Interwebology: Conceptualizing TV
With the advent of the iPad,
some industry commentators are
already predicting that children
being born today will likely grow
up on simulated, touch-screen keyboards,
seeing physical buttons the
same way adults today look at
typewriters. Landlines will be to
cell phones as rotary is to digital,
ethernet cables will be cast off as a
technological ball-and-chain, and
television will be a concept, not a
device.
Almost a quarter of people under the age of 25 say they now watch more TV online than on a television set (across the full spectrum of ages, this percentage drops just shy of a tenth), and more than half of viewers admit to consuming at least some of their television media this way.
It isn't really any wonder, with the high availability of pirated content, the increasing availability of legal content, and the convenience of the fact that Canadians spend more than 18 hours a week in front of their computers anyway, that viewership is shifting. In fact, despite increases in the use of both media, this year marks the first time that the Internet has outstripped television, which comes in just shy of 17 hours a week.
Cable and Internet companies alike have both taken note of these stats. While cable providers are trying to gain and retain customers by offering more diverse HD programming, flexible schedules, and, most recently, 3D options, computer and Internet companies are retaliating by making equipment designed to leave the office.
Ever since Google and Apple's less-than-amicable parting of ways, they seem to have become bitter rivals. Google has started developing a device comparable to (or, depending on who you ask, directly ripping off) Apple TV, but instead of providing content via iTunes, the Google product is based on the Android platform and will be seeking third-party development.
This seems a poor tactic, given that the technology behind the physical device itself comes in a distant second behind the software, and there have been no confirmed third parties stepping up to the plate to try to develop a functional and appealing interface.
While Apple TV has hardly been an overwhelming success, the data source behind it, iTunes, has proven unquestionably appealing, and Apple knows it. In fact, the company recently explored the option of improving iTunes as a source for TV shows by dropping the price per episode down to $1 (prices currently sit at $1.99 for standard definition, and $2.99 for HD).
This proposal lines up nicely with the release of the iPad, and some analysts believe it was timed specifically to boost the possibility and appeal of the device becoming a portable surrogate television.
While a few networks have shown interest in the proposal (CBS and ABC in particular), others seem to be holding back in lieu of potential repercussions from embittered cable providers who are only too aware of customer frustration with interruption-based advertising and high monthly fees.
The main weaknesses of using the Internet as a source for television content are, simply put, time and space. iTunes programs are generally available 24 hours after the show initially aired, but for those fearing spoilers at the water cooler, it may not be soon enough. As well, keeping all your favourite shows on your hard drive is a great way to eat space, though this problem could be made a non-issue if Apple moves further into the Cloud, which many see as inevitable anyway.
It isn't just TV shows being pulled in new directions. YouTube attempted a video rental trial-run two months ago, offering a selection of five Sundance Film Festival movies available at $3.99 each, and brought in more than $10,000 in the 10 day experiment. While the number is small compared to other revenue streams for the site, given the limited time and selection, and the just-shy-of-mainstream appeal of art house movies, the results are promising.
Even the Federal Communications Commission is on board, encouraging, as part of its Broadband Plan, amendments to the Copyright Act that would make it easier for content to be archived digitally, and for downstream rights to be granted for non-commercial use.
It is interesting to note that many cable providers these days are also Internet service providers, and yet the companies seem to remain resistant to this shift. With cable television dissatisfaction mounting, and near constant attempts to lay culpability for illegal content downloading, it would seem a natural progression for corporate offices worldwide to embrace the idea of legal Internet-based distribution. However, flexibility is rarely a popular corporate attitude, and what is now a shift in balance may, in the years to come, prove to be the next big media war.
Almost a quarter of people under the age of 25 say they now watch more TV online than on a television set (across the full spectrum of ages, this percentage drops just shy of a tenth), and more than half of viewers admit to consuming at least some of their television media this way.
It isn't really any wonder, with the high availability of pirated content, the increasing availability of legal content, and the convenience of the fact that Canadians spend more than 18 hours a week in front of their computers anyway, that viewership is shifting. In fact, despite increases in the use of both media, this year marks the first time that the Internet has outstripped television, which comes in just shy of 17 hours a week.
Cable and Internet companies alike have both taken note of these stats. While cable providers are trying to gain and retain customers by offering more diverse HD programming, flexible schedules, and, most recently, 3D options, computer and Internet companies are retaliating by making equipment designed to leave the office.
Ever since Google and Apple's less-than-amicable parting of ways, they seem to have become bitter rivals. Google has started developing a device comparable to (or, depending on who you ask, directly ripping off) Apple TV, but instead of providing content via iTunes, the Google product is based on the Android platform and will be seeking third-party development.
This seems a poor tactic, given that the technology behind the physical device itself comes in a distant second behind the software, and there have been no confirmed third parties stepping up to the plate to try to develop a functional and appealing interface.
While Apple TV has hardly been an overwhelming success, the data source behind it, iTunes, has proven unquestionably appealing, and Apple knows it. In fact, the company recently explored the option of improving iTunes as a source for TV shows by dropping the price per episode down to $1 (prices currently sit at $1.99 for standard definition, and $2.99 for HD).
This proposal lines up nicely with the release of the iPad, and some analysts believe it was timed specifically to boost the possibility and appeal of the device becoming a portable surrogate television.
While a few networks have shown interest in the proposal (CBS and ABC in particular), others seem to be holding back in lieu of potential repercussions from embittered cable providers who are only too aware of customer frustration with interruption-based advertising and high monthly fees.
The main weaknesses of using the Internet as a source for television content are, simply put, time and space. iTunes programs are generally available 24 hours after the show initially aired, but for those fearing spoilers at the water cooler, it may not be soon enough. As well, keeping all your favourite shows on your hard drive is a great way to eat space, though this problem could be made a non-issue if Apple moves further into the Cloud, which many see as inevitable anyway.
It isn't just TV shows being pulled in new directions. YouTube attempted a video rental trial-run two months ago, offering a selection of five Sundance Film Festival movies available at $3.99 each, and brought in more than $10,000 in the 10 day experiment. While the number is small compared to other revenue streams for the site, given the limited time and selection, and the just-shy-of-mainstream appeal of art house movies, the results are promising.
Even the Federal Communications Commission is on board, encouraging, as part of its Broadband Plan, amendments to the Copyright Act that would make it easier for content to be archived digitally, and for downstream rights to be granted for non-commercial use.
It is interesting to note that many cable providers these days are also Internet service providers, and yet the companies seem to remain resistant to this shift. With cable television dissatisfaction mounting, and near constant attempts to lay culpability for illegal content downloading, it would seem a natural progression for corporate offices worldwide to embrace the idea of legal Internet-based distribution. However, flexibility is rarely a popular corporate attitude, and what is now a shift in balance may, in the years to come, prove to be the next big media war.
