Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Television Media

TV's Tipping Point 306

Posted by michael from the high-center-of-gravity dept.
alinv writes ": Ashley Highfield, the head of BBC New Media & Technology spoke yesterday at a conference about how TV is being radically changed by users: 'future TV will may be unrecognisable from today, defined not just by linear TV channels, packaged and scheduled by television executives, but instead will resemble more of a kaleidoscope, thousands of streams of content, some indistinguishable as actual channels.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

TV's Tipping Point More

TV's Tipping Point

Comments Filter:

  • PVRs are already making TV unrecognizable (Score:5, Interesting)

    by pudding7 ( 584715 ) on Tuesday October 07, 2003 @02:03PM (#7155580)
    I didn't RTFA, but.... Since I got my Tivo, I have no idea what commercials are. Unfortunately, I think I'm missing some cool shows because I never watch live TV anymore.

    • Commercials Are: (Score:5, Interesting)

      by 4of12 ( 97621 ) on Tuesday October 07, 2003 @02:42PM (#7155940) Homepage Journal

      Since I got my Tivo, I have no idea what commercials are.

      Exactly. I know what they are.

      Commercials are: the break in the stream that requires you to hit fast forward for a few seconds.

      Commercials are: those pieces of programming that are having to become more entertaining and less obnoxious to have any chance of being seen.

      Commercials are: those artifacts of the 20th century that remind you just how painful it is to be fed a linear stream of programming.

      Commercials are: what have taught me how to watch the news on a TiVo - quickly hit pause and take a long potty break so I can FF through the commercials when I get back.

      Commercials are: those pieces of noisy time that still squat in the middle of broadcast radio feeds that have become so annoying to my sensitivities that I frequently have to turn the damn thing off because the signal to noise ratio is just so abominable compared with my TiVo enabled life.

      • Mmm. NPR doesn't have that problem. You just have to turn it off for a week every few months. I often find myself reaching for the 8 second rewind button (that's not there) on the radio in the car now that I've gotten used to being able to do that with the Tivo.

    • Re:PVRs are already making TV unrecognizable (Score:4, Informative)

      by K8Fan ( 37875 ) on Tuesday October 07, 2003 @03:04PM (#7156183) Journal

      So very true. I got a pair of DirecTivos and upgraded both of them, and my wife hasn't watched anything in real time since. She watches what I call the "Vickie Channel", a channel that has programs that would never appear on the same channel, all of which match her tastes. For instance, she put all the actors from the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy in her "Wish List" (except Christopher Lee who has been in hundreds of films). So her Tivo has delivered her a number of great films from New Zealand and Australia starring Miranda Otto.

  • Sounds like Comcast's Line up.

  • sure...... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 07, 2003 @02:04PM (#7155587)
    And we'll all just get around on those moving sidewalks and flying cars, too.

    Yeah, we haven't been hearing about "new-tv" as long as these, but its getting almost as tiresome.....

  • Haven't we seen this? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by gsparrow ( 696382 ) on Tuesday October 07, 2003 @02:04PM (#7155592) Homepage
    I think its called the internet.
    • I think its called the internet

      Maybe, but t.v. is infinitely better than the Internet when it comes to zoning out after work and just relaxing while the mind slowly oozes out onto the floor of numbness.

      from the article, "audiences will want to organize and re-order content the way they want it"

      I don't want t.v. to be something I have to assemble or manipulate in order to get something watchable.

  • Thousands of steams? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BizidyDizidy ( 689383 ) on Tuesday October 07, 2003 @02:04PM (#7155594)
    Indistinguishable as actual channels? What about instituting a completely on-demand cable system? I don't know about everyone, but I'm not looking for TV to be a mindblowing experience; I can leave the house for those. It would be nice to be able to watch the programs I want, when I want, though.
    • Yeah. Wouldn't it be great if instead of paying $40/month for 100 channels of noise, 24/7, you could pay your $40 and get say 100 hours of stuff that you actually wanted to see, when you wanted to see it.
    • I'm not looking for TV to be a mindblowing experience; I can leave the house for those

      Do you live in Amsterdam?
    • A friend just showed me their new cable feature, I think it's called On-Demand Viewing. The cable company puts a bunch of shows into their "on-demand" section, and allows you to watch them whenever you want. They have commercials, but it's just a single commercial at a time, and it's not for a product -- it's for another show on the same network (I watched a couple episodes of Strangers With Candy the other day). The FF/REW features aren't as "fine-grained" as ReplayTV/Tivo, since the signal has to trave
    • Man, pay-per-view (aka on-demand) has absolutely sucked putrid shit the last two months. Insight is my cable provider, and they've offered lousy stuff on the on-demand channels for the last two months. Of course, there's hasn't been but a small handful of movies this year worth witnessing. Then again, the entire television spectrum has been that way for over a decade now. Nevermind.
    • Cool, my own "Dr. Who" marathon at my fingertips whenever I don't want to move from the couch for 24 hours (except for bathroom break of course.) lol

  • kind of... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by heh2k ( 84254 ) on Tuesday October 07, 2003 @02:05PM (#7155605) Homepage
    like tivo? is this news? in the future, shows will probably be subscription based, so you can subscribe to just the shows you like. at least, that's how i'd like things. i don't watch 95% of the crap i get on cable.

    • Re:kind of... (Score:3, Funny)

      by Trigun ( 685027 )
      Hopefully it's more like Suprnova.org
    • in the future, shows will probably be subscription based, so you can subscribe to just the shows you like.

      Oh please G-d no! There aren't many things for which the "subscription" model actually works. I don't see it actually working for TV, either. Plus, if you think that will get rid of ads, you'd be in for disappointment. There aren't many no-ads magazines... I could talk more about the "inevitability" of advertisements, but that'd get Off-Topic very fast.

      All I have to say is - as far as TV models
    • If TIVO had HDTV support and a nice plug into Comcast's cable HDTV then I'd probably use it in a second. I looked at Dish, but it doesn't appear to host that many HDTV shows yet. I don't have an HDTV yet, but have been eying them as they come down in price and more and more media is becoming available.
  • Sounds like somebody talking up their own job, if you ask me.

  • Individualization (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    ...will resemble more of a kaleidoscope, thousands of streams of content, some indistinguishable as actual channels.

    There's nothing like catering specifically to the one person who likes Golden Girls reruns mixed in with heaps of porn.

  • Oh YEAH! (Score:3, Funny)

    by cliffy2000 ( 185461 ) on Tuesday October 07, 2003 @02:06PM (#7155620) Journal
    "but instead will resemble more of a kaleidoscope"
    Oh, yeah. Just what I want.
    Just when TV was getting crappy enough (all reality shows, all the time), now it'll make me physically dizzy. THANKS, genius executives.
    • It's true. When you look through a real kaleidoscope, there are so many flakes and mirrors that you can't see what you're actually looking at. Likewise, future TV will be covered with so many layers of scrolling banners, floating logos, preview windows and sidebars that you won't be able to see the actual program. HDTV will make this trend worse, since it just represents more real-estate on which to paint these dazzling distractions.

  • The World of Tomorrow (Score:5, Funny)

    by TraumaHound ( 30184 ) on Tuesday October 07, 2003 @02:07PM (#7155624)
    thousands of streams of content, some indistinguishable as actual channels.


    It's good to know that MTV will still be around in the future.
  • I don't care what they say it'll be in 20 years or 20 centuries, it'll still be the same crap.

  • Why Ashley Highfield Is Incorrect (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    He assumes that digital television will become ubiquitous. It won't. Just as the RIAA and MPAA have demonstrated that they will fight tooth and nail to prevent digital music and video from becoming free and ubiquitous, controllable by the people, so too will the major networks fight to insure that television will not become like he believes. There are strong forces that will rally against television to insure that it does NOT contain things such as "our viewers' contributions." There are political reaso

  • 57 (000) channels (Score:5, Funny)

    by YrWrstNtmr ( 564987 ) on Tuesday October 07, 2003 @02:08PM (#7155636)
    and STILL nothin' on.

  • Ah, the Glory days (Score:5, Funny)

    by snowlick ( 536497 ) on Tuesday October 07, 2003 @02:08PM (#7155637) Homepage
    "resemble more of a kaleidoscope, thousands of streams of content, some indistinguishable as actual channels."

    So basically, all those years of watching scrambled porn channels are going to pay off big time.

  • Kaleidoscope? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Asprin ( 545477 ) <(gsarnold) (at) (yahoo.com)> on Tuesday October 07, 2003 @02:09PM (#7155651) Homepage Journal

    A kaleidoscope? You mean that tube-thingy you look through with the mirrors inside that make it look like the same thing is in a lot of different places, but really they're all just pale reflections of each other?

    Yeah.... I think I can see how TV might eventually evolve into that. [grin]
  • some indistinguishable as actual channels.

    With advertising indistinguishable from the content.
  • Tivo is definitely kick ass, and the way I love to view tv ... just the shows i want. one of the most cool things about it is seeing movies / shows starring certain actors. but there is still one weakness which i hope the cable companies will address ... you are still limited by shows that are actually airing today. I'd love it if the entertainment companies would open up their "back catalogs" and allow us to view any tv show / movie made at any time whenever we want it. THAT would be sheer tivo nirvana ..
    • HBO On Demand just started on Oct-1 and I can play any show or movie airing during the month at any time without incurring extra charges. Just like the commercial says, you can play, pause, fast forward and rewind any On Demand show right from the remote. Add that to my 144-hour TiVo, and its a crankin' setup. And those movies are separate from the virtual Blockbuster in my cable box with hundreds of titles for $3.99 and a 24-hour viewing window. So your nirvana may not be at hand, but having 500 movies and

  • She needs to watch more TV .... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by El Cubano ( 631386 ) on Tuesday October 07, 2003 @02:11PM (#7155674)

    but instead will resemble more of a kaleidoscope, thousands of streams of content, some indistinguishable as actual channels

    It's obvious Ms. Highflied doesn't watch very much TV. Because the few times I do watch TV ,I think how much crap is on the tube and wonder what happened the "real channels and programming."

    • What "real channels and programming" are you talking about?

      People who say there's nothing on t.v ever are must just be watching Fox and all the new reality shit, and ignoring all the good stuff that's on. How about a little History Channel, TLC, Discorvery(s), more sports than one can imagine, news 24 hours with whatever kind of slant you prefer, etc.

      So no, there's not always something good on all the time, but most of the time I can find something that's pretty interesting.
      • TLC

        You mean the fashion and home decorating channel?

        The L in TLC originally stood for Learning. It reminds me now of the urban legend that Kentucky Fried Chicken was officially renamed "KFC" because they stopped using actual chicken.
      • Funny you should say that. I used to watch TLC before it became what seems to me to be a lot of BBC one-offs (ripoffs?).

        Also, the article mentions 50% of UK residents have internet connectivity and digital TV. A couple of questions: is this the same 50%? As I live in the US, what is the US %'s. When we moved, we did not bother to get cable. Currently it is too much money for too much stuff bundled that I will not watch that I don't want to pay for. So we watch some PBS and read a lot.
        So our household falls

  • Stupidest prediction EVER! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mrtroy ( 640746 ) on Tuesday October 07, 2003 @02:13PM (#7155679)
    Like viewers wish to devote all of their attention to the TV. Or program the TV. TV is great because it preys on our laziness. You can sit there and do nothing, and gain entertainment, or sleep.

    "audiences will want to organize and re-order content the way they want it"
    No, we dont, we want to use one button on a remote.

    But, as I RTFA, I do agree with some of his points.

    TV programs should be able to be watched any time. I should be able to watch my programs in my order at my time.
    Excluding live events of course, which should be left live for obvious reasons.

    Media is changing. If the music industry wasnt a wake up call for the movie and television industries, it sure should have been. People will do things their way, and the industry cannot control that. They must change to keep pace with it, as the music industry has not in general.

    Interesting ideas, well written article. But television is still, and always will be about laziness for me. How else could you ever get through a 5 hour breakup with a girlfriend without a TV to watch during it. (while pretending to listen of course)
    • Do you know what people did before they had teelvisions? They:
      1) Slept (modern people are famous for not getting nearly enough)
      2) Looked up at the fucking sky and thought how great the future would be when the could watch stuff like tv.
      3) Just plain fucked.
    • You know, I think a lot of us in the Slashdot crowd don't appreciate the dynamic of this because we're just not young enough.

      This seems like it should be a no-brainer because here we are on Slashdot, commenting on stories that come from thousands of different places on the internet, and generally organizing and re-ordering content the way we want.

      How is this any different whether we are commenting on video streams or web pages? I think she is amazingly insightful about the future of television. I predi
    • How else could you ever get through a 5 hour breakup with a girlfriend without a TV to watch during it. (while pretending to listen of course)

      Hmm... I wonder why she broke up with you...

  • yeh right (Score:2, Insightful)

    by stratjakt ( 596332 )
    The internet was supposed to have done that by now.

    Any day now I'll be watching a kaleidascope of magical fairy shit on my HDTV while playing duke nukem forever.

    I think people like tv as it is, and it'll probably stay with the status quo for a long long time, there's nothing wrong with passive entertainment.
  • As TV continues to make the move toward pure digital information, how long will it be before we see the first TV-specific virus corrupting dowloaded shows?

    "Honey, when did they add the Goatsex guy to the cast of Friends?"

  • Four trends, no revolutions (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ianscot ( 591483 ) on Tuesday October 07, 2003 @02:15PM (#7155693)
    1. consumers are ...choosing not just the 'what' they watch but also the when, how and where they watch it.

    2. the audience increasingly wants to join in and get closer to their media.

    3. ...consuming more media simultaneously...

    4. ...the last trend -- sharing.

    So in the future, we will watch multiple reality shows we can shape with our various "votes" at the same time -- a time of our choosing. We'll have sent each other some of the shows, too. This is a revolution?

    No one mindblowing idea here -- basically it seems like the BBC's thinking about that "Super -Electronic Programme Guide" to get a little ahead on interfaces, and they don't want to stonewall peer-to-peer models the way the music industry did.

  • Television ROTS brains. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rice_burners_suck ( 243660 ) on Tuesday October 07, 2003 @02:16PM (#7155698)
    I lot of people, like me, are getting increasingly disenchanted by television. I stopped watching television almost completely about four years ago because the commercials were repetitive crap with garbage in between. 10,000 channels and nothing to watch on TV. And the news programs... don't even get me started. They tell you, "Up next," whatever story they were advertising all day. But the only thing that's "up next" is more commercials, and the story you're interested in is always about 2 seconds long and at the very end of the news program.

    I decided that TV rots brains, so now, I have two televisions in my home and neither of them are plugged in. The big one is where all my clean laundry piles up, waiting to be folded, and the small one just sits there. I can tell you that since I made this change, I have become a much happier person. Suddenly, I have time to read books, which help to develop the imagination, rather than destroy it like TV does.

    And a lot of people I know, who do not allow their children to watch television, are amazed at how full their children's lives are. They love to read; they spend time with friends; they do all sorts of stuff. So I swear by this: Television is a waste of time. The Internet is a better source of entertainment. (No, don't read all kinds of "inappropriate" messages from that statement.)

    When I read /.'s blurb about this article (about how there will be many streams of content, not necessarily representing channels), the first thought that went through my mind was, "I certainly hope not."

    • Is your name Jonathan Green [theonion.com]?
    • And the news programs... don't even get me started. They tell you, "Up next," whatever story they were advertising all day. But the only thing that's "up next" is more commercials, and the story you're interested in is always about 2 seconds long and at the very end of the news program.

      Hah! One night I got totally suckered by a Fox news teaser "find out why you might want to avoid that second cup of coffee!"...I watch the whole crappy "news" program for half an hour for a 15 seconds blurb that 3 cups or
    • You are right, and I can prove it rots your brain.

      How many of you slashdoters watched the Matrix when it aired on tv, while at the same time you OWN THE DAMN FREAKING MOVIE ON DVD! sitten right next to you dvd player and yet you will watch it on tv with 2 hours worth of ads about suv's, fast food, and color safe bleach.

      TV makes you stupid. And stupid kills.

      • How many of you slashdoters watched the Matrix when it aired on tv, while at the same time you OWN THE DAMN FREAKING MOVIE ON DVD! sitten right next to you dvd player and yet you will watch it on tv with 2 hours worth of ads about suv's, fast food, and color safe bleach.

        That's an interesting point. I know I sometimes feel drawn to a tv broadcast of a movie that I own or could easily rent. I think--seriously--watching broadcast tv is still a bit of meta-social event. There is something about knowing you'
        • That's an interesting point. I know I sometimes feel drawn to a tv broadcast of a movie that I own or could easily rent. I think--seriously--watching broadcast tv is still a bit of meta-social event. There is something about knowing you're watching something at the same time as everybody else.

          I've thought about this myself. My wife thinks I'm nuts when I watch a movie on TV that I own on DVD. But on some subconscious level it does have aspects of being a shared experience. That's pretty sad, I guess.

          • I've thought about this myself. My wife thinks I'm nuts when I watch a movie on TV that I own on DVD. But on some subconscious level it does have aspects of being a shared experience. That's pretty sad, I guess.

            Well, maybe. It's similar to one of two reasons to go to the movies: 1. bigger picture and sound, of course, but 2. so you can talk about it while it's still a hot topic of conversation, the shared cultural experience of the moment.

            You get some of the second factor when it comes on tv, but it is v
    • I was also getting tired of the commercials, so I picked up a Tivo. Now I find that I watch less TV than ever. I never worry about catching something live, because Tivo will record it and I'll just watch it later. Except, I rarely end up going back to watch it.

      As for your comment about children- well watching TV or having a full life is a false dichotomy. I have a two year old who has a few TV programs that she likes to watch (Sesame Street, Dora, Oswald). She also loves to look at books, play with playdoh

    • All that this comment taught me is that people who watch television are depriving themselves of their ability to be sanctimonious assholes.

      So you don't enjoy TV, great. That's no reason for you to start foaming at the mouth about how it's rotting the rest of our minds and destroying our imaginations.
    • I was never allowed to watch TV , except for the 20h30-21h news program which we watched in family. Cartoon ? Only the bugs bunny one before the evnning film (this was long ago...). Result ? Instead of watching Tv I read. Assimov. Heinlein. Clarck. P.K. Dick. F. Pohl. H. P. Lovecraft (yeah yeah i know my taste are ... special). And going outside ! green Stuff ! Woot ! The result ? I have an enorm imagination. TV is only "on" to hear some background noise when i am alone (I detest silence). And I have develo

    • Fundamental rule: (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Cassanova ( 578879 ) on Tuesday October 07, 2003 @02:55PM (#7156069)
      Anything done in extreme is bad.
      Too much eating is bad.
      Too much sleeping is bad.
      Too much TV is bad.
      Too much internet is bad.

      Balance is the key..

      There is good, stimulating content on TV - Discovery channel, National geographic and History channel. I've learnt quite a lot about many things I did not have any idea at all, by watching these three channels for example.

      BTW, I also read books. I would never completely replace either of them with any of them. Each has its own place. Choose wisely.

      The internet is a better source of entertainment? How exactly? You have porn-on-demand the moment you are online. You have dirty spam clogging your emails. It is less well regulated than TV broadcasting.

      Again, balance is the key. Choose wisely.

      ---
      Friends? Foes? What is this place? Kindergarten?

      • Re:Fundamental rule: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by StarFace ( 13336 )
        Too much cocaine is bad.

        Yet, I don't think balance is necessarily the solution there. You must learn to balance your use of balance, as well.

        The problem is content in many cases, but universally it is the format It doesn't matter how much you learned on those three stations out of thousands. You could have learned the same material through other methods, the use of which are more healthy for the brain than having nearly the entire show run for you automatically.

    • I decided that TV rots brains, so now, I have two televisions in my home and neither of them are plugged in.

      Bah. Quit talking the talk and start walking the walk. Get rid of the televisions. If it rots your brain and they're not even plugged in, get rid of them.

    • The non-tv children also know virtually nothing about other cultures, don't know jack when it comes to history, can't relate to popular culture except for their small clique of 'friends', and are as dissacossiated with the age they live in as someone who spent their life living in a cave. I got news for you dude, 'they are spending time with friends doing all sorts of stuff' = watching tv all day at their friends house cause you're too lame to go out and buy one. And tv is a waste of time while the interent
    • I decided that TV rots brains

      They love to read; they spend time with friends; they do all sorts of stuff. So I swear by this: Television is a waste of time.

      Get off your damn high horse. Television has plenty of crap on it, but that doesn't mean the medium sucks. There's plenty of [amazon.com] crap [amazon.com] published [amazon.com] in [amazon.com] book [amazon.com] format too. People who argue this 'television sucks' focus on the crap and ignore the quality stuff out there.

      It is akin to saying 'CDs suck' because the local Wherehouse music has a rack full of NS

    • Free TV is full of garbage most of the time.

      What most people fail to recognize is that "good" TV is a pay commodity. If you want to watch good television, you need to have HBO and some pay movie channels. Having a Tivo helps.

      Free TV (just the networks) is full of commercials and has been dumbed down to the knuckle-dragging level.

      But it wasn't always like that; over its history, television has had some great dramas and excellent programming. But anything good has shifted to pay television these days.

  • Experimental results (Score:5, Funny)

    by bytesmythe ( 58644 ) <bytesmythe@@@gmail...com> on Tuesday October 07, 2003 @02:17PM (#7155711)
    My TV's tipping point is 47 degrees forward from vertical. Anything less and it falls back on its base.

  • You mean... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by oGMo ( 379 ) on Tuesday October 07, 2003 @02:17PM (#7155714)
    but instead will resemble more of a kaleidoscope, thousands of streams of content, some indistinguishable as actual channels.

    You mean like downloading shows and movies from KaZaA?

    ;-)

  • http://reinvent.the.whe.el/

    The TV of the future you're describing is called teh intarweb, lady. Just so you know.
  • If it was like the cartoon network where all almost all the comercials are shoved into the last 8 minutes between shows, so you can just channel surf.

  • What I want out of TV (Score:3, Interesting)

    by flacco ( 324089 ) on Tuesday October 07, 2003 @02:28PM (#7155791)
    • On-demand programming
    • The option to not see any commercials at all, ever. I will pay for this.
    • While "scanning" (or previewing "channels"), I want to be able to NEVER see certain categories of programs, and even parts of programs: no daytime TV talk shows (Springer etc), no sports, no financial news, no weather, no religious programming, and I never want to see a live performance of a top-40 song ever.
    • WAY more small-time content providers. I'd like to see cable become a two-way street: individuals and small organizations could create their own programming and send it UP the cable to interested viewers.
    • hardcore donkey-porn.
  • TV ... how quaint.
  • You have only got to look at how many DVDs are now created with less and less user control over how you watch it to realize that the entertainment industry will fight this idea tooth and nail!
  • I can't find to original article, but I remember reading that NBC is altering the start times of some of it's lineup to odd times like 8:34 to mess with Tivo owners. When different networks choose unconvential start times, shows overlap each other by a few mintues and PVR's end up recording fewer competing shows.
  • TV networks aren't going to use technology to give people more choice, they're going to use it to spam advertising to make more money. TV "bugs" are already getting our of hand. Example: SpikeTV's gigantic Joe Schmo ad that pops up over about the entire lower left quarter of the screen every 2 minutes. Or their animated and opaque spraypaint logo bug that refreshes every 45 seconds.

    The future of TV is popups. The actual show will get less and less space as multiple eyecatch techniques are used to spam and
  • There is almost nothing to disagree about in the article. This guy has very smart ideas and I am glad that BBC is ready to start implementing them.

    TV was limited all the time by difficulties in distribution of content. There was only one way to do it cheaply on the large scale - broadcast on the air and let every TV show it. Of course, that is completely ineffective, because it severely limits the access of viewers to the content - you can only watch what is shown right now. The obvsious solutions are to r
  • We hardly ever watch live TV anymore. We tape (well, record) it then watch it when WE want to watch it. If two shows are on at the same time, we record both, then watch at our leisure.

    All this jockying for good prime time spots, and competition between stations to try to get me to watch ONLY their channel at a particular time is laughable. Who cares what time it is actually on (except to set the recording)?

    I don't care that I don't watch it "as it happens" because, well, I don't care. As for commercials,
  • I just want all the camera feeds to my house so I can pick which angle to watch the game in. Then, they can fire the "director" of the football game and I can figure out what is going on. YOU HEAR THAT FOX? With your STUPID FLYING END ZONE CAMERA! Didn't you learn your lesson by trying to HIGHLIGHT THE HOCKEY PUCK? After 40 years I think we've figured out how to watch a sporting event and we don't need this turned into action movie.

    Sorry for the screaming. But since Fox got the contract for NFC Footb
  • Unless there is a radical change in the thinking of TV execs, the future of TV is more phone-to-vote 'interactive' shows and more on-screen corporate logos and scrolling messages.

    This seems to be their focus nowadays.

    Making good programmes that people actually want to watch because of what the program *is* doesn't appear to be very important nowadays. Execs seem satisfied to get ratings by attracting huge armies of teenagers armed with mobile phones and opinions because (a) they'll call the vote lines and
  • Thousands of indistinguishable pieces of information. Lets just hope my head doesnt explode!
  • This is a link to my Internet image-searching kaleidoscope -- a very cool Google hack, and way more entertaining than most TV shows.

    MetaScope [krazydad.com]

    Now, if it could only search for MPEGs...

  • Subtle but disturbing change.... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by freeze128 ( 544774 ) on Tuesday October 07, 2003 @03:22PM (#7156377)
    I wonder at what time the television "viewer" became the television "user"....
  • I don't normally get up on a soapbox (you live your life, I'll live mine) but all this talk about "next-gen TV" and TiVO lawsuits/etc. just make me laugh.

    I tossed my TV in the garbage can in 1989.

    And I am much better off without it.
    You can do the same. Take back your life, Kill your TV.
  • Does this mean they're finally getting rid of the semi-transparent logos in the bottom right corner of the screen? Not soon enough if it were up to me...
  • doh! yet again the US falls behind...

    here we have the most important broadcaster in the world talking about:
    • shifting content to when you want it
    • interaction as part of the experience for all viewers
    • tv viewing maybe being as secondary as AM-radio listening was to a previous generation

    and all you can do is say either that directTv/ tivo does that already for you, or that, hey, dosn't the Web do that?

    wise up: the way that media is delivered in the US is out of date, irrelevant and beholden to commercia

  • This is not at all what I see. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by wcrowe ( 94389 ) on Tuesday October 07, 2003 @03:44PM (#7156615)
    I predict a much darker, less interesting future.

    Advertisers will want to find ways to get their messages in the programs. Right now, the method is to insert the messages in breaks of ever-increasing time which occur at greater and greater frequency. People use PVR's to fight this trend.

    The next logical step, then, is to insert the advertising directly into the contents of the programming. This is already happening now to a small extent, but I believe in the future it will get worse.

    Here is an example of what I envision: One character, Bob, pulls out his cell phone. A second character, George, sees it.

    George: Hey, that's a cool cellphone you got there.

    Bob: Yeah. It's a Noksung. I got it with my T-Cingle PCS. It was free! Look, I can take full-motion video with it and uselessly hog screeds of bandwidth with aimless nonsense.

    George: Wow! Can I have a look?

    Bob: Sure. T-Cingle PCS is running a special right now. 3,000,000 anytime minutes for nine cents a month.

    George: Great. I'm going to sign up for that right after we solve this murder. Wait! is that a Taco's Jr. over there. Pull in, they've got a new sushi-cajun burrito on their value menu for 34 cents!.....

    etc, etc, etc.

    Surprisingly enough, people will probably actually watch this crap.


    • Anyone catch the product placement for lembas wafers as the party was leaving Lorien? "Lembas bread! One small bite can fill the stomach of a grown man!" I was waiting for the elves to start singing the Lembas[tm] jingle.

  • but instead will resemble more of a kaleidoscope, thousands of streams of content, some indistinguishable as actual channels.

    You mean like the Internet?

Slashdot Top Deals

"In my opinion, Richard Stallman wouldn't recognise terrorism if it came up and bit him on his Internet." -- Ross M. Greenberg

Close