Spot on,
I think the problem is that people are used to sit in front of the television and watch whatever crap is there just to spend time. It's hard to come up with decent content 24/7 the whole fricking year. That's why there's so much crap.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
NPD: Consumers Want Content, Not 'Smart' Features, on Their TVs
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Spot on,
I think the problem is that people are used to sit in front of the television and watch whatever crap is there just to spend time. It's hard to come up with decent content 24/7 the whole fricking year. That's why there's so much crap.
Do you have any idea what ESPN/ABC, Fox, CBS, NBC pay annually for the right to air sports content? You think "a couple bucks per month" is going to cover the revenue stream that ESPN, etc. currently get from airing TV ads?
Too many commercials equals nobody pays attention to em
Ads, commercials there's just way too much. No wonder nobody wants to watch live TV anymore. Using Eye TV, I routinely edit a one-hour showdown to 42 minutes.
That's about three minutes of content for one minute commercial.
Ads, commercials there's just way too much. No wonder nobody wants to watch live TV anymore. Using Eye TV, I routinely edit a one-hour showdown to 42 minutes.
That's about three minutes of content for one minute commercial.
That's because they have a poor network engineering team. Content distribution is really not that hard to do on a massive scale.
Hopefully content providers will hire smart people like myself who can setup and maintain these solutions.
I'm now in my 6th year without a TV set...
I'm a little further along..I gave up TV when the army broke mine in shipping in 2003..No I have a big Hi res display and all the netflix, Hulu, Youtube, Amazon instant, and ripped movies I want.
Problem is that younger folks don't care much for TV, and the older folks have a hard time accepting Televisions as throwaway appliances like computers. Americans expect to keep their TVs for at least 10 years and are not prone to buy one they see as burdened by features that will cause obsolescence.
Frankly, I agree with them. Content is much better delivered by STB or some other device. A TV should be a display.
----------
That's not a new development. That has always been the ratio.
Frankly, I agree with them. Content is much better delivered by STB or some other device. A TV should be a display.
----------
That's not a new development. That has always been the ratio.
I completely disagree. Many old folks have their working TV sitting on top of their non working TV.
TV's, books, and CDs for some reason get special treatment. Americans never throw away a book, and even had a hard time throwing the old AOL cd's in the can. You can go in almost any home and find an old tube TV that has not been used for years, but they can't seem to part with it.
TV's, books, and CDs for some reason get special treatment. Americans never throw away a book, and even had a hard time throwing the old AOL cd's in the can. You can go in almost any home and find an old tube TV that has not been used for years, but they can't seem to part with it.
The problem is a la carte is not as profitable as the current system. Everybody likes the concept of a la carte because they make the misguided assumption that they will spend less money watching the shows/channels they want. The problem is the number of people who are actually willing to pay for certain shows, even those they like, will result in a much smaller pie than the bundled network/channel model that's in place now.
The 'All You Can Eat' model makes people a lot less discerning about what they purchase. Until you can create a model that brings in similar revenue to the current model, an a la carte model is a non-starter.
----------
It'll be interesting to see where this goes. I love my DVR as much as the next person, but I also realize that advertising content offsets a lot of the cost of programming. If there is a significant decrease in the effectiveness of TV ads, will consumers be willing to pay the freight in higher costs through their cable/satellite providers?
Probably not....
If that day comes to pass, the industry will have to find creative ways to increase revenue streams.
Yes, but perhaps the new Apple TV (or Samsung or whoever) will be just that: a huge but lower pixel multi-purpose screen that can be used for gaming, Apple TV, computer stuff, and "TV".
I think the problem with television is the entire concept of television itself, as it is now and as it ever was. Maybe TV could be to the new Apple TV a tiny bit like what the telephone is to the iPhone: one decreasingly important feature among a gazillion other more versatile features.
Well hey! Look who just caught up!
Big Problem #1
The living room TV is a family resource. Unless you live alone.
But "social" and most internet communication in general, is personal. Nobody else cares.
Hogging the big, expensive, shared resource for your social activities is, well, anti-social in a home setting.
The home TV experience is completely different than the personal computer / pad computer / smart phone experience. Yes, it is possible to jam the personal computer experience (round peg) onto a big-screen television (square hole.) But no, consumers won't like it one bit. They didn't like it in the past. They don't like it now. They won't like it in the future.
WebTV tried it with standard-def TVs and dial-up modems (the past) Google TV tried it with HDTV screens and broadband internet access (the present). Same difference. Neither caught on. WebTV and Google TV are both dead. Why, exactly?
Big Problem #2
Your physical distance from the screen (or computer controls) directly affects your ability to deal with complexity. iPhone -> in your palm. iPad -> in your hands or on the desk/table right in front of you. Laptop -> right in front of you on your lap or desk. Desktop -> right in front of you on your desk. You can instantly tap, swipe, pinch, click, select, cut/copy/paste, drag 'n drop, etc. to complete tasks on all of these devices. You instantly touch their screen to control them or touch the keyboard and mouse that control them.
Then there's your living room TV. It's over there. Across the room, against the wall. You never touch it. It's at least 8 feet away from your favorite couch. It could be controlled by touch if you walked up to it, but that would be terribly inconvenient (and would lead to "Gorilla Arm" - look it up in Wikipedia). It could be controlled by a touchscreen controller (iPhone / iPad / iPod touch) but that raises the cost by that of the touchscreen device.
Controlling your living room TV with a conventional remote is like torture. (First world problem, I know.) But it's a torture we're accustomed to, because we've been trained since birth to accept it. 19th century people used horses every day for transportation, and they accepted all the manure (and the occasional dead horse) in the streets. No way to avoid it. It's just the way things were.
The more computer-like features your TV has, the more controlling it becomes like building a ship in a bottle. And that's true even if you have a wireless keyboard and mouse. Sheer torture. Ever try balancing a keyboard on your lap and trying to compose an email message on your TV? Or typing a 63-character URL? Or filling out a form on a web page? I have. It sucks.
So let's pretend that Apple can eliminate the need for any physical controller. Now that there's Siri, your big-screen TV could be controlled by voice. And maybe later, an iSight camera could detect faces and gestures too. No remote to lose. No extra iPhone / iPad / iPod touch to buy if your family members happen to not be fully equipped already. You'd launch apps, compose tweets, check power tool prices on Amazon, just by speaking and gesturing. Seems like it might work, but...
Nope. Even if it were possible to instantly compose emails, tweets, and Facebook scribbles, we run smack into Big Problem #1. The anti-social nature of hogging the big-screen family TV for your own boring, irrelevant internet stuff. And even if you live alone and have the big-screen TV all to yourself 24/7, the novelty of using it as a super big monitor will wear off after 15 minutes. You'll just use your iPad as a 2nd screen for all that internet stuff anyway.
One screen just isn't enough any more. But that's another thread entirely.
Exactly, à la carte TV without ads (the "no channels" concept) would be ridiculously expensive. If not plain impossible to market.
I, personally, love the concept of custom content but I don't think we'll ever see it. Unless people are willing to pay hundreds of dollars a month for their small selection of shows. Yeah, I don't think so either...
Simple history: No buck a show, no Apple TV. Apple needs gigantic catalogs of appealing and cheap digital media as fuel to launch its devices. A buck a title is the price/title that Apple discovered would sell its iOS devices: No buck a tune, and the iPod would have failed. No buck an app and arguably the iPhone would have failed and the iPad also. So Apple will not produce an iMax until it can sell or at least rent tons of great prime time and feature length shows at about a buck a piece. Apple knows better than to put lipstick on the pig that is the TV/cable industry today. Apple sells solutions not toys.
What, you mean like internet blogs and forums where people congregate to socialise about various themes and topics in which they share an interest? I sure hope not.
It is very unlikely anyone will offer comprehensive content at reasonable cost to significant number of end users. Licensing would be too complex, it would require extraordinary renegotiation across a US market. Then add the FCC constrains of applied censorship within the US and there is no possible way you will be able to select a full broadcast from Teheran, Rome, London, Moscow or any other critical source of world news. Uncensored. Then again, does the American market really cares with its need to view en masse some retarded college football on New Year's Eve instead of something even slightly more sophisticated, does it care for any content exceeding needs of a tv hayseed? The more important issues in the USA market is to be able to brag about pixel count, gun ammo capacity and the screen size.
Last edited:
How Much?
This.
But what you have here is a la carte. We can only hope that something like this comes to pass.
This.
But what you have here is a la carte. We can only hope that something like this comes to pass.
We just bought a 30 inch flatscreen TV for $200. Works great as a second screen for the laptop too.
Used laptop and 30 inch TV/monitor, total price $600.
You want an even Smarter TV? Why don't you just buy a Mini and use it as an HTPC. It works great for me.
then Google will release a free Smart TV OS that is suddenly much easier to use than its current Google TV OS......
The Samsung Smart TV ads are some of the dumbest things I've seen...having to stand in front of your TV and wave your hand to do stuff...just make that doable on the remote (tablet) if you want something like that and use your finger.
The majority of my family and friends...no one wants a 'smart' TV...they just want a dumb TV with a phenomenal picture, 120-240Hz, 3D and some good picture control features. They don't want integrated social apps or Samsung apps or even Netflix, etc.
The majority of my family and friends...no one wants a 'smart' TV...they just want a dumb TV with a phenomenal picture, 120-240Hz, 3D and some good picture control features. They don't want integrated social apps or Samsung apps or even Netflix, etc.
That's been the future for the last few years. Netflix, Hulu, iTunes. They've all been attempting to give you a selection of movies and TV shows you can watch any time you want.
Problem is, the content providers are intent on hamstringing them every chance they get. Rupert Murdoch all but butchered Hulu. The studios keep Netflix from streaming the latest movies for months on end. iTunes manages to eek by relatively unscathed because it's not a subscription service. Problem is it's a bit expensive comparatively.
Basically, Apple, Samsung, whoever could come up with the best, easiest, most "it just works" way to get movies and TV shows to some random fancy future-TV a'la carte. But until the content providers get on board, it'll never go anywhere.
----------
Actually, I know quite a few people who bought a Samsung SmartTV just for Netflix.
The rest is true, though. Who the hell wants to read Facebook on a TV sitting 15-20 feet away from you? You have tablets and laptops for that.
This model may have made sense if it was released in a world before DVR's. But if someone can 'Season Pass' a show and skip ads under the 'all you can eat' model, what is the upside to suddenly having to pay a more the higher cost of an 'on demand' model and being force fed ads?
Users may not want channels. But the entertainment industry relies on many made by some shows to bankroll an entire lineup of shows. Cable/Satellite providers rely on certain shows/networks to carry the entire model.
They have no incentive to change unless they can realistically recoup the same revenue.
A la carte sounds great in theory until people start having to make actual purchase decisions. Love Breaking Bad - sure. Love Breaking Bad enough to pay $39.99 to get it on demand - not so sure.
The current Hulu, iTunes, models work because it's basically 'gravy' money for old content.
The netflix thing annoys me. They have dvds by mail, but it doesn't allow me to immediately choose to watch something at that time. My movie watching habits are pretty random. Itunes rentals work okay. Television episodes are a different thing. TV stations no longer stream them. I believe it ended with the writers dispute on royalties related to material viewed via internet streaming. I'm not sure a'la carte would work the way people think. It might cost significantly more for popular shows if they aren't subsidized by ad content. Obviously if you rely on your cable provider for internet, you will lose any bundling discounts. If they're in the neighborhood of $3 to rent and your internet bill increases, it might not be that great of a deal. It could be easier to find shows you like, but I'm not sure if this would help on the content end. Networks are likely to be even more conservative with the content they approve if margins decline.
Ever seen back to the future? I'm like the keeper of cheesy references.
We got so tired of paying our TV content aggregator for the privilege to watch a ridiculously small percentage of what they bundled that we just cut the cord. We put a good antenna in the attic, got a TiVO to time shift, and if a program isn't broadcast we get along without it. There are a ton of people who did this long before we did, but it still feels great.
We'll pay iTunes to rent the occasional movie, but it turns out we're not nearly as addicted as we thought. I really don't find a giant hole in my life without ESPN, which is surprising. We read a lot more, savor the good shows we TiVO, and if Apple offers a la carte, great. But if the industry can't figure out how to sell me only what I think is worth buying, I won't buy anything from the industry.
That kilobuck a year I'm saving will buy us much better experiences.
We'll pay iTunes to rent the occasional movie, but it turns out we're not nearly as addicted as we thought. I really don't find a giant hole in my life without ESPN, which is surprising. We read a lot more, savor the good shows we TiVO, and if Apple offers a la carte, great. But if the industry can't figure out how to sell me only what I think is worth buying, I won't buy anything from the industry.
That kilobuck a year I'm saving will buy us much better experiences.
A la carte programming is much more complicated than people make it out to be. Advertising drives programming and content supports other content. If you moved to an a la carte system you will likely see even less choice, with chances being that the stuff you like will never even make it to production. Production campaniles will take even less risk. There's a reason why there's a deluge of crappy cheap reality programming out there.