Will TV soon become obsolete?

[hmkpoker]

The internet is becoming increasingly popular as a source of entertainment, news and information. More people are spending more time online than ever before. I haven't seen any studies, but I'd be willing to wager that household TV watching time (at least amongst people between 15 and 40) has declined over the past fifteen years, and the internet is the biggest reason why.

Is it reasonable to believe that, if this trend continues, that TV and the internet will, in the next two decades, start to merge? Will news media funding sources begin to move online to capture the changing market? Will TV soon become obsolete?

[FortunaMaximus]

It already is, as far as I'm concerned. Increasingly, media is available in recordable media, and most PC's can be modified to receive cable TV signals and previous seasons of scheduled shows can be had on DVD.

And with most telcos (why I still call them telcos makes me a fossil of sorts at 29 /images/graemlins/tongue.gif) moving into the TV or film on demand market, there will be less reliance on scheduled programming, and more delivery to consumer modules.

[txag007]

Mark Cuban doesn't (http://www.blogmaverick.com/2006/03/18/think-the-internet-will-replace-tv-think-again/) think so.

[bocablkr]

No - I can juat imagine my family sitting around together watching an episode of Lost on my computer.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
No - I can juat imagine my family sitting around together watching an episode of Lost on my computer.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. A household would only need one computer core. as many LCD or plasma screens as needed throughout the house. Works rather well in an increasing number of households these days.

[Nielsio]

Broadcasting is dead. Long live the internet. Death to regulation.

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No - I can juat imagine my family sitting around together watching an episode of Lost on my computer.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. A household would only need one computer core. as many LCD or plasma screens as needed throughout the house. Works rather well in an increasing number of households these days.

[/ QUOTE ]

But that is the same as a TV. Using a Large computer display to watch a TV show is no different than watching TV.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No - I can juat imagine my family sitting around together watching an episode of Lost on my computer.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. A household would only need one computer core. as many LCD or plasma screens as needed throughout the house. Works rather well in an increasing number of households these days.

[/ QUOTE ]

But that is the same as a TV. Using a Large computer display to watch a TV show is no different than watching TV.

[/ QUOTE ]

We're not talking about changing shows, we're talking about the possible future integration of televised media into the internet. i.e., instead of tuning to channel 5 to watch Lost, you go to www.lost.com (http://www.lost.com) or something.

[FortunaMaximus]

OK. The computer core would receive signals and direct mail, refrigator, television, phone traffic for a household.

A wired house with wireless receivers and emitters. A LCD screen for the computer is no different than a LCD TV these days as far as optimum signal show goes.

So, you have a computer in an out of the way storage room, remotes for the LCD screens in the family room, a wireless keyboard/mouse for the office and kids workspace, kids have their own TV, and content is tailored to age-appropiate programming.

A small kitchen LCD screen that keeps track of supplies and expiry dates (think barcode scanners)

So, yes, it's no different, only you need one computer unit to entertain the house and maintain an office. It's just far cheaper than buying multiple units.

With the exception of the kitchen bit, which is still a few years from widespread implementation, I know of dozens of households that already function with similar systems. Works very well. And a lot of cable carriers have implemented VoIP (Voice over Internet, phone plans) into their overall package offerings.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No - I can juat imagine my family sitting around together watching an episode of Lost on my computer.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. A household would only need one computer core. as many LCD or plasma screens as needed throughout the house. Works rather well in an increasing number of households these days.

[/ QUOTE ]

But that is the same as a TV. Using a Large computer display to watch a TV show is no different than watching TV.

[/ QUOTE ]

We're not talking about changing shows, we're talking about the possible future integration of televised media into the internet. i.e., instead of tuning to channel 5 to watch Lost, you go to www.lost.com (http://www.lost.com) or something.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course. Speeds are to the point where livestreaming is not a concern. And direct from provider (production company, studio clearinghouses) would eliminate the middlemen.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course. Speeds are to the point where livestreaming is not a concern.

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course. Speeds are to the point where livestreaming is not a concern.

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, you're right. I forgot most of the world is still on dial-up or DSL. Ugh.

[Skoob]

I don't see TV becoming obsolete in my lifetime (I'm 34 btw).

The internet population is largely white. Minorities are catching up, but slowly. There's also the poor. Many advertisers target lower income families and they won't be getting high-speed connections any time soon.

Folks probably were asking the same questions about radio when TV was becoming popular. Radio is still here and here to stay also IMHO.

And, with both radio and television "service" being free, I don't think either is going anywhere. Even if, in the next 20 years, most areas of the US implement free Wifi or something similar.

I just don't see it happening.

[jogsxyz]

TV didn't make radio obsolete.

[FortunaMaximus]

Radio did change its content to adapt for television, and is a viable in-motion media for cars, etc. See Sirius and satellite radio.

Etymology for television:

Tele: from afar. Vision: sight.

Which doesn't define whether the signal comes digitally instead of rabbit ears or copper cable.

Oh, don't handle a broken fiberoptic cable without gloves. Makes wood slivers seem like a walk in the park.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
The internet is becoming increasingly popular as a source of entertainment, news and information. More people are spending more time online than ever before. I haven't seen any studies, but I'd be willing to wager that household TV watching time (at least amongst people between 15 and 40) has declined over the past fifteen years, and the internet is the biggest reason why.

Is it reasonable to believe that, if this trend continues, that TV and the internet will, in the next two decades, start to merge? Will news media funding sources begin to move online to capture the changing market? Will TV soon become obsolete?

[/ QUOTE ]There is little technological reason that TV and internet shouldn't have started to merge all ready. The problem is that film and TV producers and providers protecting thier interests make the continued outlook of internet bleak. Video on Demand should have entered the market years ago. However, no business would sign a contract with anyone that didn't also have as much to protect as they did. Comcast was the first bidder on VOD that had enough interest in keeping the TV and cable medium properspering that TV and film studios felt comfortable with enough to ensure their continued dominance of the entertainment industry. The success of youtube shows that all the technologies are present. The only main reason why VOD didn't arrive in the market sooner, was the webspread use of digital video camera's, cell phone digital video recorders. It's about 50/50 that TV and Film studios will make the interent obsolete.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course. Speeds are to the point where livestreaming is not a concern.

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, you're right. I forgot most of the world is still on dial-up or DSL. Ugh.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm dumbfounded by the continued existence of telephone and DSL lines in America. For $1.50/day, Comcast gives me blazing internet speed and basic cable. Anyone who's anyone has a cell phone so telephone lines are pointless (plus I can Skype people), and DSL is just...no.

[madnak]

But the infrastructure costs have largely been covered. And that's largely because of television. To sufficiently expand the actual carrier is a monumental task. Moreover, nobody has thus far achieved the ease of interface or cultural integration with for Internet that television already has. That's not a minor thing. Having the technology to do something and being able to viably implement that technology are two different things.

[BigBuffet]

Where is the paperless office that they talked about over thirty years ago /images/graemlins/grin.gif

As far as the question at hand, probably not. Not everyone is a balla willing to spend a shjtload on emerging technology comprised of many electronic toys that will need to be continually replaced. And not everyone enjoys being a slave to new gadgets.

Regular TV and Netflix will work well for many people.