Why TV Lost(paulgraham.com)
paulgraham.com
Why TV Lost
http://paulgraham.com/convergence.html
190 comments
Their assumption, and it's true for most people, is that you're going to watch something. If they don't put tennis on, you'll watch whatever they do show, even if it's arena wrestling. So even by watching something niche that they wouldn't broadcast anyway, you're stealing.
This probably isn't true for tennis, but it probably is true for a lot of things. So you may have a pretty good reading on the mentality of the networks here.
I'm not sure they're quite that sophisticated, though. I think they're reasoning is more along the lines of "I own that, I decide how and when it will be viewed!" Kind of a total war mentality, where they're even willing to shoot themselves in the foot to defend copyright.
I don't know much about copyright law, but this behavior does seem to run counter to the spirit of the law, which is to encourage the creation and dissemination of content by granting a "temporary" monopoly for the creator. In theory, this would expand the amount of content available to the public. But what I constantly encounter is the use of copyright to restrict access to content by limiting what I can view, see, hear, or read - as well as attacking the technologies that promote the dissemination of content because they are used (extensively, I admit) for copyright violation.
It's all gone so wrong. Because congress has shown a willingness to grant extensions to copyrights that were set to expire, and the supreme court has decided that copyrights with repeated extensions don't qualify as copyrights in perpetuity, it's hard to believe that the monopoly is temporary. For all practical purposes, it's permanent - and the copyright cartel is more than willing to use them to shut down the tech factor.
I do agree with PG that there's no turning back the tide. The computer will defeat the TV. But the temporary delay can be a real pain in the ass.
I'm not sure they're quite that sophisticated, though. I think they're reasoning is more along the lines of "I own that, I decide how and when it will be viewed!" Kind of a total war mentality, where they're even willing to shoot themselves in the foot to defend copyright.
I don't know much about copyright law, but this behavior does seem to run counter to the spirit of the law, which is to encourage the creation and dissemination of content by granting a "temporary" monopoly for the creator. In theory, this would expand the amount of content available to the public. But what I constantly encounter is the use of copyright to restrict access to content by limiting what I can view, see, hear, or read - as well as attacking the technologies that promote the dissemination of content because they are used (extensively, I admit) for copyright violation.
It's all gone so wrong. Because congress has shown a willingness to grant extensions to copyrights that were set to expire, and the supreme court has decided that copyrights with repeated extensions don't qualify as copyrights in perpetuity, it's hard to believe that the monopoly is temporary. For all practical purposes, it's permanent - and the copyright cartel is more than willing to use them to shut down the tech factor.
I do agree with PG that there's no turning back the tide. The computer will defeat the TV. But the temporary delay can be a real pain in the ass.
That's just one more reason they're going to lose. That assumption no longer applies because I'm not going to watching something I'm going to watch or play or make something.
Everyone is afraid of getting hosed by not anticipating future rights. Everyone knows how actors lost out by agreeing to a much smaller percentage of DVD revenue than for films (because they underestimated the market and profit margins), and everyone is determined to not let that happen to them.
This kind of fear propagates faster than actual realistic fears because you sound wise by talking about the future. So lawyers can always "add value" by cautioning against some deal that might be disadvantageous in 20 years.
This kind of fear propagates faster than actual realistic fears because you sound wise by talking about the future. So lawyers can always "add value" by cautioning against some deal that might be disadvantageous in 20 years.
One of the best descriptions of the piracy-has-the-better-experience phenomenon: http://diveintomark.org/archives/2007/06/26/piracy-lessons
the tennis part got my attention ... not to digress ... but geebee how do I get in touch with you?
This is many years premature. It may come to pass, but is nowhere near that now. TV is still by far the most common way of watching television shows (and watching television shows is still the most common way of wasting time) and overall viewership is increasing every year. This trend doesn't seem to be changing for a few reasons.
1) TV screens are much bigger and cheaper. They don't need the resolution a monitor does. Watching on a small screen is something you're happy to be able to do on a plane, but would never want to do on a day to day basis.
2) Bandwidth is still not there, especially for HDTV, and progress seems to be stalled. I still have pretty much the same connection for the same price that I did 5 years ago, and I'll likely still have it in 5 years from now. Mark Cuban talks about this a lot. Fiber to the premises may solve this one soon for some subset of the country, but by no means everyone.
3) Live television is nearly non-existent online. It can't handle it. The bandwidth to stream the Superbowl to everyone who wants it doesn't exist. Sports are a huge part of the TV viewing audience.
4) Many people like to watch shows as soon as they're released. The internet is terrible for this. I personally download mine, but I do so knowing that I'm always going to be watching the Daily Show from 2 days ago. If I were a TV addict (i.e. normal American) that would be unacceptable.
5) Content quality is better than ever. Single camera sitcoms, pay channel dramas, reality tv (if you're into that). Almost everyone agrees this is a golden era of television.
If you really think that more people are watching TV on a computer than on a good old-fashioned TV, you need to come down from your Silicon Valley mountain for a while.
1) TV screens are much bigger and cheaper. They don't need the resolution a monitor does. Watching on a small screen is something you're happy to be able to do on a plane, but would never want to do on a day to day basis.
2) Bandwidth is still not there, especially for HDTV, and progress seems to be stalled. I still have pretty much the same connection for the same price that I did 5 years ago, and I'll likely still have it in 5 years from now. Mark Cuban talks about this a lot. Fiber to the premises may solve this one soon for some subset of the country, but by no means everyone.
3) Live television is nearly non-existent online. It can't handle it. The bandwidth to stream the Superbowl to everyone who wants it doesn't exist. Sports are a huge part of the TV viewing audience.
4) Many people like to watch shows as soon as they're released. The internet is terrible for this. I personally download mine, but I do so knowing that I'm always going to be watching the Daily Show from 2 days ago. If I were a TV addict (i.e. normal American) that would be unacceptable.
5) Content quality is better than ever. Single camera sitcoms, pay channel dramas, reality tv (if you're into that). Almost everyone agrees this is a golden era of television.
If you really think that more people are watching TV on a computer than on a good old-fashioned TV, you need to come down from your Silicon Valley mountain for a while.
Live television is nearly non-existent online.
I wish I could post the graph of unique visitors that the founders of Justin.TV sent me. But while their actual numbers are presumably secret, I will say that I have never seen a steeper graph of a one-year period from any YC-funded startup. And I have seen some steep graphs now.
I wish I could post the graph of unique visitors that the founders of Justin.TV sent me. But while their actual numbers are presumably secret, I will say that I have never seen a steeper graph of a one-year period from any YC-funded startup. And I have seen some steep graphs now.
... which supports a few other argumets Matt's making, because justin.tv is probably the most famous YC startup among my non-programming friends: we all watch live college football and european soccer games on it, re-translated by users with TV tuners.
I don't think this is something justin.tv is happy about because it kind of transforms "broadcast yourself" into "share your cable subscription with strangers" and inevitably leads to a conflict with Fox+ESPN+friends [and possibly with cable/sat. providers too]
It all comes down to bandwidth. It doesn't exist and the situation is not improving, I'm 100% with Matt here. Even ESPN's premiere 360 offering pretty much sucks, let alone Justin's streams: they're basically backups for people who don't have TV access (on the road, in another country, etc).
Security-minded, TCP-dominant, firewalled to death "Big Internet" is simply the wrong platform to stream live HD video. Having worked at an IP-based HD video surveillance startup I was amazed at how hard it was to reliably push high-def streams over TCP/IP even within a large local enterprise network. Most of our IP was all about bandwidth management. I honestly can't even imagine what would it take to stream even CNN to all their viewers, let alone superbowl.
I don't think this is something justin.tv is happy about because it kind of transforms "broadcast yourself" into "share your cable subscription with strangers" and inevitably leads to a conflict with Fox+ESPN+friends [and possibly with cable/sat. providers too]
It all comes down to bandwidth. It doesn't exist and the situation is not improving, I'm 100% with Matt here. Even ESPN's premiere 360 offering pretty much sucks, let alone Justin's streams: they're basically backups for people who don't have TV access (on the road, in another country, etc).
Security-minded, TCP-dominant, firewalled to death "Big Internet" is simply the wrong platform to stream live HD video. Having worked at an IP-based HD video surveillance startup I was amazed at how hard it was to reliably push high-def streams over TCP/IP even within a large local enterprise network. Most of our IP was all about bandwidth management. I honestly can't even imagine what would it take to stream even CNN to all their viewers, let alone superbowl.
Broadcast has bandwidth. Computers have brains. Why are these two competing? Broadcasting a signal that means something to computers, and having computers then marshal that for users is way more profitable.
Easy place to start - start hiring a small TV station for an hour in the morning, somewhere in amongst the informercials, and broadcast a signal that people with TV Tuners can decode. Using some variation of colour 3D barcodes, say. Have the TV Tuner decode software use this hour to pump content into squid or some other form of web cache.
Monetisation strategy: give people the ability to vote on what gets broadcast based on their cache logs.
Easy place to start - start hiring a small TV station for an hour in the morning, somewhere in amongst the informercials, and broadcast a signal that people with TV Tuners can decode. Using some variation of colour 3D barcodes, say. Have the TV Tuner decode software use this hour to pump content into squid or some other form of web cache.
Monetisation strategy: give people the ability to vote on what gets broadcast based on their cache logs.
Bittorrent does the same thing more easily, but neither works for live broadcasts. The technical solution to the HD bandwidth issue is probably ISP level multicast, but they'd still only be able to deliver the most popular content, making them effectively "a la carte" cable companies.
Perhaps a frame based variation on the bittorrent protocol is the way to go, where you're constantly torrenting sequential blocks of content and viewing with a slight delay. I think people would find that acceptable for live events that aren't popular in their current location, but broadcast is still superior for mass appeal content.
Perhaps a frame based variation on the bittorrent protocol is the way to go, where you're constantly torrenting sequential blocks of content and viewing with a slight delay. I think people would find that acceptable for live events that aren't popular in their current location, but broadcast is still superior for mass appeal content.
That was tried for movies: http://www.unmediated.org/archives/2006/02/pbs_sells_out_t_1...
Sounds like a lot of work compared to using Hulu or BitTorrent. The Internet bandwidth costs more, sure, but it's convenient. Lazy wins.
Where there is a price difference, there is an arbitrage opportunity. Sure it's a bunch of work, but it only has to be done once. With something like software radio it can even be invisible to the end user. It becomes a usb dongle that feeds them high def youtube et al.
Justin.TV is quantified: http://www.quantcast.com/justin.tv
including embedded players: http://www.quantcast.com/p-16uNVwiyGoWyg
Also, some real-time data: http://live.justin.tv/
including embedded players: http://www.quantcast.com/p-16uNVwiyGoWyg
Also, some real-time data: http://live.justin.tv/
Those numbers have M after them. As in million. I never thought this would have ever worked. 100 percent convinced JTv was on a course with obscurity. Tell the honest to god truth -- weren't you?
It is very cool that so many people are using the site, the problem though seems to be that the majority of the traffic is for illegal content. They have shown cases of big legitimate use, like the Jonas Brothers web chats, and the Keke Palmer web chat, however day-to-day it seems to be for sports, TV shows, and movies.
While I admire what justin.tv is doing, I think that in a way it's arrogant of the "Web 2.0"/Silicon Valley community to dismiss TV so quickly. Silicon Valley and the kinds of people who are adopting justin.tv are not the people who are watching TV in droves right now. I seriously doubt justin.tv commands the viewership in the tens or hundreds of millions that normal television does at its peak.
The people watching Justin.TV are not sophisticated Silicon Valley early adopters, believe me. And while nothing streamed online has the numbers of TV yet, I believe Justin.TV's numbers are as big as anything else online.
It's doing exactly what Stage6 did. Stage6 had amazing growth. The problem was that it was entirely fueled by the fact that they were hosting high quality pirated content. It's like standing on a street corner and handing out DVD rips of the latest movies for free. Of course you're going to be popular. Anyone with the balls and money to blow could do it, but why would they? It's a total gamble that you're going to sell the company before you get sued out of business.
There's still a tremendous gulf between Justin.tv and a live telecast of a sports game or award show. Not that what they've accomplished isn't impressive, but it isn't what most people would refer to as live tv.
For the poor man's version, just check Alexa:
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/justin.tv
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/justin.tv
The actual growth is steeper. I think few of their users have the Alexa toolbar installed.
You're generally right on #2 and #3. Even the biggest IP transit networks in the world only have capacity on the order of a few terabits per second (or a few million simultaneous video streams).
However, "bandwidth" isn't really what matters. It's the last mile connection to end users. Big CDN's like Akamai have this figured out and can pump millions of simultaneous live streams directly into end user networks without congesting any internet backbones.
It turns out that the main reasons we aren't all watching TV online right now is that big TV networks 1) are afraid of cannibalizing their existing revenue streams, and 2) think it costs a lot money. Neither of these are strictly misconceptions, but they aren't nearly as true as they were even a year ago.
Justin.tv has developed technology and infrastructure that brings the cost of distributing live video below the cost of serving static video, so I guess that makes it all about the revenue streams. It should be interesting to see what happens to this space in the next couple of years.
However, "bandwidth" isn't really what matters. It's the last mile connection to end users. Big CDN's like Akamai have this figured out and can pump millions of simultaneous live streams directly into end user networks without congesting any internet backbones.
It turns out that the main reasons we aren't all watching TV online right now is that big TV networks 1) are afraid of cannibalizing their existing revenue streams, and 2) think it costs a lot money. Neither of these are strictly misconceptions, but they aren't nearly as true as they were even a year ago.
Justin.tv has developed technology and infrastructure that brings the cost of distributing live video below the cost of serving static video, so I guess that makes it all about the revenue streams. It should be interesting to see what happens to this space in the next couple of years.
Of course, iTunes movie rentals stream 720p (which is what most HDTV channels use). They spend about 1 minute buffering the stream, then you can watch the movie.
Are you including the cost of storage when calculating the cost of serving static video?
Yes, that's exactly why it's more costly to serve static video. Live video can be served straight out of memory, which is cheap. The cost of software to stream live video has pretty much dropped to zero as well.
The big cost is bandwidth not hardware or software. Not a lot anyone can do about that in the short term.
> 1) TV screens are much bigger and cheaper.
I guess the majority of people still find it tough to hook their computer up to their TV screen. I can't see what the problem is myself. Surely soon most people will be able to do this soon.
I guess the majority of people still find it tough to hook their computer up to their TV screen. I can't see what the problem is myself. Surely soon most people will be able to do this soon.
overall viewership is increasing every year
Are you sure about some of the claims you're making?
http://www.crainsnewyork.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/2007...
^^^ This article seems to think viewership is down and I've heard that repeatedly over the last few years.
Are you sure about some of the claims you're making?
http://www.crainsnewyork.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/2007...
^^^ This article seems to think viewership is down and I've heard that repeatedly over the last few years.
Your example of the Daily Show doesn't really hold up. If you use torrents, a lot of shows are up before they even broadcast on the west coast. If you use Hulu, the Daily Show is available the next morning.
Where do you get your torrents? I've tried both Mininova and tvrss.net and neither seem to reliably get them to me before the following day.
Private trackers all fight to get the torrents up as soon as the shows pre. I'd recommend http://ninjavideo.net - They fight for pre, but are public, and offer direct downloads as well as letting you watch via the DivX web player. Firefox/chrome/google are now labeling it as malicious, but I haven't seen any evidence of that.
tvrss.net is an RSS for eztv.it
For the Daily Show in particular I usually just watch on Hulu. The eztv link is http://eztv.it/shows/1/daily-show-the/, and the March 2nd episode looks like it was posted about an hour after the east-coast showing.
I get the Daily Show and Colbert Report from there. I'm on east coast time, and I usually get it in time to watch the next day, but not always. It never comes in at night.
Hilariously right now I want to watch Daily Show and Colbert from yesterday, a full 24 hours after it aired, and it's not there yet.
Broadcast bandwidth is currently being wasted big time by the broadcasters. It is actually worth more as a backfill conduit to feed desktop caches than to broadcast TV repeatedly.
3) Live television is nearly non-existent online.
Hopefully IPv6 and global multicast should solve this once we finally rid ourself of this ancient thing called IPv4.
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
Hopefully IPv6 and global multicast should solve this once we finally rid ourself of this ancient thing called IPv4.
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
You're wrong. :-) ISPs have no plan to enable multicast -- ever. IPv6 "supports" multicast, but it can't force anyone to turn it on. See previous discussion: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=443599
IPv6 makes routing packets harder, not easier.
Care to elaborate?
I see people are saying that the hierarchical address-assignment is to some extent going out the window, but apart from that, how is IPv6 routing going to be a bigger mess than the current IPv4 routing?
I see people are saying that the hierarchical address-assignment is to some extent going out the window, but apart from that, how is IPv6 routing going to be a bigger mess than the current IPv4 routing?
TV lost? While I agree with many of the points PG brings up, I feel something is missing.
According to Nielson, TV viewership is at an all time high (http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/tag/total-us-television-...). Also, Oscars had a 13% increase from last year with 36.3M viewers. 50+M viewers watched Obama's inauguration on TV.. not on their computers. And of course, we know that those teenagers who are using social apps still cast more votes for their favorite american idol contestant than the sum of adults cast for president. (btw, if anyone knows where to get an annual histogram of viewership in US, that is what I was really looking for). TV viewership may indeed plummet in the future, but as of right now its at an all time high.
Then, I can't help but notice that I still procure my internet from my cable provider. And that same cable provider is not only actively fighting against network neutrality, but they are also blocking my ability to download anything from Torrent. They are far from beaten.
Lastly, what is the real difference between watching shows on my TV verse Computer. They are both using digital pipes, they both have microprocessors, memory and HDs - one has a bigger screen than the other (usually). The only real difference, and increasingly so, is that one is proprietary, and one is open. TV has not lost.. their content is (unfortunately) as relevant and abundant to the average American as ever.
All TV has lost is utter dominance - much like MS windows lost its utter dominance with the adoption of Linux and the rise of OSX (but they are still #1 by a lot). However, whether its piped through a monitor or an HD flatscreen, the US consumer will continue to glue their eyeballs to the content we call TV today for some time before open content can even begin to realize the same advertising dollars as the proprietary networks do.
According to Nielson, TV viewership is at an all time high (http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/tag/total-us-television-...). Also, Oscars had a 13% increase from last year with 36.3M viewers. 50+M viewers watched Obama's inauguration on TV.. not on their computers. And of course, we know that those teenagers who are using social apps still cast more votes for their favorite american idol contestant than the sum of adults cast for president. (btw, if anyone knows where to get an annual histogram of viewership in US, that is what I was really looking for). TV viewership may indeed plummet in the future, but as of right now its at an all time high.
Then, I can't help but notice that I still procure my internet from my cable provider. And that same cable provider is not only actively fighting against network neutrality, but they are also blocking my ability to download anything from Torrent. They are far from beaten.
Lastly, what is the real difference between watching shows on my TV verse Computer. They are both using digital pipes, they both have microprocessors, memory and HDs - one has a bigger screen than the other (usually). The only real difference, and increasingly so, is that one is proprietary, and one is open. TV has not lost.. their content is (unfortunately) as relevant and abundant to the average American as ever.
All TV has lost is utter dominance - much like MS windows lost its utter dominance with the adoption of Linux and the rise of OSX (but they are still #1 by a lot). However, whether its piped through a monitor or an HD flatscreen, the US consumer will continue to glue their eyeballs to the content we call TV today for some time before open content can even begin to realize the same advertising dollars as the proprietary networks do.
All TV has lost is utter dominance - much like MS windows lost its utter dominance with the adoption of Linux and the rise of OSX (but they are still #1 by a lot).
Both TV and Microsoft lost. They just aren't quite dead yet - it takes time for giants to fall.
Both TV and Microsoft lost. They just aren't quite dead yet - it takes time for giants to fall.
So losing 'utter dominance' is the same as 'lost'? I agree that it takes time for giants to fall, but I don't really believe the race is anywhere near over.
That said I would bet on Netflix or Amazon (or even Microsoft) to give us the next generation of TV before any of the networks do.
That said I would bet on Netflix or Amazon (or even Microsoft) to give us the next generation of TV before any of the networks do.
Yes, losing 'utter dominance' is the same as 'lost' when it's a game of monopolies. The internet has become a viable competitor to the TV networks, which makes this an entirely different game than a few years ago.
When the final boss of your favorite RPG has only 500 HP left out of his total 25000 HP, that's when he dishes out the most devastating attacks -- the ones which could flatten your cocksure party just before the coup de grace.
Microsoft has not lost. Don't be surprised if your great-grand kids will use MS products.
My dad's generation used IBM and I don't even use their stuff, let alone future generations.
PS3, 360, Wii? You're using IBM pretty much directly.
Microsoft ain't going anywhere.
Microsoft ain't going anywhere.
Interesting. Though what that implies is that Microsoft might end up doing something other than what they started on, leaving someone else to dominate a market they once dominated.
Like how people don't buy mainframes anymore. IBM is just another player in the server market and they sold their desktop unit and Macs switched to Intel. Now they make CPUs for consoles where taking over from Intel and MIPs chips.
Similarly I could see Microsoft losing dominance in Operating Systems as more things become web-based. They move more towards web services and Xbox - which is already happening to an extent.
Like how people don't buy mainframes anymore. IBM is just another player in the server market and they sold their desktop unit and Macs switched to Intel. Now they make CPUs for consoles where taking over from Intel and MIPs chips.
Similarly I could see Microsoft losing dominance in Operating Systems as more things become web-based. They move more towards web services and Xbox - which is already happening to an extent.
I think PG refers to the way that the bleeding edge is now adopting. It is now that these folks determine how most people will watch "TV" in 10-20 years. It doesn't really matter how TV tries to keep its wheel rolling until then, they'll stay rolling anyway thanks to sheer momentum. Also, watching stuff on internet is only beginning the change at this time. It's often even more inconvenient than tv if it's only tv that you're watching. But this will change in time as the "internet power users" is slowly growing into a majority.
Although, it might not take more than a few years when you stream or download tv shows to your cellphone over broadband wifi, then simply plug your phone into a dumb HD television screen terminal and start watching whatever you have on your phone.
Although, it might not take more than a few years when you stream or download tv shows to your cellphone over broadband wifi, then simply plug your phone into a dumb HD television screen terminal and start watching whatever you have on your phone.
Exactly TV "lost" in the same way Microsoft is "dead". Hyperbole used for emphasis and style. The discussions are about trends that have passed a tipping point (or arguably seem to be about to) and can now be called (even in advance) so new thought can be encouraged.
Interestingly, another thing TV has done to adapt is create content that expires very quickly. Reality shows like American Idol and Big Brother are unlikely to end up downloaded, because they're not worth watching if you don't watch them right away.
This is probably a huge component in why there are so many more reality shows these days.
Breaking the broadcast model also won't work for those, because their value is precisely in the fact that a lot of people watch them, so that they become gossip points. I know some people who watch reality shows only because they know that's what will be discussed around the water fountain the next day, and so they want to be sure to be "in".
I agree that that's a pretty small niche to fit all of today's TV industry, though.
This is probably a huge component in why there are so many more reality shows these days.
Breaking the broadcast model also won't work for those, because their value is precisely in the fact that a lot of people watch them, so that they become gossip points. I know some people who watch reality shows only because they know that's what will be discussed around the water fountain the next day, and so they want to be sure to be "in".
I agree that that's a pretty small niche to fit all of today's TV industry, though.
Actually, I wanted to refute your argument with a data point.
American Idol is the most DVR'd show in history. Even tho part of the "process" is to watch and TXT your vote (for a fee), it turns out many people are passively watching the show. They DVR it, watch it, and wait it out till next week.
Essentially, this is the first evidence of internet lurking crossing over to Reality TV contests.
But otherwise, you're completely right. TV is watercooler talk.
American Idol is the most DVR'd show in history. Even tho part of the "process" is to watch and TXT your vote (for a fee), it turns out many people are passively watching the show. They DVR it, watch it, and wait it out till next week.
Essentially, this is the first evidence of internet lurking crossing over to Reality TV contests.
But otherwise, you're completely right. TV is watercooler talk.
Interesting, I didn't know that. Thanks for sharing that data point!
I am not sure, maybe a lot of TV viewers actually are very passive. What always gets me about TV is the constant overexcited talking, which acts like brainwashing. TV shows (series) are another matter, but I think there might be a market for the constant babbeling brainwash. The primary function of TV is to switch off the brain. The internet can't really replace it, because choosing which shows to watch would be work.
Also lately I had this thought that maybe it is not even so bad. Consider a person who watches TV shows for all their lives. Chances are their lives will be much more exciting than the average person's live, if they really live with the TV show characters. They'll experience every conceivable and inconceivable human condition there is. Not that I recommend it myself, but still...
Also lately I had this thought that maybe it is not even so bad. Consider a person who watches TV shows for all their lives. Chances are their lives will be much more exciting than the average person's live, if they really live with the TV show characters. They'll experience every conceivable and inconceivable human condition there is. Not that I recommend it myself, but still...
Agreed; much of the appeal of TV seems to be that it removes all need to make any decisions. I have two younger sisters in their mid teens, and although they both have facebook and MSN etc, I'd say that for every hour they spend on the internet, they'll spend 3 hours watching TV.
For the most part, though, it won't be anything specific -- they'll just sit there and watch literally whatever's on, including even the really awful daytime game shows and the like. They're not very bright, but neither are they especially stupid -- they're both at grammar schools (~top 20%). Neither are they poor, friendless or isolated -- they just enjoy the utter mindlessness of watching whatever is put in front of them. To have to choose what to watch would ruin the experience.
For the most part, though, it won't be anything specific -- they'll just sit there and watch literally whatever's on, including even the really awful daytime game shows and the like. They're not very bright, but neither are they especially stupid -- they're both at grammar schools (~top 20%). Neither are they poor, friendless or isolated -- they just enjoy the utter mindlessness of watching whatever is put in front of them. To have to choose what to watch would ruin the experience.
I can't imagine a better definition of hell.
Listening to people talk is relaxing.
'Switching off the Brain' is a somewhat pejorative way to say it. You don't call a massage 'switching off your back muscles.'
'Switching off the Brain' is a somewhat pejorative way to say it. You don't call a massage 'switching off your back muscles.'
Not sure I buy that - not in the stressful way TV people talk. As I said, overexcited, they constantly have to convey the impression that something exciting is happening.
When was the last time you felt relaxed like after getting a massage from watching TV?
When was the last time you felt relaxed like after getting a massage from watching TV?
I rarely watch TV. Chronic stress is a concern for me.
"TV" can mean many things:
1. The content, which, as others here have stated, is here to stay for quite some time. And this is what the networks (NBC/Fox/etc.) do best so I think they're going to be around much longer than the RIAA. It's very inexpensive to record quality music using home equipment (hence RIAA is screwed), but home videos are still far from the quality of network produced shows. There is a downward trend in cost to produce TV shows and movies, but it isn't quite as cheap and easy yet.
2. The big screen in the living room. This too is here to stay, though it will evolve from just a medium to watch TV shows and movies to something that'll be more interactive+connected+social.
1. The content, which, as others here have stated, is here to stay for quite some time. And this is what the networks (NBC/Fox/etc.) do best so I think they're going to be around much longer than the RIAA. It's very inexpensive to record quality music using home equipment (hence RIAA is screwed), but home videos are still far from the quality of network produced shows. There is a downward trend in cost to produce TV shows and movies, but it isn't quite as cheap and easy yet.
2. The big screen in the living room. This too is here to stay, though it will evolve from just a medium to watch TV shows and movies to something that'll be more interactive+connected+social.
I think a large part of the problem is that the content is increasingly crap!
My TV watching is basically Food Network, Ovation TV (artist & musician documentaries) some History channel, a bit of Discovery channel (Mythbusters & Dirty Jobs), Cartoon Network adult swim and movies. I haven't watched broadcast TV in almost a decade and I don't get the local satellite feed. My local news comes from the radio during my commute.
Fox, ABC, NBC, etc. simply don't exist for me. CNN I have watched exactly ONCE in the last year: I heard that a plane landed in the Hudson river and I rushed home to watch it on TV then got disgusted by the usual crappy CNN coverage and switched it off.
A local bar could have an open mike night streamed online and I would watch that (with the bar's name prominently displayed in the background) over just about anything on TV. And when I got tired of watching I could go to the bar :-)
My TV watching is basically Food Network, Ovation TV (artist & musician documentaries) some History channel, a bit of Discovery channel (Mythbusters & Dirty Jobs), Cartoon Network adult swim and movies. I haven't watched broadcast TV in almost a decade and I don't get the local satellite feed. My local news comes from the radio during my commute.
Fox, ABC, NBC, etc. simply don't exist for me. CNN I have watched exactly ONCE in the last year: I heard that a plane landed in the Hudson river and I rushed home to watch it on TV then got disgusted by the usual crappy CNN coverage and switched it off.
A local bar could have an open mike night streamed online and I would watch that (with the bar's name prominently displayed in the background) over just about anything on TV. And when I got tired of watching I could go to the bar :-)
My brother writes for TV. There is quite an age difference between us; he's older. The industry still does not fully comprehend the Internet as it relates to its future. The other day we were having dinner and my brother said he wishes he could just cut the middlemen (the producers/networks) out of the equation and become a distributor on the Internet himself. He's tired of being creatively limited by their vision -- or lack-there-of.
He was surprised when I said that it was well within his ability to do this already. Not in a "woohoo I put up my own website with my own shows" kind of way, but in a "I have become my own virtual CDN via EC2 et al" kind of way. He argued that would simply make Amazon and the infrastructure providers into the new middlemen. Perhaps, though that might be like saying that my computer use is being held hostage by the electrical company. In theory it is, but in practice it does not feel like the very exploitive sort of middle management that exists in the entertainment industry.
I've done some work for this industry and the key point you have to understand is that, whereas "Can we accomplish this?" is a matter of technological feasibility to us hackers, it means something entirely different to entertainment industry folks. To them, it is more of a legal matter. The whole industry is mired in a complex web of contracts governing every detailed aspect of intellectual property. So, when we scoff at how long it took the networks to get something like Hulu up on the Internet, understand it was a bunch of lawyers holding up the process. Then, when you get around some of the service's limitations (e.g., geoblocking) understand that too, was a dumb legal requirement. Everyone involved knows these restrictions are circumventable but, they must be in place for the existing contracts not to have to be re-negotiated.
Talk to anyone that's worked on the iTunes infrastructure. From what I gather, at least initially, getting an album onto the iTMS involved dozens of contracts. It made getting an iPhone application onto the App Store a cakewalk in comparison.
Where a startup could provide tremendous value, it would be in overcoming the legal hurdles to distributing content on the Internet. Spend the money on the lawyers to setup all the contracts that you need, so you can get unsigned artists onto your content distribution network, but more-or-less play by the rules of the current industry. These people are afraid of change, so you don't want to come out of left field in the way you operate. Then, when you become the new boss of the industry, tear down the stupid legal constraints that stifle creativity and innovation, and makes the Internet pretend to be something it is not.
The networks are vulnerable. Writers, actors, and other workers hate working for them because they take huge cuts of revenue and then play accounting games to take an even larger portion. There's a reason the unions there are so strong. They're united in their hatred of the middlemen. On the other side of the coin, us consumers hate the networks too. Most of us are tired of their antics.
So, any startup willing to take on this challenge would have a friendly set of content suppliers, and a captive audience. Just get yourself the best lawyers you can probably find, because you will need them ;)
He was surprised when I said that it was well within his ability to do this already. Not in a "woohoo I put up my own website with my own shows" kind of way, but in a "I have become my own virtual CDN via EC2 et al" kind of way. He argued that would simply make Amazon and the infrastructure providers into the new middlemen. Perhaps, though that might be like saying that my computer use is being held hostage by the electrical company. In theory it is, but in practice it does not feel like the very exploitive sort of middle management that exists in the entertainment industry.
I've done some work for this industry and the key point you have to understand is that, whereas "Can we accomplish this?" is a matter of technological feasibility to us hackers, it means something entirely different to entertainment industry folks. To them, it is more of a legal matter. The whole industry is mired in a complex web of contracts governing every detailed aspect of intellectual property. So, when we scoff at how long it took the networks to get something like Hulu up on the Internet, understand it was a bunch of lawyers holding up the process. Then, when you get around some of the service's limitations (e.g., geoblocking) understand that too, was a dumb legal requirement. Everyone involved knows these restrictions are circumventable but, they must be in place for the existing contracts not to have to be re-negotiated.
Talk to anyone that's worked on the iTunes infrastructure. From what I gather, at least initially, getting an album onto the iTMS involved dozens of contracts. It made getting an iPhone application onto the App Store a cakewalk in comparison.
Where a startup could provide tremendous value, it would be in overcoming the legal hurdles to distributing content on the Internet. Spend the money on the lawyers to setup all the contracts that you need, so you can get unsigned artists onto your content distribution network, but more-or-less play by the rules of the current industry. These people are afraid of change, so you don't want to come out of left field in the way you operate. Then, when you become the new boss of the industry, tear down the stupid legal constraints that stifle creativity and innovation, and makes the Internet pretend to be something it is not.
The networks are vulnerable. Writers, actors, and other workers hate working for them because they take huge cuts of revenue and then play accounting games to take an even larger portion. There's a reason the unions there are so strong. They're united in their hatred of the middlemen. On the other side of the coin, us consumers hate the networks too. Most of us are tired of their antics.
So, any startup willing to take on this challenge would have a friendly set of content suppliers, and a captive audience. Just get yourself the best lawyers you can probably find, because you will need them ;)
You can make a TV show and distribute it to everyone easily. That's not the problem. The problem is getting together the budget to make a good TV show, then making the ad revenue off of that show you need to make that profitable.
Hulu might make that possible, but it hasn't yet.
Hulu might make that possible, but it hasn't yet.
It actually has been done. Joss Whedon produced Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog during the writer's strike. It was definitely a high quality production. And it was well received. Also, after DVD's and songs on Itunes, Joss Whedon has recouped all of the costs.
I do see your point though. Making high quality video is very hard. It cost Joss Whedon around $200,000 to make. And Joss Whedon has a cult following, so just having his name on it gave the project a lot of P.R. And Joss Whedon has been involved with Hollywood movies and television shows, so he has the experience necessary to make a high quality show.
I wonder if the entertainment industry is headed to a model comparable to venture capitalism. Media Companies might be forced to split their services into two sections. They would act like a vc firm and give money to producers in exchange for a percent of the gross. And they could sell access to their distribution network. I'm sure that no media company would want to do this willingly though. It would mean giving up control over the ip rights, and they would have to find new distribution methods.
Hulu:http://www.hulu.com/watch/28327/dr-horribles-sing-along-blog...
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Horrible%27s_Sing-Along_Blo...
I do see your point though. Making high quality video is very hard. It cost Joss Whedon around $200,000 to make. And Joss Whedon has a cult following, so just having his name on it gave the project a lot of P.R. And Joss Whedon has been involved with Hollywood movies and television shows, so he has the experience necessary to make a high quality show.
I wonder if the entertainment industry is headed to a model comparable to venture capitalism. Media Companies might be forced to split their services into two sections. They would act like a vc firm and give money to producers in exchange for a percent of the gross. And they could sell access to their distribution network. I'm sure that no media company would want to do this willingly though. It would mean giving up control over the ip rights, and they would have to find new distribution methods.
Hulu:http://www.hulu.com/watch/28327/dr-horribles-sing-along-blog...
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Horrible%27s_Sing-Along_Blo...
Yeah, when Radiohead did well releasing a CD online, everyone said "see, it works for Radiohead, it can work for anyone." The problem is that anyone is not Radiohead, or Joss Whedon. Recouping $200k is neat as an experiment, but hardy the foundation of a replacement to television as we know it. One episode of your favorite TV drama alone likely costs much more than that. If your favorite TV drama is Lost, it's 50x that.
The entertainment industry already has a model very similar to what you just described, just instead of distributing it over the net, they do so to theaters and customers by way of DVD. See http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/movie-distribution.ht... . It explains why you see two or three production credits before the opening sequence of each movie, those are basically their equivalent of VCs.
The entertainment industry already has a model very similar to what you just described, just instead of distributing it over the net, they do so to theaters and customers by way of DVD. See http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/movie-distribution.ht... . It explains why you see two or three production credits before the opening sequence of each movie, those are basically their equivalent of VCs.
I wonder if the entertainment industry is headed to a model comparable to venture capitalism.
Isn't it like this already? Shows like 30 Rock and The Late Show are created by production companies owned by Tina Fey and David Letterman. The shows are jointly owned by the production companies and the star's production companies. Even smaller potatoes productions are owned by production companies, not the networks. I.e. all that crap like "Rob and Big" on MTV is joint owned by MTV and a production company owned by some random dudes.
The finance and ownership issues relating to TV and Film are probably more sophisticated than high-tech venture capital.
Isn't it like this already? Shows like 30 Rock and The Late Show are created by production companies owned by Tina Fey and David Letterman. The shows are jointly owned by the production companies and the star's production companies. Even smaller potatoes productions are owned by production companies, not the networks. I.e. all that crap like "Rob and Big" on MTV is joint owned by MTV and a production company owned by some random dudes.
The finance and ownership issues relating to TV and Film are probably more sophisticated than high-tech venture capital.
The problem is getting together the budget to make a good TV show.
I was ranting in #startups on freenode the other day about the cost of production being the thing that needs to change for the game to change. I've got a thought on how to do that, but it just requires a little time to see if its possible or still just a theory.
Where are the cost centers in production? I've watched some guys I know get together and make films using pro-am hd cameras, and then edit it down on a mac pro.
Would building an online service that allows people to mail in hd tapes, and then edit online via a flex app help? You could use AWS clusters to handle the rendering compute load.
Would building an online service that allows people to mail in hd tapes, and then edit online via a flex app help? You could use AWS clusters to handle the rendering compute load.
I don't know about TV, but for a very low budget film the major costs are:
1. Talent (although assuming you write and direct yourself, and use unknown actors, this can be brought down to under a few thousand).
2. Film stock and processing (over 50k with celluloid, but obviously digital is much cheaper).
3. Equipment (camera, dollies, lights etc.): 40k
4. Crew: 70k for a 2 week shoot with a cheap crew, including catering
5. Post production: 40-60k
This sort of money will get you a surprisingly professional looking 90 minute film. However, production costs on film are always eclipsed by marketing costs. It can cost thousands of dollars just to market a film to the distributors, no matter to consumers.
Obviously, you can make a film for much less than this, but only if you want to make a film like Clerks or In The Company Of Men (i.e. one location, shot in a weekend).
1. Talent (although assuming you write and direct yourself, and use unknown actors, this can be brought down to under a few thousand).
2. Film stock and processing (over 50k with celluloid, but obviously digital is much cheaper).
3. Equipment (camera, dollies, lights etc.): 40k
4. Crew: 70k for a 2 week shoot with a cheap crew, including catering
5. Post production: 40-60k
This sort of money will get you a surprisingly professional looking 90 minute film. However, production costs on film are always eclipsed by marketing costs. It can cost thousands of dollars just to market a film to the distributors, no matter to consumers.
Obviously, you can make a film for much less than this, but only if you want to make a film like Clerks or In The Company Of Men (i.e. one location, shot in a weekend).
The majority of cost of any TV/Film project goes into equipment and salary realistically.
The way I figure it, the minimum number of people you need in any traditional production is essentially the cast and base operators (which could also be cast members if multi-skilled)
However if you go into 3D animation, this number can actually go down - to the point where you have a content production team around the size of a small startup.
The model I'm looking at could be described as a digital aniation studio, a "mini pixar" if you will, that uses open source software (Blender, Cinelerra) and homebrew motion capture (both facial and performance) to get performance across in a quick manner and using a significantly smaller team. I'm also looking at leveraging EC2 for rendering instead of investing in purchasing multiple servers for a render farm.
The model isn't scalable across the entire film/tv industry of course, but I figure it could work for a couple studios and this is what I'm working on trying to prove right now.
The way I figure it, the minimum number of people you need in any traditional production is essentially the cast and base operators (which could also be cast members if multi-skilled)
However if you go into 3D animation, this number can actually go down - to the point where you have a content production team around the size of a small startup.
The model I'm looking at could be described as a digital aniation studio, a "mini pixar" if you will, that uses open source software (Blender, Cinelerra) and homebrew motion capture (both facial and performance) to get performance across in a quick manner and using a significantly smaller team. I'm also looking at leveraging EC2 for rendering instead of investing in purchasing multiple servers for a render farm.
The model isn't scalable across the entire film/tv industry of course, but I figure it could work for a couple studios and this is what I'm working on trying to prove right now.
A while ago, I heard a talk by the CEO of Wreck A Movie (http://www.wreckamovie.com/). They made a sci-fi movie in an open-source manner: People from anywhere contributed 3D models of spaceships and other graphical assets.
If you could tag your contributions with CC-Attribution licenses and have your name appear in the credits, that might be enough incentive for a lot of people to bring down production prices even more.
If you could tag your contributions with CC-Attribution licenses and have your name appear in the credits, that might be enough incentive for a lot of people to bring down production prices even more.
2. Film stock and processing (over 50k with celluloid, but obviously digital is much cheaper).
And if you're shooting a web show you don't need the high quality film because the ultimate medium is digital anyways.
And if you're shooting a web show you don't need the high quality film because the ultimate medium is digital anyways.
Woah. I don't think that's a good way to be thinking. One of the major downsides of internet-based television is that the video quality is typically very, very bad.
To take over TV, you need to at least match the picture quality of made-for-TV movies, and probably match 1080i resolution.
To take over TV, you need to at least match the picture quality of made-for-TV movies, and probably match 1080i resolution.
This is true, but you won't need your project necessarily projected on a 100ft screen for a blockbuster release. Film is an analog medium, which allows it to scale without becoming pixelated (it will get blurry instead). HD cameras with decent filters should be fine for web shows.
Then again, if anyone has more experience in the industry please correct me.
Edit: Also, the reason for the poor quality is probably not due to the quality of the original film. I would think it's more of a compression/bandwidth issue.
I still believe in film as an art form but for a commercial production webshow it may be overkill, especially as HD cameras get better.
Then again, if anyone has more experience in the industry please correct me.
Edit: Also, the reason for the poor quality is probably not due to the quality of the original film. I would think it's more of a compression/bandwidth issue.
I still believe in film as an art form but for a commercial production webshow it may be overkill, especially as HD cameras get better.
I still believe in film as an art form but for a commercial production webshow it may be overkill, especially as HD cameras get better.
I think that for content to be produced for online (not just as a novelty webisode but as an actual artform) people need to start thinking outside the 22 minute content 8 minute ad format for half hour blocks of television.
For example, a standard sitcom format goes like this.
It would be interesting to see some A/B testing with recutting lengths of commercials for the exact same episodes with a randomised set of people and see if the net effect of how "funny" a show is is noticeable or negligible.
(sorry, just late night stream of conciousness rambling)
I think that for content to be produced for online (not just as a novelty webisode but as an actual artform) people need to start thinking outside the 22 minute content 8 minute ad format for half hour blocks of television.
For example, a standard sitcom format goes like this.
Credits
Story (teaser / cold open)
Commercial
Story
Commercial
End of Story
Commercial
Tag
Credits
It would be interesting to see some A/B testing with recutting lengths of commercials for the exact same episodes with a randomised set of people and see if the net effect of how "funny" a show is is noticeable or negligible.
(sorry, just late night stream of conciousness rambling)
An overlay surface (in a PC's video driver) smoothes out all Divx, Flash, DVD, etc video sources. You'll see, when the overlay surface is not available, that the video/DVD is actually blocky without it.
I don't think you meant "overlay" there:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_overlay
You're probably thinking of a deblocking filter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deblocking_filter_(video)
which is typically used in the decoder for the relevant video CODEC; recent video drivers do have hardware support for this, but it's not a fundamental connection. Moreover, deblocking only helps so much.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_overlay
You're probably thinking of a deblocking filter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deblocking_filter_(video)
which is typically used in the decoder for the relevant video CODEC; recent video drivers do have hardware support for this, but it's not a fundamental connection. Moreover, deblocking only helps so much.
Well, salaries of talented actors and writers isn't solvable. The problem is that even if a show finds a new actor with real talent, they'll just be stolen away by network TV shows, unless the internet show has a similar budget.
But I bet you can lower many of the technology costs. It wouldn't surprise me at all if there's an extraordinary amount of inefficiency there.
But I bet you can lower many of the technology costs. It wouldn't surprise me at all if there's an extraordinary amount of inefficiency there.
TV/Movies talent is a winner-take-all business right now. If people start making cheaper productions the talent payment tail would get heavier.
And/or talent would be payed with equity.
And/or talent would be payed with equity.
I know I'm biased towards 3D animation, but I can give you examples where thats simply not the case.
Take Pixar, It's the highest profile of the 3D animation studios and can you name any of the voice talent for WALL-E? There was no "top talent" there in any notable role, in fact, apart from one of Pixar's 4 main directors (Andrew Stanton of Finding Nemo fame) I'm pretty sure anyone would be hard pressed to name anyone of note in a major role.
Now lets look at Dreamworks Animation, Arguably number 2 (even though they are more profitable than Pixar and also have the highest grossing animation film of all time in Shrek 2...)
Apart from voice talent in their films, can you name any of the talent in the films? Its a difficult task. The talent is shared among the many people that work there.
The reality is that voice talent is the "draw card" for 3D animation and is one of the minor expenditures for any 3D film.
So let's go back to Pixar, when Pixar was first producing their films, their distribution deals with Disney had them giving up 50% of the profits for the film.... They do all the hard work and only get back 50% of the money.
On that same business model, If you figure out a way to only monetise your film 50% of the the time and not care about it being pirated (even welcoming the filesharers as pseudo distribution/marketing) - you're off to a good start.
If you start reducing the workload on your animators/modellers (using limited cast/sets, animating more with mocap, scripting "extras"... essentially adopting a sitcom format) you can get away with doing episodic content with a significantly smaller team. Keep voice acting internal (even Pixar directors do voices on their films occasionally)... you're reducing costs further.
This I think is one of the ways out to cheaper productions and since online video has been notoriously hard to monetise - its a start.
I've also got a couple other ideas on ways to continue monetising off the model I'm proposing, but yeah, there is potential there.
Take Pixar, It's the highest profile of the 3D animation studios and can you name any of the voice talent for WALL-E? There was no "top talent" there in any notable role, in fact, apart from one of Pixar's 4 main directors (Andrew Stanton of Finding Nemo fame) I'm pretty sure anyone would be hard pressed to name anyone of note in a major role.
Now lets look at Dreamworks Animation, Arguably number 2 (even though they are more profitable than Pixar and also have the highest grossing animation film of all time in Shrek 2...)
Apart from voice talent in their films, can you name any of the talent in the films? Its a difficult task. The talent is shared among the many people that work there.
The reality is that voice talent is the "draw card" for 3D animation and is one of the minor expenditures for any 3D film.
So let's go back to Pixar, when Pixar was first producing their films, their distribution deals with Disney had them giving up 50% of the profits for the film.... They do all the hard work and only get back 50% of the money.
On that same business model, If you figure out a way to only monetise your film 50% of the the time and not care about it being pirated (even welcoming the filesharers as pseudo distribution/marketing) - you're off to a good start.
If you start reducing the workload on your animators/modellers (using limited cast/sets, animating more with mocap, scripting "extras"... essentially adopting a sitcom format) you can get away with doing episodic content with a significantly smaller team. Keep voice acting internal (even Pixar directors do voices on their films occasionally)... you're reducing costs further.
This I think is one of the ways out to cheaper productions and since online video has been notoriously hard to monetise - its a start.
I've also got a couple other ideas on ways to continue monetising off the model I'm proposing, but yeah, there is potential there.
Ratatouille:
Peter O'Toole, Brad Garrett, Janeane Garofalo, Ian Holm, Brian Dennehey
Cars: Owen Wilson, Paul Newman, Bonnie Hunt, Cheech, George Carlin
Incredibles: Craig T. Nelson, Holly Hunter, Samuel L. Jackson
Finding Nemo: Ellen DeGeneres, Willem Dafoe, Allison Janney,
Monsters, Inc.: John Goodman, Billy Crystal, Steve Buscemi
I don't know why you think animation means you don't need actors.
And your 'argument' on WALL-E is HUGELY flawed: Ben Burtt (who 'voiced' WALL-E) is literally the go-to guy when you need incredible sound effects. Not only would that movie have failed without him, he got the job because he's THE best sound fx guy in the business. For something like WALL-E, you need even more exacting quality, not less. And the few voices they did have went to John Ratzenberger (of "Cheers" fame: he has 95 acing credits on IMDB), Kathy Najimy, and Sigourney Weaver.
Making good content requires good content producers. I'm not trying to discourage you: there are good people out there. But you seem to be saying that since its animation, you can have lower standards. No: you need higher ones.
Cars: Owen Wilson, Paul Newman, Bonnie Hunt, Cheech, George Carlin
Incredibles: Craig T. Nelson, Holly Hunter, Samuel L. Jackson
Finding Nemo: Ellen DeGeneres, Willem Dafoe, Allison Janney,
Monsters, Inc.: John Goodman, Billy Crystal, Steve Buscemi
I don't know why you think animation means you don't need actors.
And your 'argument' on WALL-E is HUGELY flawed: Ben Burtt (who 'voiced' WALL-E) is literally the go-to guy when you need incredible sound effects. Not only would that movie have failed without him, he got the job because he's THE best sound fx guy in the business. For something like WALL-E, you need even more exacting quality, not less. And the few voices they did have went to John Ratzenberger (of "Cheers" fame: he has 95 acing credits on IMDB), Kathy Najimy, and Sigourney Weaver.
Making good content requires good content producers. I'm not trying to discourage you: there are good people out there. But you seem to be saying that since its animation, you can have lower standards. No: you need higher ones.
I don't know why you think animation means you don't need actors.
I'm not saying it doesn't - it obviously does.. what I'm saying is that not all animation has to be film scale, nor does it have to have proper actors as draw cards for voice talent.
My argument was that WALL-E was a smash hit and the use of big name actors as voice talent to sell the film wasn't part of the equation.
You completely missed the point.
But you seem to be saying that since its animation, you can have lower standards. No: you need higher ones.
No, I'm not saying that at all - Going up against a studio like Pixar/Disney or Dreamworks Animations thats entirely the case, but there are plenty of films out there that you don't even hear about that are plenty profitable - if you were to target the film industry that is.
You just don't need to scale it up (in terms of budget) for it to work, that's my whole argument
I'm not saying it doesn't - it obviously does.. what I'm saying is that not all animation has to be film scale, nor does it have to have proper actors as draw cards for voice talent.
My argument was that WALL-E was a smash hit and the use of big name actors as voice talent to sell the film wasn't part of the equation.
You completely missed the point.
But you seem to be saying that since its animation, you can have lower standards. No: you need higher ones.
No, I'm not saying that at all - Going up against a studio like Pixar/Disney or Dreamworks Animations thats entirely the case, but there are plenty of films out there that you don't even hear about that are plenty profitable - if you were to target the film industry that is.
You just don't need to scale it up (in terms of budget) for it to work, that's my whole argument
Not only that, but Pixar type animation is extremely expensive in terms of non-talent expenses. I won't say that you won't ever be able to produce a Wall-E type film on a Woody Allen budget, but we're very far from that now, even if you were to use unknowns for voice actors (which the top ones rarely do).
Except that I'm not talking about producing films. Yes, Pixar films are expensive because they are swinging for the fences.
That means they have many, many models, sets, textures etc that go into the production of any film, which of course increase your cost of production considerably. That's just a matter of fact.
What I have been saying is that if you take a different view, don't start out by trying to swing for the fences (you can always scale up later), essentially limit some of these choices you could probably get away with a smaller team in the beginning.
For example, lets move away from films for a second and talk about sitcoms. One of my favourite is Frasier.
Frasier has (for the most part) a very limited series of sets and characters. You have your 5 main characters, your 6 occasional supporting characters and for the most part these back and forths take place in 4 locations...
That's about 6 seasons of entertainment there for a sitcom, or about < 1 minute of Pixar animation.
That's really the kind of difference we're talking about in terms of cost of production.
That means they have many, many models, sets, textures etc that go into the production of any film, which of course increase your cost of production considerably. That's just a matter of fact.
What I have been saying is that if you take a different view, don't start out by trying to swing for the fences (you can always scale up later), essentially limit some of these choices you could probably get away with a smaller team in the beginning.
For example, lets move away from films for a second and talk about sitcoms. One of my favourite is Frasier.
Frasier has (for the most part) a very limited series of sets and characters. You have your 5 main characters, your 6 occasional supporting characters and for the most part these back and forths take place in 4 locations...
That's about 6 seasons of entertainment there for a sitcom, or about < 1 minute of Pixar animation.
That's really the kind of difference we're talking about in terms of cost of production.
That's about 6 seasons of entertainment there for a sitcom, or about < 1 minute of Pixar animation.
Are you saying that you can produce 6 seasons of Frasier with the cost of 1 minute of Pixar animation? Sounds doubtful.
You seem to be talking about growing an animation studio from the ground up.
Everything has to start somewhere, but the kind of content you could put out with minimal costs might not attract many viewers, which would make it difficult to grow.
Are you saying that you can produce 6 seasons of Frasier with the cost of 1 minute of Pixar animation? Sounds doubtful.
You seem to be talking about growing an animation studio from the ground up.
Everything has to start somewhere, but the kind of content you could put out with minimal costs might not attract many viewers, which would make it difficult to grow.
Are you saying that you can produce 6 seasons of Frasier with the cost of 1 minute of Pixar animation? Sounds doubtful.
Not cost - number of artifacts within a that timeframe over several shots.
Then again, Let's run some numbers to talk about cost.
WALL-E cost $120 million for 98 minutes, Ratatouille cost $150 million for 111 minutes, so you could infer that Pixar animation costs about $1.3 million per minute (roughly) and each production takes around 3-4 years to make.
The Blender "peach" team produced 10 minutes of animation (Big Buck Bunny) in 3 months with 9 people from concept to delivery using all open source software. (There were only 6 people primarily involved in the production of the animation itself, 2 were actively developing Blender as software and 1 did the music)
Big Buck Bunny - http://www.vimeo.com/1084537
Once all the meshes, sets etc are initially created, it all boils down to production of scripts, storyboarding and then animating more content based off artifacts you've already produced.
Remember, I'm talking a sitcom format, that is you artificially limit yourself with numbers of characters and locations (which includes lighting etc) which allows you to spend more time on animation instead of producing more sets/figures.
In fact, once everything is set up, animation is one of the shortest segments of any film animation project (dont believe me? check Dreamworks Animation's general timeline breakdown from their most recent annual report, page 21, link follows)
http://ir.dreamworksanimation.com/dwa/export/system/modules/...
So while no, you might not get a full 6 seasons, you could probably do several seasons for the cost of 1 minute of Pixar production.
You seem to be talking about growing an animation studio from the ground up.
Thats exactly what I'm talking about.
The model I've been more or less discussing throughout this thread is for a startup I'll be working on soon, maybe even applying to YC with in the next round of funding.
PG says, make something people want - this year is turning out to be the biggest year on record for Hollywood in terms of ticket sales, people spend more time in front of their TV's now than 5 years ago and now they also spend more time online (and TV/film piracy is on the rise)
Fact is - people want to be entertained...
Not cost - number of artifacts within a that timeframe over several shots.
Then again, Let's run some numbers to talk about cost.
WALL-E cost $120 million for 98 minutes, Ratatouille cost $150 million for 111 minutes, so you could infer that Pixar animation costs about $1.3 million per minute (roughly) and each production takes around 3-4 years to make.
The Blender "peach" team produced 10 minutes of animation (Big Buck Bunny) in 3 months with 9 people from concept to delivery using all open source software. (There were only 6 people primarily involved in the production of the animation itself, 2 were actively developing Blender as software and 1 did the music)
Big Buck Bunny - http://www.vimeo.com/1084537
Once all the meshes, sets etc are initially created, it all boils down to production of scripts, storyboarding and then animating more content based off artifacts you've already produced.
Remember, I'm talking a sitcom format, that is you artificially limit yourself with numbers of characters and locations (which includes lighting etc) which allows you to spend more time on animation instead of producing more sets/figures.
In fact, once everything is set up, animation is one of the shortest segments of any film animation project (dont believe me? check Dreamworks Animation's general timeline breakdown from their most recent annual report, page 21, link follows)
http://ir.dreamworksanimation.com/dwa/export/system/modules/...
So while no, you might not get a full 6 seasons, you could probably do several seasons for the cost of 1 minute of Pixar production.
You seem to be talking about growing an animation studio from the ground up.
Thats exactly what I'm talking about.
The model I've been more or less discussing throughout this thread is for a startup I'll be working on soon, maybe even applying to YC with in the next round of funding.
PG says, make something people want - this year is turning out to be the biggest year on record for Hollywood in terms of ticket sales, people spend more time in front of their TV's now than 5 years ago and now they also spend more time online (and TV/film piracy is on the rise)
Fact is - people want to be entertained...
Hey Matt, Sorry I was out all day but I gave a very rough outline of what I'm proposing above just now.
Maybe there is room for the ability to make TV shows that are of decent quality more cheaply.
I'm not necessarily talking actors/directors heavy stuff.
Up till now there has been a maxim. If it's on TV, it's making a substantial amount of money. If it's wasn't, it wouldn't be on TV. The result is that the cost of producing TV shows experienced very little downward pressure. There has never been good reason to take advantage of opportunities to make TV shows cheaply. That means there might be things that could have developed that haven't.
What would it take to make a University lecture into a decent production? Improved slides/visual? Re-recorded audio/narration? Stock footage? Supplementary materials such as other lectures or pieces of documentaries.
I imagine there would be patterns that emerge.
I'm not necessarily talking actors/directors heavy stuff.
Up till now there has been a maxim. If it's on TV, it's making a substantial amount of money. If it's wasn't, it wouldn't be on TV. The result is that the cost of producing TV shows experienced very little downward pressure. There has never been good reason to take advantage of opportunities to make TV shows cheaply. That means there might be things that could have developed that haven't.
What would it take to make a University lecture into a decent production? Improved slides/visual? Re-recorded audio/narration? Stock footage? Supplementary materials such as other lectures or pieces of documentaries.
I imagine there would be patterns that emerge.
> What would it take to make a University lecture into a decent production? Improved slides/visual? Re-recorded audio/narration? Stock footage? Supplementary materials such as other lectures or pieces of documentaries.
I've actually been giving this a lot of thought recently, and I'm now convinced of a few things. First, lectures can and should become computerized. This needs to happen. Second, a simple video stream isn't going to cut it. What you want is several streams of various media:
* A video of someone talking, gesturing, maybe writing something on a markerboard. This needs a certain amount of quality, depending on the lecture. You could record it at a high resolution and distribute reasonable-quality H.264 videos, and that should take care of it.
* Slides. Darn near everybody has PowerPoint these days, or something similar. Whatever they use, it can generally be coerced into PDF format. How you actually send out the slides to viewers is a separate matter -- you might render them to PNG on your server so they don't have to fire up PDF software locally -- but you should have slides in a clear format that doesn't depend on a video stream being intelligible. No more "shaky camera looking at a projector screen" crap. Even Google Tech Talks has this problem, because they're still hampered by the just-a-video-stream model.
* Table of contents. Have an outline of the subjects covered, so that people can skip around in the lecture and watch it out of order. It's the Internet way!
* Supplementary material, as HTML. If the speaker is talking about TRIACs, have a link to the Wikipedia page on TRIACs in the slides. Have all links from the slides open up in a new tab, and have the browser window (or an iframe, or whatever) be alongside the video stream. This would be crazy nonlinear, but that's a good thing.
* On the subject of tabbed browsing: have an equivalent of it for watching lecture videos. When the user opens up a new tab, pause the tab they were watching and duplicate all its state in a new tab. This way people can watch multiple parts of the same lecture (or, hell, even different lectures) at the same time. Remember the Wikipedia effect? Here's a succinct summary:
http://xkcd.com/214/
People will literally click around reading wikipedia pages for hours, but that just wouldn't happen without the extremely interlinked, hypertextual, ADD-inducing format of Wikipedia. Imagine what school would be like if lectures could be made minimally painful like that.
And of course you would want to make all the content available in multiple ways. Maybe have a desktop program for maximum slickness, a Flash-and-HTML version for people wanting quick web-based enlightenment, and an Android-based version for cell phones with a revamped UI.
I've actually been giving this a lot of thought recently, and I'm now convinced of a few things. First, lectures can and should become computerized. This needs to happen. Second, a simple video stream isn't going to cut it. What you want is several streams of various media:
* A video of someone talking, gesturing, maybe writing something on a markerboard. This needs a certain amount of quality, depending on the lecture. You could record it at a high resolution and distribute reasonable-quality H.264 videos, and that should take care of it.
* Slides. Darn near everybody has PowerPoint these days, or something similar. Whatever they use, it can generally be coerced into PDF format. How you actually send out the slides to viewers is a separate matter -- you might render them to PNG on your server so they don't have to fire up PDF software locally -- but you should have slides in a clear format that doesn't depend on a video stream being intelligible. No more "shaky camera looking at a projector screen" crap. Even Google Tech Talks has this problem, because they're still hampered by the just-a-video-stream model.
* Table of contents. Have an outline of the subjects covered, so that people can skip around in the lecture and watch it out of order. It's the Internet way!
* Supplementary material, as HTML. If the speaker is talking about TRIACs, have a link to the Wikipedia page on TRIACs in the slides. Have all links from the slides open up in a new tab, and have the browser window (or an iframe, or whatever) be alongside the video stream. This would be crazy nonlinear, but that's a good thing.
* On the subject of tabbed browsing: have an equivalent of it for watching lecture videos. When the user opens up a new tab, pause the tab they were watching and duplicate all its state in a new tab. This way people can watch multiple parts of the same lecture (or, hell, even different lectures) at the same time. Remember the Wikipedia effect? Here's a succinct summary:
http://xkcd.com/214/
People will literally click around reading wikipedia pages for hours, but that just wouldn't happen without the extremely interlinked, hypertextual, ADD-inducing format of Wikipedia. Imagine what school would be like if lectures could be made minimally painful like that.
And of course you would want to make all the content available in multiple ways. Maybe have a desktop program for maximum slickness, a Flash-and-HTML version for people wanting quick web-based enlightenment, and an Android-based version for cell phones with a revamped UI.
I think your on the right train of thought. A sign that things are working out would be a lecture not being recognisable a lecture.
But really, I was just think along a more basic line. A way to take in a lecture & (quickly & easily) produce a web-video based documentary.
IE take a lecture. Slap the notes legibly on a split screen & let users to jump around via a table of content. Links could be good. Maybe even sprinkle in some stock photos or stock video to break up the monotony of staring at a lecturer for an hour.
But really, I was just think along a more basic line. A way to take in a lecture & (quickly & easily) produce a web-video based documentary.
IE take a lecture. Slap the notes legibly on a split screen & let users to jump around via a table of content. Links could be good. Maybe even sprinkle in some stock photos or stock video to break up the monotony of staring at a lecturer for an hour.
I used to work for a medical school where my primary job was automating the information capture (video and slides) of lectures. We had numerous lectures going on every day and only one or two people to post-produce the videos. One of the big problems we faced was the large variety of inputs: cameras, Powerpoints, writing surfaces, DVDs, etc. Professors couldn't be bothered to standardize on a single presentation format and would sometimes wait days after initially presenting to provide the slides for us to include with the captured content. I started working on a solution that would hack into the VGA signal feeding the projector and capture stills on a regular basis so at the end of the class, we'd have both the video AND the contents of the presentation. The problem with that was that it wouldn't capture full motion video, like when instructors displayed video through the projector, or had powerpoint slides with video embedded in them. My next idea was to capture images of the VGA input at 30 fps, analyze the difference between the current frame and the previous few, and make a determination if a region of the image was displaying full-motion video (if so, I'd send that region to an encoder, then subsequently overlay it on top of the high-resolution stills when displaying it to the students online). I took another job before finishing work on that idea, and since then the medical school purchased MediaSite Live from Sonic Foundry, which I think does a pretty decent job (not as cool as my idea, but workable).
I've seen a simple implementation, with a splitscreen and a table of content based on the slides here:
http://videolectures.net/epsrcws08_campbell_isvm/
The ability to see the slides on the split screen and jump to previous slides via the table of contents really helped me as a user much.
http://videolectures.net/epsrcws08_campbell_isvm/
The ability to see the slides on the split screen and jump to previous slides via the table of contents really helped me as a user much.
That is a clunky version of exactly what I'm talking about. Awesome.
We're on the same wavelength. If this is to catch on, it should be easy enough for someone to just jump in and make some content without reading the manual. That's a big challenge in its own right: how much multimedia editing functionality can you make trivially obvious?
I imagine that would depend on how limited what you are trying to achieve is. You could make it pretty easy if all it did was cut up a lecture into parts (table of contents) & annotated it.
Probably the biggest problem for university lectures right now is that video compression means you can't see what they are writing on the board. I thought this may have been a YouTube thing but it happens with iTunes video as well. Check out some of the Stanford CS video lectures, they are a great idea but mostly hopeless because you can't read anything that's on the board. If someone solved that seemingly minor problem video lectures would improve tenfold.
That was sort of my point. How difficult would it be to take those lectures & work them to the point of being a lot more useful?
sketerpot' comment is all over this.
sketerpot' comment is all over this.
Having made a video that was sold on DVD and been a TA for a university course, I'm pessimistic that any university lecturer would bother with the extra work to make the videos good. I had no idea before I did it, but video editing is hugely time consuming. I'm guessing to make a really good video lecture you'd have to spend about 10-20 hours per lecture. Hours prepping the slides, the room, coordinating 2 camera guys, syncing audio after the fact, editing the video, etc.
sketerpot's comments are great, but I'm a pessimist. With current tools it would take too much work from the lecturer to make truly good videos. My point was that at a bare minimum if you somehow could make what's appearing on the board visible in the video, you'd at least make the experience as useful as being in the class. As it stands now, you're better off just listening to the audio.
However, there's a lot of room for technical innovation. Software to help automate the production work needed to make good lecture videos would be a cool startup idea.
sketerpot's comments are great, but I'm a pessimist. With current tools it would take too much work from the lecturer to make truly good videos. My point was that at a bare minimum if you somehow could make what's appearing on the board visible in the video, you'd at least make the experience as useful as being in the class. As it stands now, you're better off just listening to the audio.
However, there's a lot of room for technical innovation. Software to help automate the production work needed to make good lecture videos would be a cool startup idea.
Touch-sensitive black/whiteboard and Twiddla replay?
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=496331
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=496331
I started a startup oriented around a new way of listening to your music and sharing new stuff with friends. We found one of the best lawyers in the industry, and he pretty much said "Don't do it. You're too young, and there are better things to spend your time on."
Then what did you do?
Well, he was advising our potential investors, so we didn't get funding and ran out of money. I've got a day job now that's pretty good. I'll get back into the startup thing once I'm back on my feet.
Why not build one (a startup) around iTunes' video podcast library?
Allow podcasters to opt-in to a web interface to video podcasts–integrate mid/pre-roll ads and split the revenue with the content providers. Allow viewers to set their favorite channels and be notified when new episodes are available.
For the "friendly set of content providers", help them create a workflow that gets the content to you as easily as possible.
What are the best lawyers required if you're working directly with the content creators? (assuming they don't already have existing contracts)
Allow podcasters to opt-in to a web interface to video podcasts–integrate mid/pre-roll ads and split the revenue with the content providers. Allow viewers to set their favorite channels and be notified when new episodes are available.
For the "friendly set of content providers", help them create a workflow that gets the content to you as easily as possible.
What are the best lawyers required if you're working directly with the content creators? (assuming they don't already have existing contracts)
Agreed, but for that you need money:(
It would be cool if a video camera manufacturer integrated their device with a web back-end. Automatically compress and upload videos, and tag them from your camera. Basically reduce the friction required to publish and organize your content. It would be killer to integrate this with something like Facebook groups...
This is pretty close to reality in the form of the Eye-Fi: www.eye.fi. The sd card automatically uploads pictures/video over wifi to your computer and/or certain social networking sites.
You mean something like that doesn't exist yet? Wasn't that the selling point of that recently hyped cheap camera whose name I completely forgot?
Does this open up room for content-providers in other silos to expand into the TV space? For example, magazines. Wired tried to start a science series on PBS a couple years ago and it flopped. Could it work as an online-only thing?
I think it's dangerous to declare this contest over. Clearly, the large interests on the losing side of this battle aren't willing to go down without a fight.
Between net-neutrality, restrictive piracy laws and all sorts of anti-consumer tools we are far from seeing the notion of TV as it currently exists being effectively replaced.
Between net-neutrality, restrictive piracy laws and all sorts of anti-consumer tools we are far from seeing the notion of TV as it currently exists being effectively replaced.
Mark Cuban has a counterpoint:
http://blogmaverick.com/2009/01/27/the-great-internet-video-...
Not that I agree with him, but it's nice to have discourse.
http://blogmaverick.com/2009/01/27/the-great-internet-video-...
Not that I agree with him, but it's nice to have discourse.
I don't think you can lump all TV together.
I think a more accurate title would be "Why TV Lost in the US"
And one of the reasons would undoubtedly be the awful quality of most US programming.
Bravo,
This is such a good article. As a filmmaker myself, (foureyedmonsters.com) what I'm very interested in is partnering with exhibitors with a universal license that makes managing re-distribution very simple. I would love to put a more advanced creative commons license on a film that would then allow TV brodcasters and other digital exhibitors to put ads on it, sell it, project it at events or even distribute for free but always sending 50 percent of gross revenue back to my piece of contents royalty collecting agent. I imagine a world with lots of very small production companies all using these up and coming standardized licenses and then a social web that just passes that content where ever it needs to go translating and even re-editing as it moves through the swarm.
I've co-founded a research and development project to function as a think tank designing this future model.
For content creators there is a big focus around compensating the creation of culture. If society considers culture to be a valuable thing, then that culture will earn it's value back. In other words, we won't see inflated monetary compensation to content creators, but there will be compensation that supports them making more. That is if anyone cares about the things they make. And that's I suppose why we call this democracy.
I've co-founded a research and development project to function as a think tank designing this future model.
For content creators there is a big focus around compensating the creation of culture. If society considers culture to be a valuable thing, then that culture will earn it's value back. In other words, we won't see inflated monetary compensation to content creators, but there will be compensation that supports them making more. That is if anyone cares about the things they make. And that's I suppose why we call this democracy.
There is little flaw in the essay - it has forgotten about humans and human nature e.g. I am very young I go out to play - on rainy days and when my friends are away I watch kids TV (available pretty much all day)...Time moves on...I am a young care-free teen and I have face-book, computers, etc. and rip-off music and video and watch TV on the Internet, I have social networking and on-line games and have XBox and PS3 and Wii all over the place....Then reality dawns slowly but surely...I am a young adult and I have to get a job because Dad lost all his money in the recession and he wont give me endless bundles of cash anymore or cover my bills...I use the WWW to find one...If I am lucky (having studied and not "googled off" at school) I get one and I have to work hard BUT I suddenly have MY OWN money and I enjoy that and I go out, join the tennis club, local gym, go to bars and clubs...Lo and behold I find a soulmate and after much vexing (or not) we move in together..I work; she works, we get home and we cook and boy are we tired and we cannot be bothered to fire up the computer and go to Face-book, Google, Find, Search, Look, Hunt on the WWW (anyhow did that in the office)... What a long day its been; We sit down in the living room and switch on the TV and RELAX...
TV is premised on such long sessions (unlike Google, which prides itself on sending users on their way quickly) that anything that takes up their time is competing with it.
We've received a steady stream of feedback regarding Stormpulse.com from people who are abandoning TV coverage of hurricanes (yes, even that of The Weather Channel) in favor of our site. We're also happy to be the owners of Stormpulse.tv.
We've received a steady stream of feedback regarding Stormpulse.com from people who are abandoning TV coverage of hurricanes (yes, even that of The Weather Channel) in favor of our site. We're also happy to be the owners of Stormpulse.tv.
A decade ago, I would've bought satellite TV, heck even 5 years ago. Since the original Xbox was hacked and broadband became commonplace, I have watched less and less TV. I watch anything I want to on my AppleTV. Youtube, iTunes and Boxee are an incredibly disruptive combination. Our TV has an FTA digital tuner built in, which died two months ago. We haven't replaced it, we just watch TV even less. When the switchover happens we probably won't bother at all.
For me, Boxee is the most disruptive offering I've seen and it's precisely a combination of the social and Internet-based elements that makes me try to convince everyone I know to use it. I don't see Boxee killing TV, but like XBMC before it, it's one hell of a disruptive concept.
I also agree that some sort of set top box combining telephony, TV, Radio and Internet will displace regular TV. Cable and telephony companies have already been moving towards this with 'triple play' offerings.
I on the other hand have had this kind of integration since 2003 with MythTV.
For me, Boxee is the most disruptive offering I've seen and it's precisely a combination of the social and Internet-based elements that makes me try to convince everyone I know to use it. I don't see Boxee killing TV, but like XBMC before it, it's one hell of a disruptive concept.
I also agree that some sort of set top box combining telephony, TV, Radio and Internet will displace regular TV. Cable and telephony companies have already been moving towards this with 'triple play' offerings.
I on the other hand have had this kind of integration since 2003 with MythTV.
"Hacker News" is showing its entrepreneurial, money-focused side in this discussion. You have to be obsessed with business models to be convinced that television is "losing" to the internet, just like you had to be obsessed with business models to believe that the internet was "killing music" a few years ago. Everybody still watches television and uses it as a cultural reference point when relating to other people. Despite the flourishing variety of internet-native art forms, people still turn to television for a regular fix of programming. The appetite for television programming is just another entry on the long list of things that the internet, which "changes everything," isn't actually changing.
You can pass hours of time on YouTube, but the content, while passably stimulating, just doesn't bear repeating. You can't crack your friends up by making some sly reference to it a month from now. Unless, that is, you're watching something that is well-written, well-produced, and well-acted. And in that case, you'll probably call it "television" to distinguish it from random thirty-second clips of some guy farting at his cat (America's Funniest Home Videos notwithstanding.)
When music moved from live venues to vinyl, it was still called music. When it moved from vinyl to cassettes to CDs, it was still called music. Now it's on the internet, and it's called... music! Television programming has been called "television" or "TV" for over half a century. I bet people will still call it "television." We think about it as "television versus the computer," but the younger generation thinks, "Why is it so hard to find television on the internet? I want to watch TV on my computer, not on the TV." That isn't contradictory at all. That's just the way the words are used. If you pick the right meaning of "TV," then TV might die, but it isn't interesting unless you stand to make or lose money on it. The TV that most people care about has a long life ahead of it.
You can pass hours of time on YouTube, but the content, while passably stimulating, just doesn't bear repeating. You can't crack your friends up by making some sly reference to it a month from now. Unless, that is, you're watching something that is well-written, well-produced, and well-acted. And in that case, you'll probably call it "television" to distinguish it from random thirty-second clips of some guy farting at his cat (America's Funniest Home Videos notwithstanding.)
When music moved from live venues to vinyl, it was still called music. When it moved from vinyl to cassettes to CDs, it was still called music. Now it's on the internet, and it's called... music! Television programming has been called "television" or "TV" for over half a century. I bet people will still call it "television." We think about it as "television versus the computer," but the younger generation thinks, "Why is it so hard to find television on the internet? I want to watch TV on my computer, not on the TV." That isn't contradictory at all. That's just the way the words are used. If you pick the right meaning of "TV," then TV might die, but it isn't interesting unless you stand to make or lose money on it. The TV that most people care about has a long life ahead of it.
I especially liked pg's statement "But it was connecting to other people that got everyone else: that's what made even grandmas and 14 year old girls want computers."
The power of point-to-point cannot be overestimated. Indeed it had great impact in getting people to sign up for Internet access and connect a computer to the Internet in the first place. I discovered online interaction in 1992, when I attended a conference about homeschooling in Washington state and saw a demonstration of the Prodigy online service there. I made sure to connect a modem to my computer (remember dial-up?) and soon entered into interesting conversations with people all over the country about a common topic of interest. None of the content I was reading was produced by professionals--it was all parents talking to other parents. My online interaction completely displaced TV from my life, and soon greatly reduced the number of postal letters I sent to friends, because I could reach most of my best friends online anyway.
Sometime a while later in the 1990s, I saw an analysis in an industry magazine about whether the main application of the Internet would be broadcasting of professionally produced content or point-to-point communication. That analysis pointed out that at that time the revenues of the Baby Bell companies were MANY times greater than the revenues of all the movie and TV production companies. Point-to-point is where the revenue streams are. Broadcasting doesn't draw in as much money, because it doesn't appeal to as many audience members in as many ways.
My use of television now consists just about entirely of watching the local TV news and one network news program broadcast to my home with my children. We don't watch any dramas, and only occasionally watch Saturday Night Live's opening segment. (We don't subscribe to cable and live in an area with an unwatchable digital signal, so we resort to just one analog broadcast signal at the moment.) TV is expendable in our house. Internet-connected computer use is indispensable.
The power of point-to-point cannot be overestimated. Indeed it had great impact in getting people to sign up for Internet access and connect a computer to the Internet in the first place. I discovered online interaction in 1992, when I attended a conference about homeschooling in Washington state and saw a demonstration of the Prodigy online service there. I made sure to connect a modem to my computer (remember dial-up?) and soon entered into interesting conversations with people all over the country about a common topic of interest. None of the content I was reading was produced by professionals--it was all parents talking to other parents. My online interaction completely displaced TV from my life, and soon greatly reduced the number of postal letters I sent to friends, because I could reach most of my best friends online anyway.
Sometime a while later in the 1990s, I saw an analysis in an industry magazine about whether the main application of the Internet would be broadcasting of professionally produced content or point-to-point communication. That analysis pointed out that at that time the revenues of the Baby Bell companies were MANY times greater than the revenues of all the movie and TV production companies. Point-to-point is where the revenue streams are. Broadcasting doesn't draw in as much money, because it doesn't appeal to as many audience members in as many ways.
My use of television now consists just about entirely of watching the local TV news and one network news program broadcast to my home with my children. We don't watch any dramas, and only occasionally watch Saturday Night Live's opening segment. (We don't subscribe to cable and live in an area with an unwatchable digital signal, so we resort to just one analog broadcast signal at the moment.) TV is expendable in our house. Internet-connected computer use is indispensable.
"Facebook killed TV"
Can someone explain that line to me? I don't see facebook mentioned anywhere else.
I generally consider myself pretty on top of ways to watch TV on my computer (I've been doing the RSS bit torrent thing pretty much since it's been possible), but I have never seen any common thread between facebook and tv. "Internet killed TV" I can agree with.
Can someone explain that line to me? I don't see facebook mentioned anywhere else.
I generally consider myself pretty on top of ways to watch TV on my computer (I've been doing the RSS bit torrent thing pretty much since it's been possible), but I have never seen any common thread between facebook and tv. "Internet killed TV" I can agree with.
The connection is that the internet really took off when people realised you could use it to connect with each other in new and interesting ways.
YouTube, Facebook, Myspace etc are among the most visited sites and are all about connecting with each other.
Among the younger crowd, people spend more time online than they do infront of their TV.
So, While Facebook itself didn't kill TV, the assertion that social activities online killed TV is becoming increasingly true, especially as more content producers start distributing their stuff online.
Paul just put it in a broad manner (although not 100% accurate, but close enough).
YouTube, Facebook, Myspace etc are among the most visited sites and are all about connecting with each other.
Among the younger crowd, people spend more time online than they do infront of their TV.
So, While Facebook itself didn't kill TV, the assertion that social activities online killed TV is becoming increasingly true, especially as more content producers start distributing their stuff online.
Paul just put it in a broad manner (although not 100% accurate, but close enough).
Facebook and youtube/hulu/pirated TV shows are worlds apart to me. Facebook is something you actively take part in, you contribute to. This has almost nothing in common with the passive entertainment of TV that people enjoy. I didn't cancel my cable connection because facebook, AIM, or any other social connecting mechanism came around; it's because I found I could spend my passive hours (read: not typing things) on a computer instead of a TV.
It has nothing to do with the nature of the activity. Graham's point is that the social networks provided the last stimulus needed (over the last 30 years) to get computers into daily use in almost every household in the first world.
You didn't cancel your cable, but you likely spent more time in front of the computer after picking up AIM and FB than before. This signal indicates the front edge of a trend. This is visionary stuff, not hindsight.
You didn't cancel your cable, but you likely spent more time in front of the computer after picking up AIM and FB than before. This signal indicates the front edge of a trend. This is visionary stuff, not hindsight.
Ah, I see - thanks for the explanation.
I wonder why this isn't happening faster.
I mean, I'm not a big YouTube fan: I normally get linked there to metalworking/machining videos but once there I stay for a long time. YouTube is really sticky. This kind of stuff is candy for me and linked with well targeted ads, the provider can make money. I know that if I'm watching some guy in a basement show how he built a CNC lathe, I wouldn't mind even really obvious product placement or a short 10-15 second commercial about machining before the video starts.
There are many, many talented people out there who could be making their own videos and profiting from it. Is the problem just lack of sponsorship or a good advertising model?
There has to be business opportunity here. Maybe a site that video artists can go to with samples of their work looking to be matched with suitable sponsors.
I mean, I'm not a big YouTube fan: I normally get linked there to metalworking/machining videos but once there I stay for a long time. YouTube is really sticky. This kind of stuff is candy for me and linked with well targeted ads, the provider can make money. I know that if I'm watching some guy in a basement show how he built a CNC lathe, I wouldn't mind even really obvious product placement or a short 10-15 second commercial about machining before the video starts.
There are many, many talented people out there who could be making their own videos and profiting from it. Is the problem just lack of sponsorship or a good advertising model?
There has to be business opportunity here. Maybe a site that video artists can go to with samples of their work looking to be matched with suitable sponsors.
Tv usage is up more than ever and continues to grow every year. I don't think TV has lost at all yet. And I don't agree that networks are grudgingly putting content online. Hulu is an object of much affection in the video viewing world, so much so that it warranted Super Bowl ad space.
Selling a file or piece of plastic is dead. A one to many broadcast model is dead. Embrace piracy of content. Creating a different value add for the consumer that enhances the user experience while concurrently building community will create a loyal following (which equals higher ad rev). Quality of content is not really the issue. It's all about the story you are telling(LonelyGirl15). Ask Speilberg, Lucas or Scorcese...they will tell you the same thing.
Ultimately it is about content that is relevant to the affinity group that supports it. The toolset or technology that supports it will become secondary over time.
Ultimately it is about content that is relevant to the affinity group that supports it. The toolset or technology that supports it will become secondary over time.
To compete with TV you need to provide the couch potato experience, I don't think TV will ever lose its current position, instead what will happen is the TV will just bring the web based content to the living room.
If it does that, then it's essentially a computer in the shape of a TV.
Great essay. I don't agree on the locality point, I think that there are enough people that a genuinely local oriented web model will succeed. But writing my reply lead me to post "The Days of the Internet as Haven for Citizen Production are Numbered." The nub of that argument is:
Despite any of the talk about Net Neutrality, networks are right now enforcing a tiered level of offerings that disadvantages production at all service levels. Where I live I can only get a 6 MB incoming line. Outgoing I’m limited to half the speed of a 1990s era 512k connection. They will not even sell me more if I am willing to pay extra!
We have seen this happen before. Broadcasting itself started out as an open platform, built by innovators, nurtured by government and fostered by and for educators. Once it was developed industry moved in. Promising improvements they pushed every notion of citizen production aside. It required, we were told, trained industry professionals to do anything worthwhile.
Cable did the same thing. Begun in rural Pennsylvania as a means to deliver broadcast signals to rural homes, CATV (CoAxial cable TV) used the promise of localism through channels dedicated to educational and governmental services and Public Access TV, to take on the broadcast network monopoly. Once it had its toehold, it starved and marginalized those channels. That same thing is happening today with the Internet.
YouTube, we’re told, is filled with marginal citizen-produced nonsense and gets most of its traffic through pirated programming. Remix culture — citizen use of the mediasphere — is criminalized as piracy. And every attempt to by you and me to upload quality versions of what we produce is literally slowed down (and deteriorated) through service tiers that won’t permit fast uploads.
Don’t get me wrong, citizens reap great benefits from the Interent and we will see vast improvements over what we had before. We’ll even be permitted to produce in the margins. But it’s obvious to me that the days of the internet as citizen’s media production haven are numbered.
The full post is here: http://themoderatevoice.com/26956/the-days-of-the-internet-a...
Despite any of the talk about Net Neutrality, networks are right now enforcing a tiered level of offerings that disadvantages production at all service levels. Where I live I can only get a 6 MB incoming line. Outgoing I’m limited to half the speed of a 1990s era 512k connection. They will not even sell me more if I am willing to pay extra!
We have seen this happen before. Broadcasting itself started out as an open platform, built by innovators, nurtured by government and fostered by and for educators. Once it was developed industry moved in. Promising improvements they pushed every notion of citizen production aside. It required, we were told, trained industry professionals to do anything worthwhile.
Cable did the same thing. Begun in rural Pennsylvania as a means to deliver broadcast signals to rural homes, CATV (CoAxial cable TV) used the promise of localism through channels dedicated to educational and governmental services and Public Access TV, to take on the broadcast network monopoly. Once it had its toehold, it starved and marginalized those channels. That same thing is happening today with the Internet.
YouTube, we’re told, is filled with marginal citizen-produced nonsense and gets most of its traffic through pirated programming. Remix culture — citizen use of the mediasphere — is criminalized as piracy. And every attempt to by you and me to upload quality versions of what we produce is literally slowed down (and deteriorated) through service tiers that won’t permit fast uploads.
Don’t get me wrong, citizens reap great benefits from the Interent and we will see vast improvements over what we had before. We’ll even be permitted to produce in the margins. But it’s obvious to me that the days of the internet as citizen’s media production haven are numbered.
The full post is here: http://themoderatevoice.com/26956/the-days-of-the-internet-a...
Two things in support of PG's case:
1. In the HD flame wars (Blue ray Vs HD-DVD), Blue ray has emerged the winner, but may not actually so. It seems that people would rather stream/ download HD stuff over the internet. As of today, this is easier on the PC than the TV.
2. Growth of HTPC: If your only complaint on PG's article is about the monitor size/ quality this fixes it. You can now connect your TV to the computer, and the PC will fetch content from internet, record your shows automatically and also enable you manage your digital content. Networked home entertainment is the thing of the future.
1. In the HD flame wars (Blue ray Vs HD-DVD), Blue ray has emerged the winner, but may not actually so. It seems that people would rather stream/ download HD stuff over the internet. As of today, this is easier on the PC than the TV.
2. Growth of HTPC: If your only complaint on PG's article is about the monitor size/ quality this fixes it. You can now connect your TV to the computer, and the PC will fetch content from internet, record your shows automatically and also enable you manage your digital content. Networked home entertainment is the thing of the future.
Actually, I recently read an article about how people have been watching more TV while also increasing how much time they spend online. There are as many TVs as people per household in the US. I don't think the two will ever converge. I mean think about it -- people are buying fewer desktops and more netbooks now. Netbooks and the cloud are the future of "computing" as we know it. TVs will just get bigger, and they'll be things we use at home. So... the two will coexist peacefully as always.
Though, Paul has a point. Computers can serve the function of TVs.
Though, Paul has a point. Computers can serve the function of TVs.
He said "Facebook killed TV," but I often check Facebook on my laptop while watching TV. Netbooks and PDAs take it a step further - letting us multi-task our slack time.
[deleted]
Most people I know do as well. I think the article has many such flaws.
Does "watching more TV" mean "sitting in front of a screen at 8pm every Thursday and watching until the show's completion at 9pm?"
I personally watch more TV than I ever have before, now that my Mac Mini is hooked up to my screen and I have a DVR. But that supports the article's point: the old synchronous TV network business model is losing.
I personally watch more TV than I ever have before, now that my Mac Mini is hooked up to my screen and I have a DVR. But that supports the article's point: the old synchronous TV network business model is losing.
TV doesn't have to be in decline yet for someone to say it's lost this particular contest. Anything so entrenched is going to take a long time to actually go away.
Maybe TV lost, but Hulu is owned by NBC and Fox, and Hulu seems to be doing a pretty good job. So perhaps the TV networks are a bit more on top of this transition than the music companies were.
There is more than one dinosaur in the room.
I predict that internet enabled computers (of some form - I'll borrow pg's footnote #3) will also be the dominant delivery medium for radio and telephone service.
I predict that internet enabled computers (of some form - I'll borrow pg's footnote #3) will also be the dominant delivery medium for radio and telephone service.
The big budgets in TV production I presume are the result of formed habits, similar to getting used to driving a gas-guzzling GMC T-Rex SUV. I have trouble imagining companies like Pepsi handing over their ad budget to Internet guys. But sooner or later exactly this will happen. Just like the Obama campaign was not managed by a large advertising company but by dedicated Web guys, who understand "social" communication involving real people (grassroots).
I wonder how people would react if one of the big boys would just put up a torrent tracker with TV shows, with commercials.
On one hand, commercials would be skippable. But then, increasingly, so are on TV. Would commercial-free torrents appear on pirate bay? I doubt it, no real incentive. Would people really skip them consistently? Some yes, some wouldn't. If the commercial is short and reasonably interesting, why bother to fast forward every time?
On one hand, commercials would be skippable. But then, increasingly, so are on TV. Would commercial-free torrents appear on pirate bay? I doubt it, no real incentive. Would people really skip them consistently? Some yes, some wouldn't. If the commercial is short and reasonably interesting, why bother to fast forward every time?
Here's my guess:
Just like people make custom, amateur soft-subs these days for both pirate and legit DVDs, a file-format for reprogrammable program time-lines would be invented pretty quickly basically editing out the ads runtime.
I'm not going to say I could make it in five minutes, but it should be pretty trivial to implement a plugin for this kind of thing. Heck, base it on Avisynth and on the Win32-platform you already have 99% of the groundwork done for you.
These custom time-lines would probably be indexed, by show, season and episode, with direct links to the legal torrent all at one place.
And I doubt anyone would be able to argue that files denoting time-lines could in any way be illegal.
Just like people make custom, amateur soft-subs these days for both pirate and legit DVDs, a file-format for reprogrammable program time-lines would be invented pretty quickly basically editing out the ads runtime.
I'm not going to say I could make it in five minutes, but it should be pretty trivial to implement a plugin for this kind of thing. Heck, base it on Avisynth and on the Win32-platform you already have 99% of the groundwork done for you.
These custom time-lines would probably be indexed, by show, season and episode, with direct links to the legal torrent all at one place.
And I doubt anyone would be able to argue that files denoting time-lines could in any way be illegal.
TV is stuggling to accept the inevitable transition/metamorphosis into a TV-computer hybrid. Neither won or lost, they will simply converge.
People like sharing big-screen audio-visual entertainment in shared spaces. People like shows and movies and games and sharing. People will have a large-screen device called a TV in their living room for the conceivable future.
The broadcast model will soon be obselete, but the TV itself will not die any time soon.
People like sharing big-screen audio-visual entertainment in shared spaces. People like shows and movies and games and sharing. People will have a large-screen device called a TV in their living room for the conceivable future.
The broadcast model will soon be obselete, but the TV itself will not die any time soon.
People may still watch things they call "TV shows," but they'll watch them mostly on computers.
Is that really true? Source?
(Uhh. I have no idea how to quote things correctly. :)
Is that really true? Source?
(Uhh. I have no idea how to quote things correctly. :)
Yes, I think it's clearly true. However, I don't think pg means people will be sitting at their desks to watch shows or movies. In many cases watching TV is a communal activity. People will just start getting media boxes or otherwise hooking their computers to the TV screen, as many geeks do today.
The reason why doing this isn't more common is because regular folk don't know where to get the content from. Bittorrent is far from mainstream.
The reason why doing this isn't more common is because regular folk don't know where to get the content from. Bittorrent is far from mainstream.
Frankly, they're doing it now. As it is, the cable/satellite box is a computer. IPTV makes the packets conform to what we think of as "internet traffic". And there's OTA television to mobile phones in Japan. Boxee is nothing more than a purpose-specific browser.
Your tv may already be a computer, as well. Recent Samsungs run embedded linux, for example.
Hmm... by computer I was assuming pg meant general purpose devices connected to the Internet, but I see how that line is blurring since the backbone for everything is the Internet as opposed to a proprietary cable network.
(Please forgive the plug, but I think it's relevant to this discussion.)
We recently announced NthCode Player, an embedded Linux-based software product electronics companies can embed in their DVD players, TVs, etc. to connect them to home networks and the Internet.
It's a bit rough, but we're making fast progress. There's a Youtube video up, too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DHu_nEy6Ew
Check it out and drop us a line.
We recently announced NthCode Player, an embedded Linux-based software product electronics companies can embed in their DVD players, TVs, etc. to connect them to home networks and the Internet.
It's a bit rough, but we're making fast progress. There's a Youtube video up, too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DHu_nEy6Ew
Check it out and drop us a line.
Paul is clairvoyant and has a crystal ball, so YES, definitely.
"TV" simply explains the device by which video media is communicated. It's a relic from a time when there was no other way to get such media in the home. The Internet IS TV just as much as TV is the internet. The one who is able to reach the end-consumer will win, and in these days when information is all over the place, the landscape is getting more and more competitive.
I already watch all my "TV" online, and I tell my TV addicted friends that they will too, in the near future. I would never go back to broadcast television - instead of thinking "I wonder what's on tonight?" it's "Hmmm, what do I feel like watching right now?"
BTW - I'm 50 yrs old, and I worked in television, including production, from 1989-2003. Now I work online, at home, when I want...
BTW - I'm 50 yrs old, and I worked in television, including production, from 1989-2003. Now I work online, at home, when I want...
pg- small typo:
They thought they'd be able to dictate they way shows reached audiences.
-->
They thought they'd be able to dictate the way shows reached audiences.
They thought they'd be able to dictate they way shows reached audiences.
-->
They thought they'd be able to dictate the way shows reached audiences.
More people in the US watched more hours of TV last year than any year before. Indeed, every year a new record is set for hours of TV watched. Nielsen's 2008 figures show 151 hours of TV per month, 3 hours of online video and 4 hours on mobile phone and other devices. So exactly what are we discussing here?
[deleted]
I find irritating at least the signal/noise ratio of tv and radio shows, im spoiled by being able to proactively choose what im going to hear or watch (via podcasts, reading on the web,etc) instead of pasively watching tv.
So, afaik, tv and radio have been dead for a couple of years.
You forgot to mention the $! How are these internet companies going to make money buy producing shows and letting the audience watch it for free? All the advertisers have not shifted their budgets online because they can get greater reach on TV and it is less expensive for them!
Internet increases connectivity therefore long tail becomes even shorter than TV's one. netflix' data should confirm it.
The general idea of the essay is false now (TV hours > internet's one).
IMing or twittering on iPhone is not the same as watching a TV program simultaneously with millions of other people.
The general idea of the essay is false now (TV hours > internet's one).
IMing or twittering on iPhone is not the same as watching a TV program simultaneously with millions of other people.
IMing or twittering on iPhone is not the same as watching a TV program simultaneously with millions of other people.
There is something here with the simultaneous viewing concept, or maybe we can call it collective experience. There is something amazing about sharing in an experience with millions of people at the same time. For instance, election night, 9/11, the Super Bowl, or even finding out who shot JR. Granted we do this today through many mediums (e.g. Twitter during the inauguration), which only serve to augment to core TV experience.
There is something here with the simultaneous viewing concept, or maybe we can call it collective experience. There is something amazing about sharing in an experience with millions of people at the same time. For instance, election night, 9/11, the Super Bowl, or even finding out who shot JR. Granted we do this today through many mediums (e.g. Twitter during the inauguration), which only serve to augment to core TV experience.
PG, where's the etherpad stream? (There's probably an ironic reality TV show joke I'm missing here.)
Sorry, I wrote this one in vi. I was in the middle of writing it when Jessica had George. When I restarted working on it recently, I didn't bother importing it into Etherpad because I thought it was already nearly done. (Wrong there, as usual.)
Although strategically it has lost, in my opinion the "strategically" means "will lose quite surely". There are quite many countries where it has still many years before it, in particular because it is a cheaper entertaining and will remain for some years.
As entertainment moves online, shows will no longer be constrained by the 30/60 minute time frame. This should help remove filler and/or add additional useful content. This, in turn, should drive an overall increase in quality, at least at the margin.
Films aren't constrained in length technically, but they all end up about the same length - probably related to how long one can sit passively for. What really drives the 30/60 minute timeframe? Is it medium or culture? Does shifting online really change that? A medium can change quite quickly, but culture changes far slower.
Is there a video equivalent of last.fm? With a place where people could share their watchlists, and a good source of video material (whether based on Bittorrent or iTunes, or both), we could easily forget TV broadcasting in a few years.
I respect points he made but it was Media Metrix or something like that has reported that hours watched has reached a new all time high.
Another contradictory point is there is IPTV. TV stations can deliver customized programmes with this.
Another contradictory point is there is IPTV. TV stations can deliver customized programmes with this.
These arguments are even more true for books, where production costs amount to a laptop and the time spent. Yet, we do not see so many novelists circumventing the traditional publishers and publishing on their own.
I can't believe nobody has mentioned pornography. Low production costs, varied format, and internet delivery. This displacement of TV shows has already been proven as a successful business model.
Southern hemisphere calling – things look a bit different from here due to the different network and broadband environment, but the basic principles cross borders. I’d just caution about assuming TV=American TV. Sure, the US situation is as interesting as hell but you’re missing a lot of cool stuff happening in other places. Looking at the global impact of a profoundly disruptive technology it helps to take a more global perspective.
I spent most of my youth working in network TV, then moved to talk radio and the last 15 years in internet, most recently running the online video output for a newspaper publisher. I moved to that job explicitly because I wanted to have a hand on the knife that killed broadcast TV. Always wanted to live in the future, to do what I could to bring it on, and I saw the power of the networks as retarding at best and toxic at worst. Couple of years down the track, I realize things ain’t that simple. I no longer see a simple dualism, TV vs the Internet. Audiences are not fleeing one monolithic platform for another, they are fragmenting. This is how Nielsen can find that TV consumption is at record highs (151hrs/wk in US, according to a Feb 09 survey) while internet usage is also rising. God only knows what crap is in that 151 hours, but the same can be said of internet video.
There’s a new ecology of media emerging, as a profusion of digitally networked screens fill our living rooms, pockets, desks, cars and hands. To my eternal joy it doesn’t look like it will settle to an ossified steady state any time soon, unlike TV and Radio which have been using the same model for 70 and 50 years respectively.
Now I think the internet will no more kill TV than TV killed radio or radio killed cinema. Despite DVDs and huge plasmas, cinema is doing just fine. There’ll be less money for the successors of broadcast networks, fewer ad dollars split more ways: so inevitably less money not just for the corporates but also for the production crews and creatives. Cheaper TV. We will have an ecology: a whole lot of fizzing and spitting new beasties have crawled out of the media swamp and the big old beasties (a) don’t like the look of it at all, they don’t play by the rules, and (b) don’t realize being eaten alive by ants is still being eaten alive. Many of the networks will collapse; certainly the corporate structures are unsustainable, but people will still want communal big-screen narrative experiences, and will want them well made. That costs money and takes, for better or worse, concentrations of expertise, machines and skills that cost money.
We make short feature material, quite profitably, subverting a;ll the TV [production models we can, but have discovered where the bottom limit for professional ad-supported shortform online video is.. and it’s higher than you think. Any fool can make a video and whack it up on YouTube as a hobby, and not make a living. To make hundreds of videos over a span of years, supporting several staff and turn a profit is not so easy. Fortunately the audience fragmentation means we can turn a buck from any number of iterations, including broadcast TV.
Network TV ain’t dead, you can’t kill it with a stick, it’s a zombie which has no brain to speak of yet hungers for yours. It’s going to be with us for a long time yet: but as one of the crowd, not the bully on the block.
I spent most of my youth working in network TV, then moved to talk radio and the last 15 years in internet, most recently running the online video output for a newspaper publisher. I moved to that job explicitly because I wanted to have a hand on the knife that killed broadcast TV. Always wanted to live in the future, to do what I could to bring it on, and I saw the power of the networks as retarding at best and toxic at worst. Couple of years down the track, I realize things ain’t that simple. I no longer see a simple dualism, TV vs the Internet. Audiences are not fleeing one monolithic platform for another, they are fragmenting. This is how Nielsen can find that TV consumption is at record highs (151hrs/wk in US, according to a Feb 09 survey) while internet usage is also rising. God only knows what crap is in that 151 hours, but the same can be said of internet video.
There’s a new ecology of media emerging, as a profusion of digitally networked screens fill our living rooms, pockets, desks, cars and hands. To my eternal joy it doesn’t look like it will settle to an ossified steady state any time soon, unlike TV and Radio which have been using the same model for 70 and 50 years respectively.
Now I think the internet will no more kill TV than TV killed radio or radio killed cinema. Despite DVDs and huge plasmas, cinema is doing just fine. There’ll be less money for the successors of broadcast networks, fewer ad dollars split more ways: so inevitably less money not just for the corporates but also for the production crews and creatives. Cheaper TV. We will have an ecology: a whole lot of fizzing and spitting new beasties have crawled out of the media swamp and the big old beasties (a) don’t like the look of it at all, they don’t play by the rules, and (b) don’t realize being eaten alive by ants is still being eaten alive. Many of the networks will collapse; certainly the corporate structures are unsustainable, but people will still want communal big-screen narrative experiences, and will want them well made. That costs money and takes, for better or worse, concentrations of expertise, machines and skills that cost money.
We make short feature material, quite profitably, subverting a;ll the TV [production models we can, but have discovered where the bottom limit for professional ad-supported shortform online video is.. and it’s higher than you think. Any fool can make a video and whack it up on YouTube as a hobby, and not make a living. To make hundreds of videos over a span of years, supporting several staff and turn a profit is not so easy. Fortunately the audience fragmentation means we can turn a buck from any number of iterations, including broadcast TV.
Network TV ain’t dead, you can’t kill it with a stick, it’s a zombie which has no brain to speak of yet hungers for yours. It’s going to be with us for a long time yet: but as one of the crowd, not the bully on the block.
The Internet will enable metavision, a complete replacement for cable companies and broadcast networks ... where you can watch and interact with multiple live channels simultaneously.
Since we have a new medium, are there new monetization methods available beyond subscriptions and/or advertising?
The dinosaurs are only scared of their profit disappearing.
The dinosaurs are only scared of their profit disappearing.
[deleted]
PG, is your site down? I cannot access the article.
Word-of-mouth took on a new form.
why would telivision lose? from:11yrs old
samantha gadbois
"The TV networks already seem, grudgingly, to see where things are going, and have responded by putting their stuff, grudgingly, online. But they're still dragging their heels."
The TV industry is a complicated business, with a lot of buying and selling instruments that technologists outside of the industry generally don't understand. So, the industry is brushed off as a bunch of "laggers" as was describe to me by one VC group.
And because the new media channels (GOOG, etc) brush off the vagaries of the business (selling methodologies, the role that Nielsen plays, service and relationships), they're failing miserably at getting their hands on any significant portion of that 30b annually that TV ad revenue is putting on the books.
If GOOG is supposed to be setting the example for a new media channel penetrating the legacy media industry, so far they're doing a lousy job. TV booked 18b up front during 2008 buying season, while Youtube struggled to clear 200m by year-end. http://www.rbr.com/media-news/advertising/12912.html
And now GOOG flopped on radio: http://www.rbr.com/media-news/advertising/12895.html
The problem is that while the technology is there to change the face of media consumption, traditional media still produces the best content, and content is still king. If traditional media is not convinced that the new channels can protect spot value, there's no way they're going to give up prime content on a first run basis: http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/mt/archives/2009/02/goog...
Don't confuse prime re-runs that you might see on Hulu with real value content. The real value of that content was determined when it was running on TV, which is why we get to see it at all on Hulu.
GOOG recently did a deal with NBC for some inventory. Here's how I imagined the negotiation went down.
GOOG: Hey NBC, let us help you sell some of your inventory. Just imagine the reach your advertisers can achieve! NBC: Ok, how do you plan to sell the inventory. GOOG: By auction, using our online TV Ads application. NBC to assistant: Ok, hand 'em that bag of crap (remnant inventory) over there and let them try to sell it. GOOG: Come on, can't you give us anything better than that? NBC: Look, four things are sold by auction: 1) art, 2) heirlooms, 3) foreclosures, and 4) crap. There's no way we'd let you touch our gold inventory with that model.
It was easy for TV technology to take off originally 70 years ago, but it won't be nearly the same cakewalk this time around just because the technology is superior and people are using it. Like with the oil-based economy, there's a huge amount of infrastructure in place for creating and selling content that was built and refined around a legacy technology. So suggesting that TV is dead is every bit as wrong as suggesting that the oil industry is dead.
And approaching the problem from this point of view is I think a much better business move than as PG suggests, "Now would be a good time to start any company that competes with TV networks." This is equivalent to suggesting that somebody needs to come up with a Tesla for the TV industry.
I love what Tesla is doing, but we know they're not going to rake in the bucks for their effort. Their best chance for some bucks is a fat exit.
The solution is the hybrid engine, developed by a group who know the vagaries of the business from the inside, but can help realize the technology that the new media channels offer. Shameless Plug: This is exactly the project that my team is working on.
The TV industry is a complicated business, with a lot of buying and selling instruments that technologists outside of the industry generally don't understand. So, the industry is brushed off as a bunch of "laggers" as was describe to me by one VC group.
And because the new media channels (GOOG, etc) brush off the vagaries of the business (selling methodologies, the role that Nielsen plays, service and relationships), they're failing miserably at getting their hands on any significant portion of that 30b annually that TV ad revenue is putting on the books.
If GOOG is supposed to be setting the example for a new media channel penetrating the legacy media industry, so far they're doing a lousy job. TV booked 18b up front during 2008 buying season, while Youtube struggled to clear 200m by year-end. http://www.rbr.com/media-news/advertising/12912.html
And now GOOG flopped on radio: http://www.rbr.com/media-news/advertising/12895.html
The problem is that while the technology is there to change the face of media consumption, traditional media still produces the best content, and content is still king. If traditional media is not convinced that the new channels can protect spot value, there's no way they're going to give up prime content on a first run basis: http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/mt/archives/2009/02/goog...
Don't confuse prime re-runs that you might see on Hulu with real value content. The real value of that content was determined when it was running on TV, which is why we get to see it at all on Hulu.
GOOG recently did a deal with NBC for some inventory. Here's how I imagined the negotiation went down.
GOOG: Hey NBC, let us help you sell some of your inventory. Just imagine the reach your advertisers can achieve! NBC: Ok, how do you plan to sell the inventory. GOOG: By auction, using our online TV Ads application. NBC to assistant: Ok, hand 'em that bag of crap (remnant inventory) over there and let them try to sell it. GOOG: Come on, can't you give us anything better than that? NBC: Look, four things are sold by auction: 1) art, 2) heirlooms, 3) foreclosures, and 4) crap. There's no way we'd let you touch our gold inventory with that model.
It was easy for TV technology to take off originally 70 years ago, but it won't be nearly the same cakewalk this time around just because the technology is superior and people are using it. Like with the oil-based economy, there's a huge amount of infrastructure in place for creating and selling content that was built and refined around a legacy technology. So suggesting that TV is dead is every bit as wrong as suggesting that the oil industry is dead.
And approaching the problem from this point of view is I think a much better business move than as PG suggests, "Now would be a good time to start any company that competes with TV networks." This is equivalent to suggesting that somebody needs to come up with a Tesla for the TV industry.
I love what Tesla is doing, but we know they're not going to rake in the bucks for their effort. Their best chance for some bucks is a fat exit.
The solution is the hybrid engine, developed by a group who know the vagaries of the business from the inside, but can help realize the technology that the new media channels offer. Shameless Plug: This is exactly the project that my team is working on.
[deleted]
Man, is this ever true. I like to watch tennis a lot - which, being a niche sport, is often not on TV. The memphis finals were televised in some places, but not others. There was a web stream, but dig this - it was not available in the US because of broadcasting rights. And it was limited to PCs (not Mac's)!
So I'm thinking about anti-piracy efforts, including a lot of moralizing about how piracy is the equivalent of stealing (which, in some cases, it may well be). A network bought coverage, declined to air it in my area, but also banned a web feed that I would have gladly paid for, but with DRM that prevents it from working on my Mac.
But I shouldn't watch a rogue feed, because Piracy would be, you know, wrong. I should just be a passive viewer and decide to enjoy what the network decided I should be watching that day.
Keep in mind, I'm more than willing to pay. I'm trying to pay.