Quote:
Originally Posted by flar
^^I think we have a different Idea of what TV is.
For me, TV==the live stuff, like newscasts and event coverage but really when it comes down to it, the television model is simply a means to deliver audiences to advertisers. It is no longer effective in that respect except for major events like the superbowl. I think ultimately TV is dead because these too will be more effectively delivered over the "tubes" than the "airwaves". The rest of it--shows--can be downloaded, and I think PVRs are an interim solution because they are still based on fixed broadcasts. Eventually everyone will just get their content via fast downloads and watch it on their television set, BUT with no commercials (but note that very young people seem content to watch shows on their laptop screens with earbuds).
The average TV viewer is now around 55; the most sought after demographic for advertisers is younger than this. From a business standpoint, TV stations are no longer profitable. PVRs are a part of this too because the good ones cut out the commercials.
|
I totally agree with you. PVRs are an interim, but they also point the way. People don't want to be constrained by schedules anymore. You're totally correct, all "video" content is going to be downloaded or streamed in the future and I believe that even "live" content will be delivered in a similar manner. Why miss the beginning seconds of "live from the scene", when you can start the video stream after you've had time to make a cup of tea. The only thing that will be "live" will be the appearance of content mark on the display of the user interface that connects to the server saying that this stream is now viewable.
The channel paradigm is going to end for the most part. A few live 24 hour countrywide news services might still exist, which will feed into their own content deliverables. The latest headlines, weather, business news, etc. Soon it'll be a studio and genre paradigm. What do you want to watch made by this production company today?
I just recently gave away a good 200 VHS tapes to charity, from series I used to collect and films and so on. I'd been keeping onto them just in case I wanted to watch them again and to save myself having to buy the DVDs for something I watched infrequently. Pulling those tapes off the shelves, seeing the old price tags, just made me realise how much money I'd spent over the years and in essence, wasted. Each tape varied between £4.99 and £13.99 so if you median that at £9.50 a cassette, multiply by 200 - that's £1,900 and that's with pretty poor maths.
I rarely collect DVDs and refuse to buy into the whole Blu-Ray packaging. Both are equally expensive, dead formats. It's only a matter of time.
Don't underestimate advertisers, they've been around a long long time. They'll come up with something in the future. The most obvious would be some form of fixed advertising built into the User Interface of the system that is used to deliver your video content onto your television screen. A lot of online video streams force you to sit through a short advert before the content begins and there's no way to stop it. Another would be less subtle product placement within the content. In a few years time, I full expect to watch an episode of CSI: Albuquerque and hear to coroner say "the victim had been been drinking a caffeine free, diet cherry coca cola shortly before the fatal stabbing. At least they enjoyed that refreshing zero calorie drink before they died."