometimes twice in a row. The thirty minutes of ad space is populated by a grand total of two different ads that scream at the top of their lungs to get your attention. Sure the ads may have seemed funny or insightful or unique the once or twice the marketing department for a company viewed it, but I promise you after the tenth time seeing it it in one hour.
TV content used to enrich my mind, at least on certain specific and enjoyable channels. Now I view it as actively being cancerous, and am disgusted every time it's on in my mother's house. I worry for her mental health.
I mean for christ's sake, just look at "The Learning Channel"!
> I mean for christ's sake, just look at "The Learning Channel"!
No such channel has existed for 20 years. TLC is not, and does not pretend to be, The Learning Channel, any more than the Paramount Network pretends to be The Nashville Network.
No such channel has existed for 20 years. TLC is not, and does not pretend to be, The Learning Channel, any more than the Paramount Network pretends to be The Nashville Network.
Advertising supported media is in trouble in general. The networks still have a PVR problem from since forever.
All this really means in practice is that prime time dramas are in decline and will become more and more marginal. Stuff like sporting events and news is the future of advertising supported real time streaming. The medium is not important. Some of this will still come from TV transmitters.
All this really means in practice is that prime time dramas are in decline and will become more and more marginal. Stuff like sporting events and news is the future of advertising supported real time streaming. The medium is not important. Some of this will still come from TV transmitters.
Millennials still watch sports and it's still pretty hard to watch sports without having your parent's cable service logins..
Pretty hard to watch them with their logins too. The Comcast stream for game 1 of the Eastern Conference Finals was completely borked yesterday with a weird mixed-content warning in the dev console, and I'm fairly certain it wasn't just my account affected.
I remember watching MASH, Sanford and Son, Carol Burnette and Flip Wilson with my mother when those were first run shows. 5 minutes per half hour for ads and credits. But the shows were good enough to tolerate the garbage.
That has not been true for a long time now.
Television is a medium, so called because it is neither rare nor well-done. -- Ernie Kovacs [0]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernie_Kovacs
That has not been true for a long time now.
Television is a medium, so called because it is neither rare nor well-done. -- Ernie Kovacs [0]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernie_Kovacs
I personally don't have a TV antenna plugged in[0]. I do however have my TV connected to my WiFi directly and an Android TV device (with Chromecast) plugged in.
I'm not the only person like this I imagine.
[0] This is mostly due to the inconvenience of a TV antenna, maybe partially related to where we position TV antennas in older homes and apartments before the TV became so big.
I'm not the only person like this I imagine.
[0] This is mostly due to the inconvenience of a TV antenna, maybe partially related to where we position TV antennas in older homes and apartments before the TV became so big.
Off-topic question: shouldn't this be 'Why is traditional TV in trouble'? I see that there is no question mark at the end of the title too; is that why 'is' is after the subject?
It's phrased as a statement, with the usual headline-speak of dropping articles: "[This is] Why Traditional TV is in trouble".
Why they chose that over an interrogative form ("Why is traditional TV in trouble?"), I don't know. Maybe the NYT has a style manual that prefers the first formation.
Why they chose that over an interrogative form ("Why is traditional TV in trouble?"), I don't know. Maybe the NYT has a style manual that prefers the first formation.
I have noticed US media convention, both print and web, is to prefer statements: "Why <x>", "How <y>", and "<z> did <z'>, and it's <z''>"; the last one even conveniently tells you how you're supposed to feel about the article. I imagine it conveys more authority than questions do.
[deleted]
[deleted]
The diarrhea analogy still stands.
Two restaurants:
One serves random food at random times. It's $80/plate and each plate is going to be 30-50% diarrhea. The bill has at least 20% unexplained markup.
The other serves whatever is on the menu all the time. It's $10/plate and each plate is diarrhea free.
Two restaurants:
One serves random food at random times. It's $80/plate and each plate is going to be 30-50% diarrhea. The bill has at least 20% unexplained markup.
The other serves whatever is on the menu all the time. It's $10/plate and each plate is diarrhea free.
A more accurate analogy would be
One restaurant that serves only one dish a day and there's always a 30 minute line. You have to purchase a monthly pass to eat there.
The other has no wait and a menu that rotates slowly over the year. You have to purchase a monthly pass to eat there.
Each is comparable in quality of food.
One restaurant that serves only one dish a day and there's always a 30 minute line. You have to purchase a monthly pass to eat there.
The other has no wait and a menu that rotates slowly over the year. You have to purchase a monthly pass to eat there.
Each is comparable in quality of food.
When u cancel 'The Mick' no wonder
I can’t fucking wait to get rid of our TV. There is so much better (and worse!) programming on YouTube and Netflix.
Some channels do not show commercials, and they show old movies that are not available elsewhere other than buying a DVD.
I used to watch CNN, but don't anymore because it doesn't have news anymore. Tune in at any moment 24/7, and it's an editorial on the topic of "we hate Trump".
I used to watch CNN, but don't anymore because it doesn't have news anymore. Tune in at any moment 24/7, and it's an editorial on the topic of "we hate Trump".
NY Times writing an article about why TV is in trouble.... in 2018.
Can we just ban this trash website from HN?
Can we just ban this trash website from HN?
One flimsy article doesn't warrant banning what's arguably the most prominent news outlet in the world. I can agree that a lot of NYT content is lame, but its stature remains strong and the HN community would justifiably revolt if it were banned altogether.
The strategy being to first introduce some artificial scarcity on internet bandwidth through data caps, and then offer exceptions. Either the cost to the business to be on the exception list will be high, or the cost to the user will be high to override the data caps, with the cost of service increasing as oligopoly in a region allows.
They can use this to steer people to the services that they back, like Hulu, or at least to make their own cable-box video on demand services seem more reasonable.
If one were truly pessimistic, the categorization of content wouldn't stop at simply high bandwidth services like video. A separate limit could be applied to things like html, with websites indexed as to their type and views counted. Which could result in an online equivalent of Sinclair media's control of local television news as certain channels of information are more accessible because they don't count towards a cap. And anything untrackable like VPN use goes into a more expensive version of the existing bandwidth-based quotas.
I believe it will not come to that last part, but less because I don't believe the telcos would attempt it than that I think it would incite people to legislative action. If it's introduced in slow increments, though, we might get closer to this worst-case scenario than many believe.