Late 90's/early 00's: The internet will never surpass television, 10's: It's happening soon

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

****edit: my post got bugged so I just edit-deleted, MODS please remove****

 

[FalloutJack]

It's not so much a matter of 'surpass' as television managed to sink to some lows that puts the internet over the top. That doesn't make the internet better or worse, really. It's like winning first place because somebody shot the guy ahead of you three times.

It's more like the guy in front of you shot himself 3 times and then is standing around dumbfounded as to why others are passing him. No one is killing network television, it's killing itself by completely misunderstanding the market that it's in.

Focus groups. Television isn't just killed with executive meddling, blatant incompetence, and the FCC. It's also screwed up by focus groups, which are made of viewers. Society doesn't get a free pass on this one.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

It's not so much a matter of 'surpass' as television managed to sink to some lows that puts the internet over the top. That doesn't make the internet better or worse, really. It's like winning first place because somebody shot the guy ahead of you three times.

It's more like the guy in front of you shot himself 3 times and then is standing around dumbfounded as to why others are passing him. No one is killing network television, it's killing itself by completely misunderstanding the market that it's in.

Focus groups. Television isn't just killed with executive meddling, blatant incompetence, and the FCC. It's also screwed up by focus groups, which are made of viewers. Society doesn't get a free pass on this one.

I'm not talking about content, I'm talking about distribution. How many people actually want all of the channels that they're forced to buy in their channel packages? Cable companies could be making a lot more money by allowing people to just pay specifically for the channels they want, and cutting channels that no one has an interest in, rather than funding channels that almost no one watches just because they're included in a bunch of people's channel packages. That's exactly the reason they're pricing themselves out of competition with services like hulu and netflix.

 

[FalloutJack]

It's not so much a matter of 'surpass' as television managed to sink to some lows that puts the internet over the top. That doesn't make the internet better or worse, really. It's like winning first place because somebody shot the guy ahead of you three times.

It's more like the guy in front of you shot himself 3 times and then is standing around dumbfounded as to why others are passing him. No one is killing network television, it's killing itself by completely misunderstanding the market that it's in.

Focus groups. Television isn't just killed with executive meddling, blatant incompetence, and the FCC. It's also screwed up by focus groups, which are made of viewers. Society doesn't get a free pass on this one.

I'm not talking about content, I'm talking about distribution. How many people actually want all of the channels that they're forced to buy in their channel packages? Cable companies could be making a lot more money by allowing people to just pay specifically for the channels they want, and cutting channels that no one has an interest in, rather than funding channels that almost no one watches just because they're included in a bunch of people's channel packages. That's exactly the reason they're pricing themselves out of competition with services like hulu and netflix.

They wouldn't be there if some yahoo hadn't asked for 'em. Business is, at its core, a practice of supply and demand. So, for them to supply it, it must mean that some dullard fecking wanted it. That which is undesirable crap doth not pose good enough ratings and crashes.

 

[The Enquirer]

Here's the thing, television is pricing itself out of competition compared to things like Hulu and Netflix.

Say I want to watch Walking Dead, Doctor Who, Dexter, Avatar: Legend of Korra, Adventure Time, Game of Thrones, and Downton Abbey for example. If those are the shows that I follow and I want to watch them on TV I need to have AMC, BBC America, Showtime, Nickelodeon, Cartoon Network, HBO, and PBS. I need satellite or cable to watch all of them, and I can't subscribe to each channel individually either, channels only come in packages, so to get all of those channels together on satellite or cable I need to buy like 3 different packages, coming to around $100 a month, and in those packages I get literally hundreds of channels I don't want or care about.

You compare that to Netflix and Hulu and I can get both services together for under $20 a month and I get exactly the shows I want to watch, nothing more and nothing less, plus I get to watch them at my own convenience.

The only reason to watch things on cable or satellite anymore is to watch live events, like sports, or if you don't have good enough internet to support high quality streaming (something that's becoming less and less of a problem). I think more people are realizing this and switching off of watching cable and satellite TV and just watching shows online instead, and this trend will continue so long internet providers keep improving. This will then drive more shows to go to other sources, like netflix, to find funding rather than TV networks, since the internet is a growing market while TV is a shrinking one.

The problem here is that the same companies that provide cable and satellite TV are also the companies that provide internet in most areas, so if the majority of their income is coming from people watching cable then they don't have an incentive to improve their internet, since doing so may ultimately lose them money. Hopefully we'll find a healthy equilibrium.

The only thing, is that it often takes months for programs to upload their most recent seasons. Burn Notice has been off the air for almost 4 months now and it'll probably be a while I suspect before season 7 (the final season) is uploaded. So tv does have the advantage of being able to watch things immediately. As well as DVR functions.

Though to remedy that there are websites where you can watch shows for free or download them. Take important note as I'm not saying anyone should do that. More recently tv stations have been posting entire episodes of their shows for free online.

So I think the debate would come down to convenience for some people.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

It's not so much a matter of 'surpass' as television managed to sink to some lows that puts the internet over the top. That doesn't make the internet better or worse, really. It's like winning first place because somebody shot the guy ahead of you three times.

It's more like the guy in front of you shot himself 3 times and then is standing around dumbfounded as to why others are passing him. No one is killing network television, it's killing itself by completely misunderstanding the market that it's in.

Focus groups. Television isn't just killed with executive meddling, blatant incompetence, and the FCC. It's also screwed up by focus groups, which are made of viewers. Society doesn't get a free pass on this one.

I'm not talking about content, I'm talking about distribution. How many people actually want all of the channels that they're forced to buy in their channel packages? Cable companies could be making a lot more money by allowing people to just pay specifically for the channels they want, and cutting channels that no one has an interest in, rather than funding channels that almost no one watches just because they're included in a bunch of people's channel packages. That's exactly the reason they're pricing themselves out of competition with services like hulu and netflix.

They wouldn't be there if some yahoo hadn't asked for 'em. Business is, at its core, a practice of supply and demand. So, for them to supply it, it must mean that some dullard fecking wanted it. That which is undesirable crap doth not pose good enough ratings and crashes.

Actually, a lot of channels are only there because no one wants to buy them, and the cable network can't get rid of the channel all together because people are technically paying for that channel since they're subscribed to a specific channel pack.

That's how G4TV was on the air so long with its incredibly low ratings. They were trying to get rid of it for YEARS but couldn't find anyone who wanted to buy it. That's why 90% of the channel was cops reruns for the last 3 years of that channel's life, because the network wanted to pay as little as they possibly could to continue running content on that channel, because it was a money pit that they couldn't get rid of.

Essentially what's hurting the cable industry is the way they do business, the way they provide their services. Channels are run on two sources of income, the income they get from the fact that people are paying for the cable service, and for advertising revenue. The cable companies want to keep the largest amount of channels possible because that creates the largest amount of channels that can run ads, and therefore greater advertising revenue. Once people are no longer watching a channel however it means that no one is watching those ads, and companies start pulling their ads, which takes away revenue from the cable companies who then have to continue supporting those channels exclusively from the money they're getting from cable subscription fees.

Essentially if people only payed for the channels they watch then there would be a greater concentration of people actively watching a smaller selection of channels, which means that cable companies would be able to charge more for companies to advertise on those channels (kind of like how ads during the superbowl are ridiculously expensive because of the increased viewership), and at the same time the cable companies wouldn't have to support as many channels almost exclusively through the cable subscription fees. That way they could charge people less to have a cable subscription and run fewer channels while still making the same amount of money, and they wouldn't have such a mass exodus of people switching running to netflix and hulu solely because of the price difference.

 

[J Tyran]

Here's the thing, television is pricing itself out of competition compared to things like Hulu and Netflix.

This is the meat and drink of the issue, I live in the UK and I only put up with cable prices because it comes as a package with my landline with free national calls and free calls to the phone network the provider owns, fibre internet and mobile phone with loads of calls and texts and unlimited data which hides the sting a bit because if you spread the costs around to what each service would cost individually elsewhere its fairly good value. They also provide a decent on demand service which is comparable to the UK Netflix as part of the package along with a discount for Netflix.

I would never pay just for a cable service though, its to expensive when you start lumping in all the packages which give you loads of channels you simply never watch.

As for the debate about the licence fee, is it really so much of a biggy to pay it? The BBC do provide a pretty good service so personally I do not begrudge it.

 

[FalloutJack]

Snip

I'm actually still going to blame society because, historically, the sum total of THIS problem with the channels can be traced back to the early days of cable when people wanted more channels.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Snip

I'm actually still going to blame society because, historically, the sum total of THIS problem with the channels can be traced back to the early days of cable when people wanted more channels.

Yes, because people 50 years ago think and act in exactly the same way as people today, especially in regards to entertainment.

 

[FalloutJack]

Snip

I'm actually still going to blame society because, historically, the sum total of THIS problem with the channels can be traced back to the early days of cable when people wanted more channels.

Yes, because people 50 years ago think and act in exactly the same way as people today, especially in regards to entertainment.

I'm assuming that you're being sarcastic, which is a shame because that statement is truer than you might realize. Oh, some of the mental packaging may have changed, but the behavior remains strikingly similar.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Snip

I'm actually still going to blame society because, historically, the sum total of THIS problem with the channels can be traced back to the early days of cable when people wanted more channels.

Yes, because people 50 years ago think and act in exactly the same way as people today, especially in regards to entertainment.

I'm assuming that you're being sarcastic, which is a shame because that statement is truer than you might realize. Oh, some of the mental packaging may have changed, but the behavior remains strikingly similar.

I'd disagree especially considering how we have distribution options now that they couldn't have even dreamed of back then. The networks are the ones resisting change, not the users.

 

[FalloutJack]

Snip

I'm actually still going to blame society because, historically, the sum total of THIS problem with the channels can be traced back to the early days of cable when people wanted more channels.

Yes, because people 50 years ago think and act in exactly the same way as people today, especially in regards to entertainment.

I'm assuming that you're being sarcastic, which is a shame because that statement is truer than you might realize. Oh, some of the mental packaging may have changed, but the behavior remains strikingly similar.

I'd disagree especially considering how we have distribution options now that they couldn't have even dreamed of back then. The networks are the ones resisting change, not the users.

Well, as I said in a previous post, the answer is all of the above. I'm just saying the viewing public isn't blameless. They're slated to be hit by the spreadfire of the responsibility shotgun.

No, that does not mean I want them shot.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Snip

I'm actually still going to blame society because, historically, the sum total of THIS problem with the channels can be traced back to the early days of cable when people wanted more channels.

Yes, because people 50 years ago think and act in exactly the same way as people today, especially in regards to entertainment.

I'm assuming that you're being sarcastic, which is a shame because that statement is truer than you might realize. Oh, some of the mental packaging may have changed, but the behavior remains strikingly similar.

I'd disagree especially considering how we have distribution options now that they couldn't have even dreamed of back then. The networks are the ones resisting change, not the users.

Well, as I said in a previous post, the answer is all of the above. I'm just saying the viewing public isn't blameless. They're slated to be hit by the spreadfire of the responsibility shotgun.

You did not in-fact say anything of the sort (or I just can't read). You're right though, the public isn't blameless, but if you really try you can find a way to blame anyone for anything. The overwhelming problem of shitty business practices and poor long-term decision making lies squarely on the networks. Problems of content and viewership, that's another problem entirely (and yes, is largely a problem of much of the viewing public being massive fuckwads).

 

[Hardsuit]

The problem with TV is the same problem that TV has had since it was created, All these channels and nothing you want to watch. Sure sure you have the shows you watch at 7pm to 9pm but outside of that it's crap. Maybe watch the news once in awhile as it's a change up from reading the newspaper(also a dying industry). Fast forwards several decades and now you can have 600+ channels all filled with crap and nothing to watch... And all it costs you to watch the few things you actually want to watch is $100+ a month. Who the hell needs 50 different music channels?!?! Why is there more than one MTV channel? Can't just pay for the syfy channel gotta buy the PACKAGE!

Or you can turn to the internet and watch what you want when you want. Want to watch Buffy the vampire slayer series for the 10 billionth time? Have at it... Hulu actually has problems getting shows because the TV networks don't what to change the status quo. Why get little bits of money here and there when people watch our programs when we can force them to pay for 100 channels they'll never watch.

 

[Olas]

Spoiler: This reminds me of a VGCats comic

The simple fact is that as a medium, TV has nothing to offer over internet streaming and is only still relevant because of all the momentum it's built up for decades. TV is less flexible, less convenient, and is quickly losing its "watch from the living room" edge.

The whole thing is a case of "television is dead, long live television!".

The idea of TV, nowadays, has surpassed the box itself. It's a method of viewing content made in a certain way (not a film, usually). The way in which it's being delivered is evolving, we're seeing it right now.

The old guard will do all they can to maintain the status quo, but they're on borrowed time, and I can't wait.

You seem to be referring to TV as just the very concept of serialized entertainment that you can view from home, rather than as a specific medium for viewing it. In which case I think you're missing the point of this thread, which is discussing how internet content is subplanting traditional Television services as the main source of home entertainment. If you say that Youtube and Netflix are the same thing as TV then there's nothing to discuss. And yes there is a difference between Netflix/Youtube and regular TV. Internet shows don't have built in time constraints, or specific viewing times, people can binge watch them, or catch up with a show that started years ago. TV can do some of these things now to a degree, but it'll always be the more limited of the two.

 

[SirPigglesworth]

New Zealander here, Our primetime viewing on our main 3 channels are: (random country) has talent, Masterchef, Singing Competition #9999, and The Block. All the local versions of these programmes are heavily sponsored (our version of "got talent" has a Toyota logo in every shot)
The things I watch on sky here are, "Would I Lie to You?" (which has been replaced by the block every single night of the week) and QI repeats.
New Zealand also has to wait a long time to get programmes. (Sherlock season 3 isn't out here yet and chances are it will be quicker to order the DVD from the UK than to wait for TVone to get their act together)
So yes it will take over TV here in NZ I will go so far to say it already has with the new generation, Most people I know have one or two programmes they watch every episode of, I spend more time watching YouTube than I do on the TV. I even spend more time listening to podcasts than I do watching TV. Why should I wait for something to be on TV, late at night sit through 10 minutes of adverts per half hour and if I miss it it's gone. When I could fire up youtube a watch my favorite videos (many I find higher quality than that of TV) and watch what I want, when I want, wherever I want.
Pretty soon the TV companies will realise this, and that the only way to get rid of piracy (which is a bad thing because it takes potential earnings away from the content creators) is with a service like netflix for their programmes so everyone can have convenient viewing of their favorite programmes. (first company to do this in NZ will rake in their millions)

 

[tzimize]

There are so many pros to VoD I think its a wonder TV hasnt died already.

That said, even in this day and age there are MILLIONS of technological retards that wouldnt be able to log on to Netflix if their life depended on it.

In time, habits will change. When kids grow up, and have kids on their own TV will be less and less common, but I think its doubtful that it will die completetly. There are halfway solutions.

In my country there is a VoD service (price same as Netflix) that also gives you the possibility to stream 3 tv channels. There is mostly garbage showing, but my GF needs her trash tv fix...

Personally I havent watched TV (in the traditional sense) in probably...10 years at least. I have NO plans starting to either. Commercials, broadcasting times...blah...useless.

Also: Reality TV is the worst thing that has happened in entertainment. Ever.

 

[FalloutJack]

You did not in-fact say anything of the sort (or I just can't read).

One sec.

*Scrolls up and pulls down the guts of a previous post*

I said before "Focus groups. Television isn't just killed with executive meddling, blatant incompetence, and the FCC. It's also screwed up by focus groups, which are made of viewers. Society doesn't get a free pass on this one.", which first stated that there IS more than one source of blame, but then secondly went on to say that the watchers also bear responsibility.

And that is how I pretty much BFG'd the lot of them in complaint form.

 

[GiantRaven]

When you walked into the store did they ask for your name and address, like they are legally supposed to do?

That's a thing that's supposed to happen? Never seen that once ever.