Is the electronic cat out of the bag?

[CrankyYankee]

It would appear so according to this http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=56756 article.

The company, http://www.sunny-net.ne.jp/ offers stateside TV to overseas laptop subscribers. I always raise an eyebrow when an advertisement tells me what they are selling is "legal." In other words, if it's legal, why do you have to tell us that it is?

Anyhow, give the article a read and see what you think about this. They are obviously aiming the service at Americans(military and otherwise) living in Japan and Okinawa.

 

[fussbudget]

Yep, the electronic cat is out of the bag and using the litter box on the world's broadcast media. Witness the availability of pirated streams from the Olympic games.
As fast as NBC gets one shut down, another pops up. The days of being tied to a TV to watch your favorite shows are over.

 

[DoneDrinkingKoolAid]

Bottom line is that broadcast television (networks and locals) and the cable industry must find ways to adopt. This is technology that people want. When the technology is available, people accept that technology whether its legal or not. Case and point, the MP3/Ipod revolution versus broadcast radio.

Television will lose too.

Transform to technology before its too late.

 

[fortmill]

I know I'm showing my age, but I have no desire to watch TV programs on my PC, and certainly not on my cell phone. Yes, I enjoy seeing videos on computer, including news items and Youtube, but not full length, regular programing. A spent a sh--load of money on a big screen TV with a beautiful picture for that. It still amazes me that many people prefer to use a cell phone for all their telephone needs when landline service is so much more dependable, higher quality, and much less expensive---so I wouldn't doubt PC TV catches fire---if it does it will be another one of those things I don't understand about teens and twenty-somethings...

 

[DoneDrinkingKoolAid]

PCtv is the wave of the future. In fact, I was discussing that with friends last night... and trust me, I'm a twenty-something for the past few decades.

As we were gathered on my back patio having a few cold adult beverages the discussion of the Olympics came to pass. It was briefly discussed that we should move inside to watch the coverage. That option was quickly dispelled as the evening was too beautiful to abandon for the boob tube. We lamented for thirty minutes or so that the same notebook computer that we were using could be used to stream live video if only I had the required equipment.

I say this is I'm presently sitting next to the fire on my back patio 24 hours later. We are using our 802.11b/g connections to connect wirelessly to our networks for all kinds of things, from responding to messages in the Radio-Info message boards to surfing the net and streaming live music.

We're using the core of the technology. It is just a matter of time before the practicality of PCtv becomes the norm and our TV set is as portable as our former CD collection.

 

[dhett]

PCTV is not practical. No one wants to lug a laptop around with them. And cell phones? Too small for TV.

Until a small unit can project a holographic image large enough to be seen, cell phone TV will continue to be just a toy.

 

[DoneDrinkingKoolAid]

The practicality or impracticality of PCTV cannot be debated based on how we as an individual user consumes technology. This is the same archaic argument that failed to recognize the role of the MP3 in the early days of consumer adoption. As a result, the state of the radio broadcast industry is decaying at an almost daily rate, impacted most dramatically from the technology that broadcasters refused to recognize and counter prior to its adoption by the masses.

At this time, the minuscule size of cell phone screens is a detriment to using the average flip phone for consuming PCTV applications. The cell phone industry is evolving with smartphones and sliders which bring with them larger screens that provide more real estate for even more video portability. At this time, I would personally tend to agree that both screen size and data rates are precluding PCTV adoption on the cell phone platform. As the industry evolves with improved technology, lower data rates, and faster data transmission, perhaps this too shall change.

The issue that many fail to recognize is that consumers ARE 'lugging' their laptops. From airports and bookstores to parks and malls, the mobile computing revolution has been accepted by the masses. Just because we as an individual may not consume the technology in this fashion does not mean that the masses have not accepted the technology.

Last week the elevator in my building broke down, trapping four occupants. No functional call button or emergency board as it had been unknowingly vandalized. Of course cell phones in the elevator really aren't an option because there is no room for 'the network'. Apparently cramming all of those network people in a little elevator car would result in the car being overweight. How was the call to help made? Powering up the notebook PC and sending an e-mail asking a co-worker to call for help. Three out of the four people on the elevator had their notebook PC with them.

This is not science fiction, this is science fact. In 2007, 31.6 million notebook units shipped compared to 35 million desktop units. According to IDC, notebook PC sales are expected to eclipse desktop sales this year. Now, the vast majority of desktops sold in the US are purchased by business and government users for a workplace environment. That means that the average consumer that selects a PC is buying a notebook PC. Sure, some are buying because of the smaller form factor and space saving design. But the crux of the sales are driven by portability. 31.6 million people last year have spoken. The issue is not 'lugging', this is the nature of the design, and people are using the technology in the intended fashion.

PCTV is the logical evolution at present onto the notebook PC platform. Quality issues, certainly. We know the quality issues that exist with MP3's, but they didn't stop their de-facto adoption as a consumer standard.

There are two options... lead or follow.
AM/FM combos vs. AM stand alone
MP3 vs. CD
Ipod vs. Terrestrial Radio
Napster/Limewire/Bit Torrent et al. vs. RIAA

Those that fail to adopt are often left behind to wallow in their poor decision making. Adopting and integrating the technology will provide for the platform standard to be set by the industry and not the consumer.

If only broadcasting would learn from the specter of its past.

 

[dhett]

The issue that many fail to recognize is that consumers ARE 'lugging' their laptops. From airports and bookstores to parks and malls, the mobile computing revolution has been accepted by the masses. Just because we as an individual may not consume the technology in this fashion does not mean that the masses have not accepted the technology.

Not as many as you apparently think. Perhaps in the college and even the twenty-something crowd, but I don't see it beyond that. And it's not that the 30-49 crowd isn't technologically savvy; we are. I am a consumer of such technology, but in extremely limited fashion because the places I need to go aren't conducive to carrying a laptop, and if I were to carry one, it would likely be for business, meaning TV is inappropriate.

Your argument sounds like that of the HD radio proponents - it seems to make sense, and the technophiles eat it up, but the average Joe doesn't have a clue.

What you're missing is that for most people, especially those with families, TV is a social event, not just consumption of programming. Laptops are geared for individual viewers only. Furthermore, the services you tout are subscription-only. If I have a family, and I'm shelling out $50-$100 per month (or more) for cable or satellite, I neither have the inclination to pay more for laptop TV, nor the money. And that goes double for OTA-only households.

What amazes me, and I'm showing my age here, is how inwardly-focused the younger generations are. I see people under thirty walking around with their MP3s and video games, completely oblivious to what is going on around them. I have seen, and this is no lie, cars with four people in them, and every person is talking on a cell phone instead of talking to each other.

PCTV technology will be popular with some, but it has far too many shortcomings at its present stage of development to ever replace traditional means of watching TV. Unless we see profound improvement in holographic technology, whereby PCTV can become a social event, I don't see it expanding far beyond a niche audience.

 

[Markxxx]

I think we've learned thru MP3 and cell phones consumers WILL trade a certain amount of quality for convenience.

Young people growing up won't know the difference so they will grow up accepting things like little TV.

I've seen HDTV and it IS incredible, but as I've said, outside of a few things, nature shows, it's no real advantage. The news isn't any more "in-depth," Seinfeld isn't any funnier, Eli Manning doesn't throw a better pass, just because we can see it better.

I think there will always be a market for TV like we have it now but we'll see the market share go down. Like when I worked in the office, I would like to listen to newsradio, just to get some background noise. I wouldn't choose to download it, but if it's on I'll listen. That kind of thing will still have a market, but it will become less common.

 

[DoneDrinkingKoolAid]

Perhaps in the college and even the twenty-something crowd, but I don't see it beyond that. And it's not that the 30-49 crowd isn't technologically savvy

Wow! I didn't realize that Arizona was ten years behind the rest of the United States.

As a result, I've conducted an informal observation as people were leaving my building today. From my direct estimates 68% of those leaving were toting a notebook portfolio or rolling notebook case. People are carrying notebook PC's.

From businessmen and lawyers to contractors and HVAC technicians, the demands of career are evolving and this evolution requires the acceptance of portable computing. As a result, a computer is never farther than a few feet away.

Your argument sounds like that of the HD radio proponents - it seems to make sense, and the technophiles eat it up, but the average Joe doesn't have a clue.

This is not a technophile issue. This is traditionalism versus technology. Your mindset is atypical of the broadcasting as each new technology is introduced. Refuse to recognize the new technology until the new technology is kicking broadcasting's a**. As a result, the industry will sit around and complain about the technology, attempt to lobby to legislate the technology out of existence (ala VCR's), and finally, when all else fails, come to grips with a technology that it should have accepted in the first place.

Things may be different in Polyana, AZ... but in the rest of the world the society has evolved. For better or worse, the general population has moved away from the family gathering on the soft watching the Wheel of Fortune. Dad is researching stocks on the computer in the den, Mom is on eBay in the bedroom, Ethan is heading to soccer practice with his Ipod, Hannah on her cell phone, and Jacob is on the WII with a friend. Families do not gather for family night any longer. Technology has changed the way that we use technology and interact with others. This technology has made us individual consumers of media. Mayberry is dead.

I will agree that the subscription model is flawed. There are other technologies such as Slingbox or HDHomeRun where the consumer becomes their own service provider, streaming video in a format and arrangement to which the consumer has already become accustom. I believe that this model is the trend of the future as it places the consumer in control of their own media and minimizes digital rights issues as the a consumers private encoding of a media stream is a personal issue.

PCTV is the natural evolution. The core technology in the form of notebook PC's are already in the hands of consumers, cost of acquiring additional technology is low, availability is easy, broadband networking infrastructure is in place, and streaming your own content provides the best price point of all... free.





What you're missing is that for most people, especially those with families, TV is a social event, not just consumption of programming. Laptops are geared for individual viewers only. Furthermore, the services you tout are subscription-only. If I have a family, and I'm shelling out $50-$100 per month (or more) for cable or satellite, I neither have the inclination to pay more for laptop TV, nor the money. And that goes double for OTA-only households.

What amazes me, and I'm showing my age here, is how inwardly-focused the younger generations are. I see people under thirty walking around with their MP3s and video games, completely oblivious to what is going on around them. I have seen, and this is no lie, cars with four people in them, and every person is talking on a cell phone instead of talking to each other.

PCTV technology will be popular with some, but it has far too many shortcomings at its present stage of development to ever replace traditional means of watching TV. Unless we see profound improvement in holographic technology, whereby PCTV can become a social event, I don't see it expanding far beyond a niche audience.

 

[dhett]

Perhaps in the college and even the twenty-something crowd, but I don't see it beyond that. And it's not that the 30-49 crowd isn't technologically savvy

Wow! I didn't realize that Arizona was ten years behind the rest of the United States.

Arguing with put-downs instead of facts. Very nicely done. You have me convinced.

Arizona is so far behind the times that Intel has major operations here, as do other high-tech companies.

As a result, I've conducted an informal observation as people were leaving my building today. From my direct estimates 68% of those leaving were toting a notebook portfolio or rolling notebook case. People are carrying notebook PC's.

From businessmen and lawyers to contractors and HVAC technicians, the demands of career are evolving and this evolution requires the acceptance of portable computing. As a result, a computer is never farther than a few feet away.

That's not the point. Those are business laptops, not personal. The organization I work for is very stringent about the software people install on their machines - that is, the company's machines. PCTV is inappropriate. And those people you saw were likely carrying them home, so they could work at home. Where they already have a TV - probably a hi-def, big screen TV with surround sound. Continue to follow them after they've reached their homes, and now are heading out for the evening, or are out on the weekend, and they most likely don't have those laptops with them.

Maybe it's because I live in an outdoor culture. When people go out, it's to go hiking, boating, biking, camping, golfing, running, walking, skiing, etc. Not much use for a laptop. And even the less active among us are going to the movies, out to dinner, or to ballgames (indoor or outdoor). Those are social events, where I want to interact with the people I'm with, not with a computer screen. If I'm going to just stare at a computer screen, I might as well stay home - where I have my big screen TV.

Your argument sounds like that of the HD radio proponents - it seems to make sense, and the technophiles eat it up, but the average Joe doesn't have a clue.

This is not a technophile issue. This is traditionalism versus technology. Your mindset is atypical of the broadcasting as each new technology is introduced. Refuse to recognize the new technology until the new technology is kicking broadcasting's a**. As a result, the industry will sit around and complain about the technology, attempt to lobby to legislate the technology out of existence (ala VCR's), and finally, when all else fails, come to grips with a technology that it should have accepted in the first place.

There won't be a butt-kicking here. New technology is great, and it's quickly embraced when it's an improvement for the average person. (eg.: VCRs, DVD players, DVRs, CDs, MP3 technology, cable TV, satellite TV, DTV, HDTV, cell phones, IPhones) But if it doesn't improve the lot of the average person, or doesn't return a greater benefit than cost, new technology is rejected. (eg.: BetaMax vs. VHS, DVD recorders, AM stereo, HD radio, OTA subscription TV) I don't see broad-based benefit to PCTV.

Things may be different in Polyana, AZ... but in the rest of the world the society has evolved. For better or worse, the general population has moved away from the family gathering on the soft watching the Wheel of Fortune. Dad is researching stocks on the computer in the den, Mom is on eBay in the bedroom, Ethan is heading to soccer practice with his Ipod, Hannah on her cell phone, and Jacob is on the WII with a friend. Families do not gather for family night any longer. Technology has changed the way that we use technology and interact with others. This technology has made us individual consumers of media. Mayberry is dead.

Another put-down! Oooo, and I can just feel the smug, too! But you're just proving to me that your argument doesn't hold water. I will assure you that you are dead wrong about families; they still communicate and do things together, but I was thinking more about inviting friends and family over to watch the big game, or going out together to catch it at a sports bar. Watching a game with other like-minded fans is great; watching it with the enemy is even better - especially when your team is winning. You can't do that with a laptop.

I will agree that the subscription model is flawed. There are other technologies such as Slingbox or HDHomeRun where the consumer becomes their own service provider, streaming video in a format and arrangement to which the consumer has already become accustom. I believe that this model is the trend of the future as it places the consumer in control of their own media and minimizes digital rights issues as the a consumers private encoding of a media stream is a personal issue.

When each new iteration of the IPhone comes out, there's huge buzz and people line up to buy. Where's the buzz over Slingbox and HDHomeRun? It isn't there because those technologies appeal to a niche audience. And they're great for those people, but the general public couldn't care less. Now you can dismiss them all as Luddites and crow about how they're behind the times, but I think they're wiser.

PCTV is the natural evolution. The core technology in the form of notebook PC's are already in the hands of consumers, cost of acquiring additional technology is low, availability is easy, broadband networking infrastructure is in place, and streaming your own content provides the best price point of all... free.

There's no such thing as free technology. Somebody has to pay for the content or the content suppliers will stop supplying. That's why the subscription model is there. Don't expect that to ever go away. And the R&D that goes into these new technologies is certainly not free, or cheap. The "off" switch - now that's free!

There's nothing natural about PCTV in the evolution of entertainment. It only leads to isolation. PCTV will remain an option for those who want it, and more options is always a good thing, but I don't see it ever supplanting current TV habits. It just doesn't meet the viewing needs of a large enough segment of the population.

 

[Morgan Wick]

Maybe DDKA should debate this with the decision makers if he feels so strongly about it...