Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Television Media The Internet

Will the Web Replace TV? 306

dratcw writes "With the continuing writers' strike cutting way back on the number of new and original TV shows available, many media Web sites are providing alternatives to TV that can be found on the Web. A number of sites are offering features describing broadcast/cable TV alternatives while you wait for that next episode of 'Chuck'. 'What better time than during the writers' strike to (re)discover Internet TV and video? The quantity, quality, and diversity of online video grows by the day; and though it's far from perfect, it is at least interesting enough to make you forget that you're watching it on a PC monitor.'" Any web-based favorites you'd like to point out for fellow commenters?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Will the Web Replace TV?

Comments Filter:
  • instead.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by overcaffein8d ( 1101951 ) <d.cohen09@nospAm.gmail.com> on Wednesday January 23, 2008 @02:46PM (#22156300) Homepage Journal
    instead of the web replacing TV, i think what is more likely is that TV's will be adapted to use the web... this has already started to happen (apple TV uses the web, doesn't it?)

    i think that soon, our TV's will be a computer with a rather large, high-definition monitor
  • by djupedal ( 584558 ) on Wednesday January 23, 2008 @02:51PM (#22156390)
    Analog TV...sure. It will when Google buys up the 700 MHz band and takes over next year.

    Digital TV - nope.
  • by FredFredrickson ( 1177871 ) * on Wednesday January 23, 2008 @02:55PM (#22156474) Homepage Journal
    I agree whole heartedly. Around where I live I have a small company that feeds off comcast, called metrocast. They want around $65/month for basic cable, and apparently around $200 for the premium package.

    Even if there was a decent amount on tv to watch (which there isn't), it's not like I'm just sitting around all day to watch tv. I might watch a show or two in the evenings after work. What makes them think I'm going to spend that much money on watching 50% adverts anyway?

    Basically, as soon as the companies realize that in order to take advantage of the web you must present not only convenience but additionally it needs to be a bit cheaper than the real thing, people will kill their cable service.

    The problem is, with technology as it is now, people find driving to walmart, buying a DVD for $11 to be EASIER than getting an online rental that's unlikely to work and costs just as much.

    But as far as the potential of the net to kill cable as we know it? Oh it's already there.
  • Re:Already has. (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 23, 2008 @02:57PM (#22156488)
    Yes, but you're still referring to content that is primarily originally distributed over the airwaves. This article is referring to content that isn't tied into/produced by those major media outlets.
  • Re:Already has. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Have Blue ( 616 ) on Wednesday January 23, 2008 @02:58PM (#22156528) Homepage
    That's not really supplanting- if TV disappeared tomorrow, so would all your torrents.
  • by Malevolent Tester ( 1201209 ) * on Wednesday January 23, 2008 @03:01PM (#22156574) Journal
    I can't wait to pay a license fee for my computer as well.
  • Maybe try.... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by j_edge ( 20712 ) on Wednesday January 23, 2008 @03:04PM (#22156642)
    reading a book?
  • by ChrisPaulsworth ( 1225660 ) on Wednesday January 23, 2008 @03:05PM (#22156644)
    Its easy for us to say the net has replaced TV but I think it will be a long time before it replaces it for less tech savvy people.
  • by definate ( 876684 ) on Wednesday January 23, 2008 @03:09PM (#22156716)
    Yes.

    What a stupid question.

    You'd think the billions being poured into this industry would give it away.

    Or perhaps the ridiculous amount of lawsuits to stop the people, who are already doing it in droves.

    I haven't had a TV since about 2000.

    Next article!
  • by RotateLeftByte ( 797477 ) on Wednesday January 23, 2008 @03:11PM (#22156738)
    At the risk of starting a flame war,
    I don't mind paying the UK TV Receiving License ( pays for BBC TV and Radio and some other public service broadcasting)
    As long as I don't have to put up with almost 20 minutes Advertising per hour.
    I TIVO ( on my Humax PVR) many show on Commercial TV and fast forward over the adverts. I timed an episode of CSI recently. 41m 21sen in an Hour slot. Sorry, I have other things to do with my time. I don't want to watch endless adverts for Holidays or Sofa Sales or Making a Skoda out of Cake.
    I expect that of the 'real time TV' I watch is on the BBC.
    Yippee, The six Nations starts soon. No adverts while the players get set for a scrum unlike the endless ad breaks that American Footie is designed to give.
    To those who decry the Beeb ( and sometimes they do deserve critism), try living somewhere where there is no real choice other than TV with Commercials every few minutes. You will soon say, come back BBC, all is forgiven.
  • by Amorymeltzer ( 1213818 ) on Wednesday January 23, 2008 @03:12PM (#22156748)
    No.

    I'm as much a computer lover as the next person, but there are a number of reasons why a TV currently and will always occupy a niche different from a puter:

    1. Bigness. The gap is narrowing, but you can still get a bigger TV for less than a smaller monitor. As far as I can tell, more families have a room based off a TV screen than a computer screen.
    2. Options. With monitors, it's either overpriced and pretty from Apple, or less overpriced and less pretty from someone else. With TVs, you can still pick a plethora of options.
    3. Ease of use. The wiimote was so revolutionary, but the friggin REmote has been pretty much perfect for decades. It's simple, there's nothing extraneous like apps or downloads or email. You can switch back and forth between hundreds of options seamlessly, whereas on a computer you've got to load up the site and browse to the exact item. If you know what you want, the intarwebs are good, but if you wanna surf, TV is still better.
    4. A lot easier to turn on/off.
    5. No one is gonna sue you for making a tape of a movie.

    The differences are narrowing, but for now, there's definite differences. Something kind of like AppleTV has a definite future in the world but we're still gonna sit around the set for the Super Bowl, not a computer (well, we will, but others won't).
  • by HockeyPuck ( 141947 ) on Wednesday January 23, 2008 @03:19PM (#22156866)
    Mod parent up!

    "I'm too intelligent for TV!" I download all my programs, and never watch live events.
    "I'm too intelligent for radio!" I have to troll boards and poll my friends to find the latest music.
    "I'm too intelligent for books/magazines!" I'd rather carry around a stack of batteries to read something something online and complain about AT&T when my iPhone can't reach my favorite website.
    "I'm too intelligent for telephone!" I'd rather IM people than hold a conversation.

    The problem is, "I'm not intelligent enough." To get my butt away from the computer.
  • Not ready (Score:4, Insightful)

    by 4D6963 ( 933028 ) on Wednesday January 23, 2008 @03:27PM (#22156982)

    I prefer downloading torrents rather than watching a show on the web, but sometimes you can't find a show anywhere but on the TV stations website, so I watched one such show on mtv.com, and err, I don't mind a commercial break, even if it's one commercial every ten minutes, but at least, PLEASE, don't make it be the same fucking el cheapo commercial every single fucking time!

    I mean come on, what are you trying to achieve by showing your viewers the same commercial 7 fucking times during a TV show? Will I want to subscribe to Verizon because they interrupted my show 7 times to tell me that "Science is wrong, the world revolves around you" and that because of that I needed unlimited plans or whatever it was they were trying to sell to me (yeah, I saw that commercial like 30 times, I remember every word of it, except the last few which were about what they were trying to sell to me. Oh, and was it Verizon or Vodafone?)? Fat chance, I don't even live in the US!

    My point? Oh yeah, if they want Web "TV" to go anywhere as serious as regular TV, they need to be serious about it. Showing many times during a show the same commercial that is so cheap that it doesn't even contain images filmed with an actual camera makes it sound like no one could even be arsed to find more than one company to advertise for, and that this company couldn't be arsed to produce a half decent commercial. I get the feeling that they have no clue what they're missing out.

  • by JonTurner ( 178845 ) on Wednesday January 23, 2008 @03:30PM (#22157028) Journal
    In most places, a library card is still free. Why not start there?

    If you must be entertained, then I suggest you start with borrowing some videos. DVDs/VHS... it doesn't really matter. Reaquaint yourself with the classics -- choose anything from the AFI top 100 list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFI's_100_Years..._100_Movies_(10th_Anniversary_Edition))

    Once you've gotten that out of your system, try some books on tape. Turn that hour-a-day commute time into something more productive than enduring the Morning Show Morons laughing at how drunk they got the night before or making ill-informed comments about the news of the day.

    After a few weeks of books on tape, try reading a book. I know, I know -- you don't have time. Try it anyway. Read it during your lunch break. You'll eat more slowly and may lose a few pounds as a result. Spend an hour at night. If you take a train or bus, read it then. You'll be surprised at how quickly the time passes! If you're not sure what to read, choose anything which has won a Nebula Award which should appeal to the /. crowd.

    Wouldn't it be nice if there were a television writer's stike and no-one noticed? After this exercise I suspect you'll find that your appetite for television entertainment has decreased. That's a good thing... it indicates you're more alive and using your mind actively rather than being passively entertained. There's life outside of television. Go find it.
  • Re:instead.... (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 23, 2008 @03:31PM (#22157058)
    But, but, it already has: Free TV For PC [free-tv-for-pc.com]
  • by bfwebster ( 90513 ) on Wednesday January 23, 2008 @03:33PM (#22157084) Homepage
    I wrote about this issue back in mid-2006 ("YouTube vs. Current TV [and-still-i-persist.com]") and concluded with the following:

    On our DirecTV satellite system, we have hundreds of channels, though fewer than we used to; we dropped all the movie channels when we discovered that we only watched one or two movies a month on them. Yet, outside of the local morning news/weather and occasional news channel updates, I seldom watch more than half a dozen shows and/or movies on TV each week. [Less than that now with the WGA strike going on.] By contrast, I suspect there are few days that go by in which I don't watch one or more YouTube videos, embedded in a blog or linked to in an e-mail I receive. In terms of total hours, I still watch more TV; in terms of discrete video productions, I watch more YouTube.
    TV still has the bandwidth edge, and I now have several dozen HD channels coming in via DirecTV -- and just about anything is watchable when you watch it in HD. :-) HD video is starting to show up on the web, but the general quality level of web-based video is still low and slow. Until that problem is solved, TV will still have an edge. YMMV. ..bruce..
  • Not happening (Score:3, Insightful)

    by DerekLyons ( 302214 ) <fairwater@@@gmail...com> on Wednesday January 23, 2008 @03:34PM (#22157096) Homepage
    From the summary:

    The quantity, quality, and diversity of online video grows by the day; and though it's far from perfect, it is at least interesting enough to make you forget that you're watching it on a PC monitor.

    There isn't anything on the web that can make me forget I'm watching it on a PC monitor - because my computer room isn't nearly as comfortable as my living room.
  • Sure hope so (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dazedNconfuzed ( 154242 ) on Wednesday January 23, 2008 @03:38PM (#22157158)
    That's what I'm working toward. I don't want my video options dictated by a single local cable monopoly, and while Apple is heading in the right direction I don't want them limiting my options either.

    Give me a single high-bandwidth data pipe to my TV, and source material & providers geared toward the TV-style viewing experience.

    Cable/satellite/broadcast had their chance to provide what customers wanted: a variety of good material, without commercials, on demand or in a casual drop-in format. Like so many practical monopolies, they forgot who their customers are. Now that broadband exists, others can provide what customers want. Let's get a move on, people!
  • by cbreaker ( 561297 ) on Wednesday January 23, 2008 @03:55PM (#22157428) Journal
    My head almost exploded reading all of the "well I replaced TV eight years ago!!" and "t0rentszzzz!~" from all the no-TV snobs. This is exactly the type of article that brings them out of the woodwork I guess. "MY DAY TO SHINE!"

    Of course, none of those iTunes downloads or Torrents would exist if there were no TV.

    I don't think the WEB will replace TV. I think there might be something that's more interactive than TV, but less interactive than the Internet. The On-Demand stuff is a step in that direction.

    Now, I've watched movies on the computer screen, and I've watched TV shows there too. But it's never as comfortable as lounging on the couch. The remote control is easy to hold, easy to use; you generally don't even have to look at it. There's a few hundred channels to choose from on most cable systems, and personally I can always find something to watch. It might be something I've seen before, but don't mind watching again, or it might be something new. The HD channels are where I spend most of my time. Between Discovery, HD Theater, Science and TLC, and sometimes HGTV, I can usually find something interesting enough to watch.

    When I'm in for the night, and I'm settling down, I don't want to deal with crappy web pages and CLICK HERE!!! flashing crap I have to click around. I don't want to deal with server down, server overloaded, or whatever. I just want to watch TV.

    I like TV. There's several shows that I think are top notch. I don't mind waiting for the next installment of whatever show. It's okay. Maybe it's part of getting a little older, or maybe it's because the Internet was only becoming a word that people knew when I was a Senior in high school. Perhaps I just have more patience for these things.
  • by Kenichi Tanaka ( 1168171 ) on Wednesday January 23, 2008 @03:57PM (#22157466)
    I seriously doubt that the web will replace television viewing. Much in the same respect as why I think that physical media will always be around in one format or another. Most fans are like myself and while we don't have time to watch television, most of what we watch are on DVD ... I just think that the AMPTP are making a huge gamble on the fact that if they don't settle and the writer's are forced into accepting a bare bones contract that television programmning is over. It will never be over because then those who only have the ability to watch programmed television will be out of the loop and this is because of low income families who can barely afford cable television. Most television shows that I watch are on DVD. I can't stand the week to week programming and broadcasting of television shows. I'd rather just have the studios to release television shows on DVD, bypass television altogether and go straight to DVD. Instead, the studios are fighting the strike because of DVD royalties and Internet-related profits that are being made by the studios. It's been announced by the studios that over the next three years, if the strike were settled with no new media or DVD concessions, that the studios stand to rake in over 3.5 billion in profits. The studios are in a fight for their lives in preventing the writer's or anyone else from dipping into those profits and the longer they can hold the writers at bay, the more profits they stand to earn. However, I suspect that the shareholders mof those companies may be a bit more vocal as the strike dredges on longer.
  • by misleb ( 129952 ) on Wednesday January 23, 2008 @03:59PM (#22157500)

    At over $60 for expanded basic, the web definitely replaced TV.


    The real problem with the "web" replacing TV is that few people want to sit in front of their comptuer to watch TV/movies. While the "internet" may kill cable (unllikely as cable companies probably already control your internet), the "web" most certainly won't kill "TV". Whatever transmission medium is, it has to have a set top box or some other dedicated entertainment center hardware to view on a large screen in front of your couch. Nothing less than that will replace traditional cable TV.

    I doubt the cable companies will give up so easily. Before we see wide-spread internet video (not just YouTube, but full shows and movies), we'll see cable companies offer more and more On-Demand programming. If I could get any show or movie on demand with the ability to skip commercials over cable and only pay for what I view (and not have to pay for 100 channels I never even browse), there'd be no reason to bother with video in a browser for anything more than YouTube.

    -matthew

  • Re:Already has. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by corbettw ( 214229 ) on Wednesday January 23, 2008 @04:02PM (#22157556) Journal
    What happens when the studios themselves start releasing torrents containing commercials? Sure, people could edit the commercials out and repost those shorter versions, but I think most people, or at least enough to make the advertisers happy, would go straight to the source for their entertainment and put up with the commercials if only for the ease of convenience. Considering how many of the networks and studios are already doing something close to that (I watched the entire season of Jericho on CBS' site, along with most of the Heroes on NBC), it's only a matter of time, really.

    And that, of course, is what the WGA strike is all about: the writers don't get residuals from videos released over the Net, even though that's the direction all of the studios and networks are heading towards.
  • Re:instead.... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by CastrTroy ( 595695 ) on Wednesday January 23, 2008 @04:35PM (#22158142)
    I know a few people who watch the majority of their TV on DVD. If you like the show, it's not much trouble to spend $50 (yes, some cost more) on a season. Mind you they still have cable, but don't use it that much, and when they do, it's usually stuff they've recorded on the PVR. I think that in the next 10 years, we'll move away from broadcast TV into an on-demand or watch-on-DVD type model. Personally I like it a lot more. There will still be some things that make sense to broadcast, like news, or sports games, but your average tv series won't need to be broadcast.
  • by ACMENEWSLLC ( 940904 ) on Wednesday January 23, 2008 @04:45PM (#22158288) Homepage
    I watch Internet TV shows. YouTube, NBC/ABC Video, wwitv.com, etc. But I'm your average /. geek. I can't see anyone I know doing this over watching normal TV. Do I have the right Codec? The proper media player such as Flip4Mac? Ok, configure my bandwidth settings. Oh, yes, my Antivirus IMON makes it stutter, so disable that. WIFI's getting trampled on my neighbor, change AP channel. Now my videocard is overheating and generating artifacts...

    Not until it's as easy as pushing "1" "2" on a remote and the channel working do I see this as replacing TV. The key word was replacing.
  • by WillAffleckUW ( 858324 ) on Wednesday January 23, 2008 @05:02PM (#22158580) Homepage Journal
    My son watches YouTube, Japanese anime, reads manga, and uses the web for something like 80 percent of the time, instead of TV.

    He's fairly similar to most teens nowadays.

    The change already happened.

    And the nutso TV/movie insistence on not paying writers is just making people stop watching TV.
  • by darjen ( 879890 ) on Wednesday January 23, 2008 @05:24PM (#22158928)
    Yes, I do miss Discovery HD and ESPN HD on occasion. But I'm done paying the exorbitant costs of digital cable just to get a couple channels I liked. If I could sign up for just those two for a nominal fee, I would (a la carte). But until then they're not getting my business.
  • by Pausanias ( 681077 ) <pausaniasx@NOspAm.gmail.com> on Wednesday January 23, 2008 @07:48PM (#22161000)
    If you watch a lot of TV, you may feel sensitive about others' perception of your intelligence. But don't blame that on me. I never said anything about intelligence, much less books, radio, phones, or magazines. All I said was that the physical television device and accompanying expensive gadgets are irrelevant for me and a growing segment of the population.

Lots of folks confuse bad management with destiny. -- Frank Hubbard

Working...