TV vs. The Internet: Who Will Win? | Hacker News Reader

TV vs. The Internet: Who Will Win?

nybooks.com

39 pointsprostoalex33 comments

Internet or Cable is just the delivery model.

TV is still TV irrelevant of whether the screen is your monitor or a Smart TV... Delivery owners are also the content owners, and they playing hardball against players such as Netflix. If you own the premium content you're not going to give it away. People will follow where the premium content lives, this is why Netflix etc have had to produce content.

I wrote about this stuff about a year ago across 4 posts -http://www.hoista.net/post/100055701637/pt-4-ad-platforms-an... http://www.hoista.net/post/99371777282/pt-3-content-packagin...

http://www.hoista.net/post/97194595897/pt-2-content-creation... http://www.hoista.net/post/95719699857/digital-disruption-in...

The internet. Really.

It's like asking "Horse vs Car: who will win?". People in 1900 may have said "horse, of course", but we know the real answer, given time.

Oh, and by the way, 18-24 demographic is watching less and less tv...

"Cord-cutting" has moved past Bleeding Edge and Early Adopters. Currently, Late Adopters are cutting their cable cords, and soon the Long Tail will be the only cable TV market.

My son is 21 and only has cable at the apartment.

Nice to hear that your son is a Late Adopter for this video source change.

I'm 28 and haven't had an antenna plugged into my TV since moving out of home, what's your point?

I meant to type Internet, but said cable. My point was actually supportive.

I haven't had cable for well over 10 years now, and I don't miss it one bit.

One great side effect is that when I choose to consume shows tv shows I do it without ads.

I haven't had it for several years, and I'm very happy with my Chromecast, Netflix / Google Play combo. I spend less, watch less, and don't have to deal with commercials.

I wouldn't trade it for Cable TV even if it was cheaper.

My 6 year old used to watch lots of TV when he was 4. Now he watches Youtube, and the occasional thing on our FireTV box.

What should really terrify the TV networks is that not only have heve, and lots of his friends, ditched the classic TV channels, and certainly viewing it on TV, but they've largely ditched commercial TV shows:

My son, for example, prefers watching people roleplay scenarios in custom Minecraft worlds or G-Mod to high value commercial productions.

I'm sure TV in some form will survive (over the internet...), but there'll be a massacre where the traditional channels are reduced to niches, and on-demand becomes a battleground between high value studio productions on one end, and rapidly professionalised small independent "studios" ranging from one person with a webcam and up on the other.

Ther internet is a looong way from winning.

When I turn on my cable TV, there is always something playing - instantly. When I change the channel, whatever is on the other channel is now playing - instantly. My TV always works - it never buffers, shows glitchy video, or requires a page refresh (or god forbid a reboot).

I've been watching TV on the internet for 5+ years, and it still hasn't overcome these basic quality issues. Until it does, there's no way that it will put a real dent in cable/satellite usage.

That facilitates people who want to watch anything right now and don't care what it is. But for people for whom consuming video content is just one of the things they do with their free time and who choose what to watch ahead of time, those are not benefits.

Not being suitable for "couch potato" viewers isn't a competitive disadvantage. People under 30 don't watch TV conventionally much any more, and as old people ... ahem ... go away, fewer and fewer people will care about conventional television.

I notice a very distinct difference there between my son and I. I will say "let's turn on the TV". He'll say "I want to watch X".

The concept of just switching on the TV and zapping is something that just does not exist for him.

Sling TV is exactly the internet version of this experience.

I can relate to your point in general. The Internet is indeed quirky and glitchy, while TV generally works even for the elderly. However...

> My TV always works - it never buffers, shows glitchy video, or requires a page refresh (or god forbid a reboot).

... I guess you haven't had an IPTV setup, yet. :) I did (I have FTA DVB-T now) and buffering + glitchy video is a reality more frequently than I'd expect. Reboots are also necessary and were really deal breakers, as I didn't have RF overlay.

One could argue, though, that IPTV is more Internet than TV, or at least has the bad part of the Internet leaking to the TV realm and adding quirkiness. It's true. However, as mentioned above, now I have DVB-T and, god, buffering and glitchy video are even worst (but that's politics and clientelism, which is different matter for another discussion).

My point being: considering that TV "just works", nowadays, isn't really so clear-cut. Digital transmission and encoding, all these apps and added value with the extra capabilities of set-top boxes, yadda yadda, actually made it worse! Talk about having technology pushed down our throats (and to no advantage!). We just got a worst experience - it's a great example of how much telcos (IT in general, I'd say) aren't customer-centric.

> My TV always works

TV's can suffer hardware failure too. And if you actually want to watch more than the basic few channels offered on terrestrial, you'd need a freeview / cable / satellite set top box or equivalent built into the TV, and those devices can occasionally crash.

> it never buffers

Technically digital stations (satellite, UK terrestrial, cable, etc) do buffer, albeit tiny amounts.

> shows glitchy video

That can and occasionally does happen. Particularly with satellite or terrestrial signals during really heavy storms. Albeit it's a rarity rather than the norm. But then it's also rare that I have glitchy IPTV / internet streams too.

> or requires a page refresh (or god forbid a reboot)

...unless you're running a set top box of some description. My Sky+ box crashes about once every 2 or 3 months. I can imagine smart TVs would be subject to occasional software glitches over the course of their lifetime as well.

</pedant>

However I do see your point. But to have equivalent features of IPTV without the internet, you need the extra stuff (satellite / cable, DVR, etc) that can be just as error prone as IPTV. And you still miss out on a few niceties like "on demand" services (BBC iPlayer et al).

Personally I could go without a normal TV subscription and go 100% IPTV, but my wife loves Sky (satellite TV - for anyone not UK based). I do realise I'm a nerd so will have biases towards IPTV, but I think we have a good mix of watching 50% "normal" TV and 50% internet TV.

My "Smart" TV takes an infuriating amount of time to "boot up". To change the video input, I probably have to wait around 2-3 eternities. At least that's how it feels when I already have in my head the instantaneous experience I grew up with. Recognizing external media is just as slow. We picked our set because it had great marks for input latency and motion blur (gaming focus). I wish we had just gotten a simple display with a separate KVM switch, but we found nothing well-reviewed and in-budget like that. Now is that a victory for TV or Internet?

I think that criticism to the internet is unfair. With the internet, you get to control the content you browse while TV more or less makes the decision for you.

I think that's probably the point. Sometimes you want to just sit down, veg out, decompress, and just absorb. There doesn't seem to be a good way to get a near infinite stream of recent, reasonable quality content on the Internet yet, without having to do anything but switch it on, click a link, and adjust the volume. The "channels" that come close on the Internet just don't have enough content. After a few hours (or an hour or so a day over several days) you're watching the same things over again (and this happens on cable networks with less content as well). YouTube and Netflix both made big strides on this by automatically playing relevant content, but there is stil nothing that is the equivalent of a 24 hour news channel.

open a cat video on YT, let YT launch next recommended clip, you just created an endless feed of cats

>there is always something playing

I dont care about "something", I only watch what I want, when I want it, and how I want it (fast forward skipping boring bits)

Don't worry, smart TVs will bring internet levels of reliability to your television! /sarcasm

I'm one of a dwindling cohort of people watching TV using Windows Media Center as a PVR. I switched to it after a succession of set-top-boxes from BT were sufficiently bad (slow UI, crashy, locked down) and have been fairly happy with it. What I really want is something like a Chromecast or Apple TV with a DVB-T input and eSATA, but for some reason nobody making things that plug into the TV remembers the TV input.

(Does America even have DVB-T?)

We have ATSC for unencrypted digital broadcasts. It's still possible to build a MythTV PVR system, but the software is getting flaky and fewer and fewer ATSC receivers work in Linux.

I haven't had any network television - either cable or over airways - for many years. You are correct that the television is reliable and there will always be something or another playing. The thing is this: I don't value such a thing. I do not find that the internet is less reliable than the television/cable were, but the user experience is different. I treasure being able to watch something that fits my needs on my schedule. I treasure variety. These are things that the networks haven't been able to properly provide. A relaxing day of working on artwork in front of entertainment - the absorption others were speaking of - is easily obtained with John Oliver or conspiracy theories set on Youtube's autoplay.

For clarity, stating the difference between the two is beneficial. "TV" is a single-channel system, in that the user has a single input to control their output: which channel. 1:1. "The Internet" has a much broader range of control, simply by the mechanism of processing input before sending output. No longer is input:output 1:1.

Honestly, I'm disappointed this even made it to the front page. "who will win" TV vs internet is no longer a legitimate or interesting question. Unless we're having a business or politics discussion about industries lobbying their way to success, there's is no room for rational disagreement about who will win. The internet will continue to cannibalize TV from the bottom up (or the top down if you want to go by ratings).

I had a Diamond Rio pmp300 32MB mp3 player in 1998. An iPod didn't come out for 3 years. An iPhone didn't come out for 9 years. Even though the Diamond only held 8 songs, I knew the SECOND I hit play that every other mobile audio technology was dead. It was just a matter of time.

I think sometimes - subconsciously - we believe too much in the efficient market - that if we see an opportunity for arbitrage that WE must be wrong - the market must have already accounted for it. But that's just how things work... sometimes very obviously correct concepts take awhile to actually take hold.

TV already lost. It will just take the world a few years to realize it.

TV already lost. It will just take the world a few years to realize it.

This remainds me of Clay Shirky and his "the future of print remains what?"

https://medium.com/@cshirky/last-call-c682f6471c70

Not long ago I found a quiz which purported to measure how much of a "millenial" the test taker was, ultimately it boiled down to three main characteristics of "millenials", one of which was whether or not they watch TV. Younger people just don't watch TV conventionally much any longer. They may watch TV shows, but they do so using computing devices and the internet, not cable or broadcasts. The internet will only get better for that, and people will increasingly be abandoning conventional TV service.

More so when you consider that more and more of the highest quality and most popular video content has shifted away from the traditional model of regularly aired shows and schedule based content consumption to more plot driven content that is designed more for on-demand viewing. The shows people are watching the most and talking about the most are increasingly of the type that have fewer episodes per "season" and are more story driven. And many of the most popular shows today are only available online (House of Cards, Daredevil, House of Cards, Narcos, Sense8, etc.)

A lot of teens and younger folks aren't even watching traditional television style content. They're watching "streamers" and other video content on youtube. As they get older they may start watching more episodic content but I doubt they'll magically morph into traditional couch potatoes. That era is, I think, firmly in the past.

Once I found Edonkey2000 and then BitTorrent way back in the day (2003) I started watching less Cable and TV in general.

Though it took a ton of time to download content back then....content I would organize and really never watch a lot of. That got old after awhile and then YouTube and the other streaming sites came online. THe best one was Justin.TV.... marathons of your favorite shows running 24/7.. whenever you wanted to watch. There are some sites still online now, but nothing with same catalog Justin.TV allowed on their site via the DMCA.

Either way and as to many here Cable TV is the dodo bird and going that way in the next five or so years for all demographics!

I can no longer tolerate TV. Using the Internet has made me a control freak. Even with buffering etc, the TV user interface is primitive.

In the past month I started watching the programs Difficult People & You're the Worst. One made for Hulu, the other for FX. And to be perfectly honest if I was blind taste testing and had to peg which one was which, it be a shot in the dark. Also, haven't cable boxes just been really crappy computers for years?

Kidding right? I stopped watching TV 8 years ago. Who wants to make an appointment to watch a show? Tried cable for a few days because Cablevision insisted... canceled it two days later.

You should try a DVR. They're magic once you get used to it.

This synopsis of Michael Wolff's book is so far off the mark, it seems Mr. Weisberg missed the point. I found the book to be far more nuanced, intelligent and provocative than the Mr. Weisberg would have you believe. And I'm someone who's heavily invested in the idea that the eponymous Internet, in terms of the battle royale mentioned in the headline of this post, will win. Of course, when it's put that way, I think Michael Wolff would agree.

The "Television" Wolff refers to is the business, not the device. Or as Wolff states:

"TV the business model derives revenue from content pushed through a distribution network also called 'TV.' The health of the distribution channel is a vastly different issue from the health of the businesses using it.

"Of all the bets to make, perhaps the least safe one--and the bet underpinning digital's hopes of grabbing a meaningful piece of television's revenues--is that people will stop watching TV, even if they stop watching THE TV."

What Wolff is addressing is the argument that YouTube and Facebook could kill the industry creating "professionally made, scripted narratives." His argument is that YouTube and Facebook's business models are essentially selling advertising and nothing attracts advertising dollars nearly as well as high quality, professionally produced content. User generated content, on the other hand, will never have the same value to advertisers in large part because there is just too much of it. If YouTube and Facebook want to grab a piece of TV's revenues, then they need to get in the Television business--or more precisely, in the business of creating exclusive professional, scripted narrative content. In doing so, they'll help fund the existing institution consisting of writers, directors, producers and actors that are currently in the Television business.

Michael Wolff sees cord-cutters dropping cable television in favor of Netflix as proof rather than an anomaly. "Digital Convergence," Wolff states, "turns out not so much to be about bringing computing to your television but about bringing more television to your television." After all, when Netflix needed a break-through television series in a competitive landscape that was becoming increasingly commoditized, they turned to well known and well established Hollywood talent in the form of David Fincher and Kevin Spacey. Netflix, a tech company, became a traditional stodgy television company.

Wolff's ideas around bundling are incredibly provocative and worthy of discussion. To him, the current iteration of cable bundling is inevitably doomed. And what will replace it? Different, more efficient, more transparent bundles. After all, aren't Netflix, Hulu Plus, HBO Go and Sling their own forms of a bundle?

Regarding the cable companies, they of course own the high speed connections necessary to receive the new form of Television. It turns out that they will be just fine as well.

Bottom line, Television is the New Television is a challenging read. You'd be wrong to dismiss it for being the same old story where the horse has already left the barn. If you can digest the nuance and complexity of his argument, I think you'd agree it's a little ahead of it's time even if it sounds at first like anything but.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com