Comments on: 4 Reasons Why The Internet Hasn’t Made TV Redundant Yet (And Never Will)

By: janette

janette — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 04:57:49 +0000

Very well put! And that awful keyboard on Apple TV! I hope they changed it by now.

Same goes for books. You can’t put a continuous power supply in your pocket.

Great blog.

By: sheltron

sheltron — Fri, 08 Oct 2010 06:58:49 +0000

You lost me Pennywise, who is the “3rd generation”?

By: Pennywise

Pennywise — Fri, 08 Oct 2010 04:14:39 +0000

I would hesitate to underestimate the youth of today. Even some of the 3rd generation now is familiar enough with mp3s. Pretty soon they will be the old people on the couch, with a desktop and an HDMI cable plugged into their first generation HDTV with a wireless remote using a trackstick for the mouse. Why would anyone who knows that they can cut out their TV bill not ask one of the many people who know how to do it? As has been stated there are always those who will keep the status quo which will keep progress steady, but as the younger generation becomes the workers of the world TV service will be seen as an unnecessary expense.

Personally I plan on losing my TV within 6 months as soon as I get the right HD receiver for my area. TV (even HD) is free over the airwaves in many areas. Even if not for that, it’s not difficult to find what you want today with today’s high storage capacity drives and fast connection speeds. Although I probably only watch 3 hours a week of TV anyway. I will not mind the extra $30+ in my pocket, or the lack of mindraping advertising.

Welcome to the future.

By: Betty

Betty — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 06:37:21 +0000

They could easily use a Pay-per-view approach which may work for items with limited distribution rights, probably wouldn’t work in USA where they have popular free services like Hulu but NZ really doesn’t have that yet (TVNZ on demand maybe?). Although country oriented distribution rights have never really made sense to me when concerning internet content.

Targeting adverts could mean short ad breaks, I live in a flat of only guys and don’t really have a need/interest to purchase items such as nappies (or it would appear cleaning products if you’re judging by the state of the flat on occasion) potentially giving up some personal details for shorter ad breaks would be something people would be willing to live with. It wouldn’t work of course if the majority of adverts are aimed at one particular group (which they basically are), or if they are relying on me being indoctrinated by a brand of nappies for potential sales in the future when/if there are little Betty’s running around.

I don’t imagine streaming via the net would be cheap meaning not just anyone can get into the business. I also imagine if you have a kick ass feature people will put up with more crap.

As Tim said, there are much smarter people out there already thinking about these issues I’m sure someone will solve it soon if they haven’t already.

By: sheltron

sheltron — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 03:25:08 +0000

Bloody good point. Nice one

By: Tim Nesdale

Tim Nesdale — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 02:32:23 +0000

Yeah, and maybe someone HAS figured out the answer. The thing is the TV broadcasters and studios are behemoth organisations that will take a massive amount of effort to change the way they do things, their infrastructure is also so massive they probably are happier just dealing with the problems they currently have. But just maybe they already know but are just terrified someone else is going to do it before them, they’re just waiting for the bubble to burst when they have to change to, they don’t wanna be the first movers though, it’ll be too painful.

Personally i think it will happen with Sports first. The Indian Premier League (IPL) is arguably the biggest money earning sporting event in the world at the moment, they just signed a deal with You Tube to broadcast all the matches. What happens if You Tube becomes the EXCLUSIVE content provider of that tournament? ONE BILLION indians watch the IPL. People will FIND A WAY to watch it.

Also, its really easy to advertise in sport. You get the commentators saying things like, “The McDonalds Stump Vision shows that …..”, “If we look at the KFC run rate graph…”, they can have marquee’s occasionally drift across the screen, they can have a ‘powerade drinks break’, they can have not too intrusive adds fade in and out in the corner of your screen etc. The possibilities are actually endless and you don’t mind them as much watchign sport as you would watching Desperate Housewives.

By: sheltron

sheltron — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 01:07:38 +0000

But don’t you think the viral nature of the internet means that billions of people have had an opportunity to figure out the answer, in a very short amount of time, but none of them have yet?

Maybe it’s because the nature of the internet is in conflict with the nature of advertising.

Internet is about freedom. I am in control of what I look at. I make the decisions. It’s about unlimited choices.

Advertising is about limiting those choices eg “choose this product”. Advertisers want to control your actions and get you to buy from them. They want to make those buying decisions for you. They need to throw the ads in your face to get your attention.

By: Tim Nesdale

Tim Nesdale — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 01:00:18 +0000

Internet broadcasting is still in it’s infancy, it’s very new, they won’t think of an advertising revenue model that quickly, it’s hardly like this has been going on for years yet.

By: sheltron

sheltron — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 00:58:36 +0000

Here we are in 2010 and no-one has come up with it yet.

How much more time do we need?

Maybe there is no answer?

By: Tim Nesdale

Tim Nesdale — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 00:54:31 +0000

All you’ve proven is that the current advertising revenue model for normal TV won’t work for internet TV, so what? Someone will think of a model that DOES work.