What is wrong with TV these days!

[panteragstk]

Originally Posted by pjpjpjpj

All you need today is dysfunction, controversy, and drama (not in the theatrical sense of the word, but in the slang sense).

Or people willing to make complete fools of themselves. Seriously, I truly believe the way to become famous today is to find the newest and most unique way to do something to utterly sell your dignity, without risking personal injury or being too vulgar for mainstream TV. Post it on youtube, get it viral, and you'll be on all the talk shows the next day. Then there's TV deals, book deals, movie deals. You'll be a millionaire overnight.

Congratulations, you made a fool of yourself.

Too bad I'm not a fool...

[Audacity]

I believe that streaming video is going to be incredibly disruptive to the traditional broadcast video structure. If the disruption is as significant as I think it will be, then it will certainly have an effect on the programming available.

There will be a lot more lower-budget and niche focused programming (TWIT and Revision 3 are early examples), but I'm curious how it could work out for other types of programming.

This may remove some of the hurdles to making quality programming.

[cncb]

Originally Posted by pjpjpjpj

All you need today is dysfunction, controversy, and drama (not in the theatrical sense of the word, but in the slang sense).

This reminds me of a while back when some little kid (younger than 10) took his parents' car out for a joy ride. I think they reported it stolen and the police pulled the car over and found out it was their kid. Instead of a "public flogging" for putting himself and countless other people at risk he was a guest on the Today show the next morning. Just another example of them reinforcing stupid behavior...

[panteragstk]

Originally Posted by cncb

This reminds me of a while back when some little kid (younger than 10) took his parents' car out for a joy ride. I think they reported it stolen and the police pulled the car over and found out it was their kid. Instead of a "public flogging" for putting himself and countless other people at risk he was a guest on the Today show the next morning. Just another example of them reinforcing stupid behavior...

I think that "Jersy Shore" is the best example of reinforcing stupid behavior.

[panteragstk]

Originally Posted by Audacity

I believe that streaming video is going to be incredibly disruptive to the traditional broadcast video structure. If the disruption is as significant as I think it will be, then it will certainly have an effect on the programming available.

There will be a lot more lower-budget and niche focused programming (TWIT and Revision 3 are early examples), but I'm curious how it could work out for other types of programming.

This may remove some of the hurdles to making quality programming.

I agree to an extent. The only problem with having an all streaming model is bringing in revenue to make high budget shows. It won't be mainstream (pun) for many many years. Of course people like us will start (and have) using it primarily much sooner than the general population. Hulu and Netflix are just the beginning.

[pjpjpjpj]

Originally Posted by Audacity

There will be a lot more lower-budget and niche focused programming (TWIT and Revision 3 are early examples), but I'm curious how it could work out for other types of programming.

I think you sort of hit on the problem with your theory, maybe without even realizing it. Look at the "niche" that those two examples you cited are for. Who is watching those? Tech-savvy people. When Boudreax from Thibodeaux (inside joke) starts regularly watching a streaming-only channel for fishing and nutria hunting, then we'll know that it's mainstream-enough to create an effect on the general public. But for a while - likely a long while - streaming content is going to be a niche market only, and that niche is the technologically savvy.

[Audacity]

Originally Posted by pjpjpjpj

I think you sort of hit on the problem with your theory, maybe without even realizing it. Look at the "niche" that those two examples you cited are for. Who is watching those? Tech-savvy people. When Boudreax from Thibodeaux (inside joke) starts regularly watching a streaming-only channel for fishing and nutria hunting, then we'll know that it's mainstream-enough to create an effect on the general public. But for a while - likely a long while - streaming content is going to be a niche market only, and that niche is the technologically savvy.

I think the "issue" you're talking about is that Joe 6-pack doesn't have a streaming video device today. Historically there was a realitively high price tag associated with the only hardware option (a HTPC) but with devices like AppleTV and Roku on the market I don't think streaming video gear is priced prohibitively now. Besides, this is something that really didn't exist a few years ago. Just because going from point A (no adoption) to point B (full adoption) requires a transition isn't a problem with the theory.

Another point I should make, many of the specialty cable channels are pretty niche. A fishing channel? Golf channel? The transition from a few mainstream networks to a larger number of niche networks is well underway for many years.

The technology geek niche went first only because there was an initial technology hurdle to consume streaming video and those were the people that were going to jump the hurdle first. Over time, that hurdle has been lowered. Soon, there will be no hurdle at all and streaming video will be easier to use than the cableco STBs that people deal with today.

I'd guess that we're looking at ~5 years before streaming video is truly mainstream. I think the 10 year estimates are far too long, especially when you consider that everyone from new TVs, game consoles, and inexpensive dedicated boxes (AppleTV, Roku) are bringing content consumers to the party.

The traditional cable TV business will start to look like Blockbuster 5 years from now. We'll see if they are able to make the transition better than the music industry transitioned to downloadable music. Disruptive technologies seem to leave a lot of roadkill behind.

The momentum will really start to pick up as we see more Netflix/Hulu competitors come out of the woodwork, and when sports leagues start selling their content directly to consumers.

[panteragstk]

I think the main hurdle isn't availability of service it is the general lack of knowledge on the consumer side. When the digital transition for OTA happened I had old people that were furious that the couldn't program their VCR to record off of their antenna. I told them that my company only sold 1 VCR that even had a tuner. It was a digital tuner so it would have worked, but try explaining that to them.

There will always be those that don't want to change the way they do things. Keep in mind there are still people out there that use VCR's and cassette recorders. Try telling them they can watch TV from Hulu on a Roku.

[Audacity]

There will always be those that don't want to change the way they do things. Keep in mind there are still people out there that use VCR's and cassette recorders. Try telling them they can watch TV from Hulu on a Roku.

There are also people who don't use the internet or even have computers, but they are becoming increasingly irrelevant in today's world.

I remember a Steve Jobs interview where he said something that I really found amusing, but true. He said back when they were making the Apple II, there was a problem: most users couldn't use a keyboard, at least not quickly. He said that it turned out that the solution to this problem was death! The people who couldn't use a keyboard started to die off and were replaced by the younger generation. Some people will still cling to their VCR (that is still flashing "12:00"), but they won't be around forever.

I'm not sure what percentage of the population have computers, are on the Internet (have a facebook Facebook, use YouTube, etc), but my sense is that they are the majority now.

[pjpjpjpj]

Don't get me wrong, I agree that the change will eventually happen. I just think the timeline will be longer than you think.

Let me give a real-world example. My mom and dad. They have one HDTV, bought it about a year ago, and a few old analog tube sets around the house. They bought HD cable, because that's just the way they are (bought the HDTV, we should have HD cable for it, right?). All their other TVs still pick up the analog channels in the Time Warner pipe, so they only pay for one HD box. They have no need for another HDTV. But they won't get a DVR (they "don't watch enough TV to bother"). Almost everything they watch is network - they could easily use an antenna and get it all just fine, for free. The ONLY thing they watch on cable is ESPN - my dad will turn it on almost every night while reading the newspaper, he doesn't even care what's on. So basically, they are paying for HD cable, just for ESPN, which my dad "turns on in the background" and barely watches.

My mom has a good 20 years left of her life. I will be very surprised if she buys another HDTV. If she does, it will be because she moved into a retirement home and needs a smaller one than the one she has now. If, by some chance, that happens, the TV she gets at that point may have built-in streaming. But she won't use it. She doesn't even want a DVR now for the shows she watches.... she just misses episodes, and "oh, well".

Long story short, I look at TWO factors:
1) There are a LOT of people like my mom - age between 50 and 80 - who have decades left on their life and will never advance technologically because they just plain don't care enough.
2) The majority of the public doesn't just buy new TVs on a whim. An old one has to die, or there has to be something that really makes them want the new technology. Most people who want an HDTV (and have the means to buy one) already have one. So it will have to be a feature with the TVs that really tempts them. And streaming video isn't it - at least yet. It seems to me that streaming content really needs a massive PR campaign... because slapping a "netflix" and "amazon vod" and "hulu" logo on a TV in the Sunday paper Best Buy ad really doesn't explain much to the average 60-year-old, does it?

The one factor that streaming TV has for it, on the "niche" markets, is the ever-increasing costs of cable, and the "packaging" of niche channels. If Bubba has to pay an extra $20/month to see his fishing channel, because it's now been packaged with 20 other "niche" channels that he DOESN'T want, then MAYBE he'll start looking elsewhere for a way to get his fishing programs. But part of my point above was, that "Bubba" (Joe Six Pack) is just plain SCARED of looking into technology like streaming video boxes, even if it is really plug-and-play. Cable is safe - an "expert" (ha ha) comes to your house and hooks it up. Do you know how many people don't even know what is involved in that? LOTS. Most of the general public think all those wires and connections and splitters and gadgets are some sort of voodoo magic, and are, quite simply, scared of it.

P.S. Did I mention my mom also has a nicer cellphone than me? An android smart phone with all the bells and whistles. She has no idea how to use anything except the phone. She doesn't even have a synced up address book, just the old numbers-only list that they migrated over from her old phone. But she still pays some exorbitant monthly fee for the full text and data package, even though she couldn't send a text if you held a gun to her head.

[wayner]

Originally Posted by panteragstk

I think the main hurdle isn't availability of service it is the general lack of knowledge on the consumer side.

But I would bet that younger folks are very likely to not be cable subscribers in the future. I am guessing that most kids in college don't bother to get fixed line phones and don't bother with cable. When they leave college I am guessing that they continue these trends.

Sure the 50+ year olds will keep their cable subs but they are a less attractive demographic and they will die off, just like the talk about non-keyboard users.

[wayner]

Originally Posted by Spectrum

The networks are enamored with the ROI for reality series. They cost little to nothing to make and rake in viewers. Why spend millions on effects, costumes, and writers when you can hire a few has beens or minor celebs to critique and insult people they find off the street.

The other thing with reality shows is that they are less likely to be PVRed. The folks that are into these shows like to discuss them with their friends the next day at work. It doesn't really work to PVR the show and then watch it several days later.

In this way reality shows are like sports and that is what I consider them "sports for chicks!" ;-)

[tierpath]

I agree with you guys, it mostly sucks now a days. In fact I am on Season 5 of Babylon 5 the last episode. And then it's B5:Crusade. I just finished all 5 season of Andromeda about 3 months ago, and before EFC. I like a mixture of shows, but some I can't bear to watch. Yes Smallville and Supernatural I love. Too many damn bachelor crap and others. SG series, all 3 were great, Trek series were all great. Heroes was a great one that got canned, and Firefly as well. I like the CSI and L&O series, Criminal Minds and NCIS. But now CSI is kinda wearing on me as know as much about computers takes the joy out of watching these damn shows sometimes.
Survivor kills me. The makeover shows kill me as well. Amazing Race. H50 is ok. I watch it more for the scenery, and that was true for flavor of love and the bret michaels, ray J. Those are set to autodelete.
Spartacus was to say the least a great one. Of course, I loved the Hercules and Xena shows and the other ones by Raimi.

It's hard to find shows like that and others that I have forgotten.

The great news is Hulu and others are starting to add them to the streams!!!
To tell you the truth, 1 or 2 commercials don't bother me esp when it's not ever 10 minutes.
Now 4 or 5 every 10minutes, that pisses me OFF!!

I agree and think streaming is going to take over, but it's not done morphing into version 1.0 of the unified standard that most likely will come about.

[texneus]

Heh...don't even get me started. All I will say is TV is so great today that I need to pay dearly for 100's of channels and use SageTV (and MCE before that, and ReplayTV before that!) to sift out the garbage down to the content that one well thought out channel alone probably could provide. Yip, great stuff!

Streaming is definitely a part of the future. No doubt the studios are drooling over "pay per play", and for those reasons I have doubts it will replace DVRs and recorded media.

[flavius]

On a side note: we are now consistently hovering around 200 gig per month according to my Comcast data usage meter. That's not surprising with all the streaming that we do these days. More than 250 gig is said to be excessive use.

[pjpjpjpj]

Originally Posted by wayner

Sure the 50+ year olds will keep their cable subs but they are a less attractive demographic and they will die off...

Of course they will die off eventually, but my only point in all that I said above is that it's going to be longer than many here seem to think until streaming becomes the dominant, or even only, form of TV media out there. Some seem to think we'll all be streaming everything in 10 years or less. But the 50+ year olds that you mention still have 30-40 years left, and they're absolutely not going to change and adapt, so the "old" technologies will have to exist at least that long, and probably longer. The attitude that "they're not the target demographic and therefore we can ignore their needs" doesn't work in the business world, though a lot of people in the computer industry like to imagine that it does. You can watch all the TV and movies you want that glorify the lives of the billionaire 20- and 30-somethings who live and breathe in the digital world - and someday they will rule the world - but the fact is that the 50+ year olds (who watch live TV and send letters on paper) still hold most of the money in the world.

I was simply saying that the people who think everything will be streaming in 10 years are being a bit aggressive in their predictions.

[OneThomas]

LOL - this post depresses - and slightly offends - me! I'd certainly agree that TV seems to overall suck these days. Everything I like gets cancelled (Eli Stone, Pushing up Daises, Sarah Conner Chronicles, The Gates, etc..) while trash (anything "reality") survives!

But, don't write off anyone 50+ as irrelevant and dieing off. I'm 47 - use SageTV for OTA Digital with HDHomeruns and some Play-On linked stuff, haven't used cable/satellite for almost 5 years (even though it is included in my buildings utilities) - and get anything else I want off of Netflix Streaming (via my BluRay player or Roku box) or Shipments.

Us 50+ year olds (or close to it) can still adapt. You CAN teach an old dog a new trick!

[jptheripper]

It actually amuses me. I am 34, and rail against streaming and online media. I cant stand it, for tv, i just dont like the business model. Plus my internet connection stinks (1MB/s) so it is completely non0functional as well.

I actually like alot of current tv. But i judge it for what it is, entertainment. I dont need life altering. Just want "enjoy".

House, family guy, csi, all highly entertaining.

im the 35 yr old who wont adapt.

and just for reference
I had faster itnernet, canceled it $$$
had vonage - canceled (cell only)
had netflix - canceled (quality, convenience, interface)

I also just looked through my favorites. I have ~60, and over 40 are QAM on the major networks. Maybe i am rabbit ear bound.

[panteragstk]

Originally Posted by OneThomas

Us 50+ year olds (or close to it) can still adapt. You CAN teach an old dog a new trick!

"Virtual pat on the back for learning new trick"

My parents are both over 50 and I don't think they have paid a bill through the mail in years. Also, they are the reason I'm interested in technology. My dad has a WMC computer along with their cable. We were one of the first to get cable internet when I was a kid (10 years ago).

Even my grandmother says one of the hardest conversations she's ever had was trying to explain to one of her over 70 friends what a DVR was. Her friends response "I already have a dvd player." Face palm.

Originally Posted by jptheripper

Maybe i am rabbit ear bound.

Have been for 3 years, but can't stand not having espn or Fox sports. Been tethering my cell for that amount of time as well for my only internet connection. 2.5mbit average.

[Audacity]

While I could stand to have more/better TV shows on the air, I still think we're doing okay. I think people remembering the "golden years" of TV is nostalgia. Nostalgia is like cocaine: it makes you say stupid things.

I've gone back to watch some sitcoms and movies from the 80s. You know what? They're pretty bad now. I grew up on Dr. Who and Star Trek: TNG. When I watch those shows now, they're so campy it's painful! A year ago someone told me that the old Battlestar Galactica was better than the recent "re-imagined" version. When I got Netflix I went back to watch BSG from the 70s, and it was comically bad, and I don't just mean the special effects.

I'm starting to understand why some people have a hate-on for Netflix: it makes it too easy for them to re-watch some of their much-loved shows for decades ago, and learning that those shows actually sucked was not welcome news.

Fringe is better than X-Files. There. I said it.