Hacker News Reader

Comment by raverbashing | Hacker News Reader

" ABC, NBC, CBS, and all the other broadcast networks would have had to change their business model and adapt or slowly die"

But here's the thing. They still have to do that

TV viewing is at an all-time low. Broadcast TV has a different business model than Cable, but viewings have been going down for both.

Aereo's was too much a bet for too small of a win. "Now you can watch open TV on the internet" Any broadcaster could decide to do this in house and it's done, no Aereo needed.

View on HN

"TV viewing is at an all-time low. Broadcast TV has a different business model than Cable, but viewings have been going down for both."

Kind of. Viewership numbers for individual networks and shows have been declining, but only because there is much more high-quality programming available to watch on cable. Used to be, networks like TBS, AMC, etc. only showed reruns of shows in syndication. Now they produce a significant amount of their own content, adding to the pool of high-quality shows. These shows draw viewers away from the historically "top" networks because TV entertainment is a fully mature /saturated market and thus zero-sum rules apply.

Also, while viewership numbers may look like they're declining overall, it's really because nobody can agree on the best way to measure viewership that is fragmented across the various title VI video services (live, DVR, on demand). People are undisputedly watching more video content than ever, and the vast majority of it comes from cable or broadcast. But it looks like viewership is declining because advertisers and broadcasters can't agree on a consistent measurement and ad sales methodology across the broadcast windows.

In-house is the problem. I don't want 200 separate media apps.

In Germany you can watch a lifestream of all the public and some of the private tv stations on their website in HD, more often than not together with some form of interactive chat. They even have a 2 hour time shift function and offer past broadcasts for on demand viewing, subject to some restrictions (After some lobbying by private tv stations the public stations are forced to delete certain content after a some period). You could have watched both the Olympics and the Worldcup at your own convenience that way, for example.

how is that implemented though? In italy basically all tv stations have online broadcasts, and the national TV (RAI) has both streaming and a huge online archive.

You could have watched the olympics and FIFA WorldCup in streaming (if you were in the country) but you'd likely have to use youtube, a custom flash player and silverlight :/

In Portugal all the broadcast TV have internet interfaces somewhere, you can point rtmpdump at their servers and watch TV with VLC. It's not a supported thing, just a backdoor to their own flash plugins.

You actually watch 200 TV channels? Also, why would apps be required? If they did this it would probably also work on the web. Take a look at BBC iPlayer/ITV Player/4OD in the UK. On demand and streaming via the web or mobile apps. Works pretty well.

Sure, but for things like tight integration with set-top boxes / consoles / mobile devices, a thick application would be required (unless every device gets magical, stable browsers with good non-desktop UXs), and if each provider creates their own media streams, you'll have enormous fragmentation of experiences and interfaces, as well as software clutter.

I don't want BBC iPlayer, ITV player, 40D, Fox Sports player, HBO player, Showtime player, Paramount player, Miramax player, Comedy Central player, AMC player, NBC player, Sony Pictures player, et al.

It doesn't matter if they are web apps or other apps. They are separate, and because of this, shitty.

Edit: Itunes for music was massively dominant because it has everything. Separate stores for every single music publisher would be ridiculous. The same goes for other media.

I take your point, I just don't think it's as shitty as you I guess. Obviously one, integrated solution would work best. But with music you only have half a dozen companies to deal with and you just have to sell their stuff. With TV you have hundreds of channels, different production companies, several revenue models, and huge variations in rights across the globe. Look at how long Apple has been supposedly working on a TV and even they can't make it work.

There are thousands of record companies inside Itunes.

There are the 4 majors (and their imprints etc.) and afaik a few groups that negotiate on behalf of the indies.

One of the things that Ted Turner did was turn WTBS into "The Superstation" by licensing it to cable operators across the country. And the rest is history.

I don't know why any broadcaster doesn't make the same move, becoming the "Internet Superstation".

> I don't know why any broadcaster doesn't make the same move, becoming the "Internet Superstation".

I'd argue Netflix beat them to the punch when it started creating original, acclaimed content. How many < 30 year olds don't regularly watch TV, but pay monthly for Netflix? I'm one.

I'm the same, no cable subscription, but I have both Netflix and Amazon Prime. However, I do miss slumping down after work and seeing some real-time, curated content like Adult Swim or Stewart / Colbert. It would also be nice to catch some morning news while I'm getting ready, or the occasional baseball game. All those things require real TV, not Netflix, and although I'm happy living without them, people like those kinds of content experiences and they are admittedly nice sometimes when vegging out is the purpose, and you don't want to even make a choice about what you watch.

You can get Stewart and Colbert on Hulu for free if you don't mind the ads, and TPB if don't care about IP rights. I'd pay for Adult Swim though, and I'm 32 (I grew up on Adult Swim late nights; still remember their hilarious bumps).

A lot. Its a fairly common topic of conversation with the <30 demo when you move calling comcast/time warner and requesting "Internet without TV or phone".

Most sales people get kinda bent hearing this. Hearing some of the deals they throw at you is hilarious, "We'll throw in channel package XYZ for only an extra $15 a month more then your internet." "Why would I pay more for something I'm not going to use?" "Well you own a TV don't you?" "Yes and its connected to a computer."

I love that conversation

> "Don't you own a TV?"

> "No, I don't. I own a 50 inch computer monitor. It's hooked to a Chromecast, Roku, and PlayStation. We don't own a 'TV' of any kind."

> Any broadcaster could decide to do this in house and it's done

Interestingly, in the UK, many broadcasters already do this. I can watch any BBC, ITV, or Channel 4 channel live from their websites, so long as I have a TV license.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com