The End of the Road for the actual American pastime…TV (technovisions.wordpress.com)

2 points by ecohen16 ↗ HN
The Grim Future for our Favorite Pastime

by Evan C

Television. For most, it seems like the most basic of technologies, something people have been living with their entire lives. However, discussing the future of such an important and (dare I say) essential technology is no easy task, for you and I both know that change is not something people are always open to. My purpose for writing this is to not only inform people of the revolution at our doorstep, but to also encourage others to seek alternative viewing methods and explore the existing technology that is already out there.

Now, the things I am about to explain may seem obvious at some points and entirely unrealistic at others, but you must remember to think outside the box and understand that the future is not always simple to explain. For example, think about trying to explain e-mail (or e-mail on your iPhone) to somebody from 1988. To them it would seem impossible, but little did they know that only a decade later, AOL would have over 30 million users and “You’ve Got Mail” was not only a catchphrase, but also the title of a Hollywood movie.

To bring me back to my point, my ideas may seem like theory, but they are far more than that. I have spent years studying the industry, analyzing viewing habits in relation to their medium in hopes of gathering a greater understanding of what lies ahead. I’ve seen the world of palm pilots, turn into a world of blackberrys, and then turn into a world of iphones. The technology ecosystem is brutal, and technological cannibalism occurs in months now, not years.

Television is no different. In the late 90’s tube televisions were just beginning to be phased out after nearly four decades ofdominance. In the following 10 years, we experienced three dramatic shifts in television hardware. Tube TVs became flat screens, which became HD flat screens, which have now become 3D TVs. These changes are happening so rapidly, nobody can really keep up. Large companies are struggling to adapt to these rapid shifts in the industry, which is why small start-ups have been able to become game changers in the last few years. Their smaller operations make adaptation easier to the fast paced changes of these industries.

But while changes in technology have drastically shifted the hardware side of the industry, has that really changed the overall experience of these mediums? I mean sure, the operational differences between a flip phone and iPhone are drastic, but in the end, you’re still making a phone call right?

WRONG. While it may seem like these experiences are the same, they are actually entirely different. While the hardware changes may define the physical transitions in this movement, it’s actually the advancements in software that have truly altered the way people approach and engage with these mediums.

Interaction between users and mediums used to be a passive experience. You would turn on the TV and watch. You would sit down and read the newspaper. Today, technology has changed the way individuals interact with these mediums. We now expect interaction rather than passivity. Media no longer is sent from channel to user, but instead it’s two-way street where information is sent in both directions. People want to engage themselves in this technology, because it offers them more choice and control.

Where this urge for engagement is most prevalent is in web-based media. The Internet has created a portal of endless media that is right at our fingertips, and content creators are flocking to to the web like gold miners to the Rockies. There isn’t a content maker out there that doesn’t have a web presence, and companies are becoming smarter when it comes to opening their content to the Internet.

The big networks have already taken to the web as a way to extend their programming to further audiences. NBC, ABC, and Fox all have a major stake in Hulu, which allows them to rake in the ad revenue on programming they own syndication rights to. For them it’s a win-win, because site maintenance/hosting costs are low, ...

1 comment

[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 9.2 ms ] thread
I get that television is, compared to most other art forms, a pretty new industry -- and that it's one with which many people are dissatisfied.

Stuff like this is dumb, in my opinion. Television's a medium and its here to stay for quite a long time. I'm not saying cable is -- I'm not saying network television is -- but audiovisual vignettes, the process of producing something for it to be watched, are going to be here for a while.

"We now expect interaction rather than passivity."

This, in my opinion, is silly. The engagement of interaction and the engagement of presentation are two different experiences.

I think the author makes a good point with regards to the barrier to entry decreasing; as a result, we're seeing more 'auteur' television, both on networks and on YouTube. Think back to the Renaissance, the shift from poets and great writers seeking patronage to the development of mass publishing -- we are seeing this within the video industry as well.

"Why would big players like Dick Wolf and Jerry Bruckhiemer jump through hoops for major networks when they can distribute their content directly to consumers."

Marketing, and the fact that the last Jerry Bruckheimer-produced film (On Stranger Tides) had a budget of $200 million.