Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

iPad Just Another TV Set?

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the screens-are-screens dept.

Iphone 270

An anonymous reader writes "An iPad is just another TV set, and can be viewed just like an extra outlet. These are the words Cablevision (NYSE: CVC) has thrown toward content providers as demand for consumer viewing keeps shifting to more available sources like Roku, Apple TV, and the iPad, over providers like Netflix, and Hulu, and now Cable TV. Programmers are throwing down the gauntlet as more devices are able to stream video from a variety of providers."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Programmers, not what you think they are (4, Insightful)

Vectormatic (1759674) | more than 3 years ago | (#35732840)

Schedule managers would be a more apt term

when first reading TFS, my first parsing suggested some random C-jockeys screaming "oh no it isnt" in a bid to prove the ipad isnt a TV, didnt make a lot of sense

They don't get it (5, Informative)

zule666 (1175419) | more than 3 years ago | (#35732866)

I moved last fall and decided to try going without cable or satellite. Between Hulu and Netflix I really haven't missed cable other then the occasional sporting event. When are content providers going to get it? I don't want to pay for 110 channels I never watch.

Re:They don't get it (1)

GottMitUns (1012191) | more than 3 years ago | (#35733048)

Very true. Traditional TV has no future. It's 20th century tech.

Re:They don't get it (2)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 3 years ago | (#35733094)

Yeah, radio with pictures is played out.

Re:They don't get it (4, Insightful)

Hijacked Public (999535) | more than 3 years ago | (#35733060)

You'd think they would look at the death throes of the newspaper guys, and magazines, and Blockbuster et al, and record stores, and etc etc, and change their ways. But they won't.

Re:They don't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35733120)

Change their ways to wat??

Re:They don't get it (5, Insightful)

Shikaku (1129753) | more than 3 years ago | (#35733268)

To a pull system from a push content system. A push system is defined as something like television, where everything is pushed with a schedule at timed intervals. A pull content gives you a choice, instead of waiting and being forced to stay for a show.

For example, even on legal sites, you choose when and what to watch, availability withstanding.

DVR is a stopgap in that direction. Netflix, Hulu and Youtube are currently going in the right direction.

Re:They don't get it (2)

cyn1c77 (928549) | more than 3 years ago | (#35733484)

To a pull system from a push content system. A push system is defined as something like television, where everything is pushed with a schedule at timed intervals. A pull content gives you a choice, instead of waiting and being forced to stay for a show.

For example, even on legal sites, you choose when and what to watch, availability withstanding.

DVR is a stopgap in that direction. Netflix, Hulu and Youtube are currently going in the right direction.

Playing devil's advocate (even though I agree with you), do you think the general public can handle being able to choose their programming? Currently, I think a lot of people are used to watching what is fed to them by the networks.

Remember that too much choice paradoxically makes people unhappy!

Re:They don't get it (2)

xaxa (988988) | more than 3 years ago | (#35733822)

Playing devil's advocate (even though I agree with you), do you think the general public can handle being able to choose their programming? Currently, I think a lot of people are used to watching what is fed to them by the networks.

Remember that too much choice paradoxically makes people unhappy!

Your TV (computer) could choose for you, based on what you say you like, what your social-network-friends like, what's popular, what the network recommends, etc.

Re:They don't get it (1)

Gilmoure (18428) | more than 3 years ago | (#35733628)

Someone should do a t-shirt [dieselsweeties.com] .

Re:They don't get it (1)

Hijacked Public (999535) | more than 3 years ago | (#35733510)

As above.

If any of the TV providers who could reach me would offer an exclusively 'on demand' service I would probably prefer that over Hulu or torrents or the other current options. As it stands, in order to get access to 'on demand' service I have to also purchase a TV package filled with content I don't want. I care only for HD but I have to buy non-HD content to get to the HD 'add on'. If I wanted only HBO I can't get just that, I have to buy the basic package + the extended package, then I can get to HBO, then add HBO HD.

Fine grained choice is as big a part of what traditional content providers should be learning from the internet. The music industry was dragged there kicking and screaming, which should serve as a model for the others.

Re:They don't get it (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#35733726)

You'd think they would look at the death throes of the newspaper guys, and magazines, and Blockbuster et al, and record stores, and etc etc, and change their ways. But they won't.

I think they still believe that they can legislate their own existence. So far they have done an admirable (though not laudable) job. Media producers like mass market media because it helps them push their garbage, and mass market media likes media producers with garbage to push because it's easy to sell. As long as MPAA and RIAA members continue to be appointed to key positions in government (which happened under the prior administration and continues to happen under this administration) the situation will at minimum remain fairly static.

Re:They don't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35733142)

Why do you want the shitty networks to succeed? If they all self-destruct then perhaps we'll get the better shows we've wanted for 30 years. Not ones defined by an oligarchy of 4 cable networks. If we can eliminate network hosts entirely then so much the better.

Re:They don't get it (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#35733500)

Exactly. If we're really lucky they'll take their damn industry groups with them, bringing about the end of the IP dark ages we're currently stuck in.

Re:They don't get it (1)

biryokumaru (822262) | more than 3 years ago | (#35733386)

On the one hand, I like the variety and time-independence of modern media consumption methods (Netflix, Hulu, TPB), but on the other hand I feel sometimes I'm missing out on a shared cultural experience with respect to commercials. On the gripping hand, my only complaint is not seeing commercials.

Re:They don't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35733468)

What... the fuck?

I fervently pray that Jobs takes another Flash stance and outright bans commercials. And I don't even own an iDevice.

Something is very wrong with your brain.

Re:They don't get it (1)

biryokumaru (822262) | more than 3 years ago | (#35733512)

You might be surprised how many conversations at the proverbial water cooler center on some new television ad campaign. Of course, it's often easy to waylay those into more interesting topics, such as honey badgers [youtube.com] .

Re:They don't get it (1)

Merk42 (1906718) | more than 3 years ago | (#35733538)

Given iAds, that won't happen But hey I would love for everything to be ad free, then they'd be behind a giant paywall to make up for the cost that advertisers used to give them.

Re:They don't get it (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#35733490)

For every funny Geico or Arby's ad there are a million unfunny, stupid or even offensive ads that you wish you could un-see. I'd say losing ads is worth it overall.

Re:They don't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35733700)

...and you can always watch the GOOD commercials on YouTube if you want to.

Re:They don't get it (1)

vawwyakr (1992390) | more than 3 years ago | (#35733430)

Look at the terms this article uses "content hungry", "addicted", "crazed", etc. It's still portrayed as though people doing this are the super video hungry watching five screens at once out of control people. It's the exact opposite though! I made this switch and haven't looked back because I don't watch a ton of TV and when I do I want to just watch what I want to watch not whatever is on right now. When they envision people watching video over the net they get this vision of some cyber geek in the basement with neon lights all over and 20 TVs when they should be thinking about their bread and butter audience of moms, dads and kids.

Re:They don't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35733572)

Do you honestly think that if they had to offer you ala cart service that the price would go down? You're living in a fantasy land.

Re:They don't get it (1)

welcher (850511) | more than 3 years ago | (#35733720)

other then the occasional sporting event

This is crucial --- cable would have nothing if it weren't for sports.

Re:They don't get it (1)

b0bby (201198) | more than 3 years ago | (#35733798)

Between Hulu and Netflix I really haven't missed cable other then the occasional sporting event.

For sporting events I pretty much only watch the Super Bowl, and that comes OTA. My wife misses a couple of shows, but they usually will show up on Netfix eventually. I'm really happy with my Netfix streaming Blu-Ray player & my Aspire Revo with USB TV tuners. If MS gets hardware acceleration working on Silverlight, I won't even need to use the Blu-Ray player much anymore. I must say though, Hulu has always been a disappointment to me. Lots of clips make it annoying to find an actual episode; I don't even bother anymore.

Get a clue, Olde Skoolers (1)

grub (11606) | more than 3 years ago | (#35732886)


You can make it easy for your customers to watch what they already pay for or they can just torrent it and watch with things like AirVideo which means no advertising revenue.

I've helped piles of "non-geeks" with BitTorrent and RSS feeds for TV shows. They don't care about movies or warez, just the latest episode of Glee in HD.

Re:Get a clue, Olde Skoolers (3, Interesting)

xgr3gx (1068984) | more than 3 years ago | (#35732952)

"Throwing the gauntlet" worked so well for the music industry. They probably could have made so much more money, much more easily if they had embraced digital media from the onset.
Television needs to get on board with the digital age. If they fight it they are just going to fall behind as users find better alternatives to traditionally TV.
Perhaps it's time to offer ala-carte channel selection. Why should I have to buy a package from my cable company when I can just find what I want online.
The harder they fight it, the faster they will lose viewers. Especially now that TVs have Youtube and Hulu apps embedded, making it much easier for the average user to watch online content.

Re:Get a clue, Olde Skoolers (4, Informative)

grub (11606) | more than 3 years ago | (#35733000)

No kidding! The music industry wanted people to buy shiny plastic discs at brick and mortar stores. Fast forward a few years and a non-music entity (Apple) is the largest music seller in the world.

The old timers don't get that their shit is just data.

Re:Get a clue, Olde Skoolers (1)

biryokumaru (822262) | more than 3 years ago | (#35733444)

+1 Perspective!

Amongst this community in particular, it often seems like the RIAA are doing quite well making up losses by suing grandmothers and school children, but in reality they've already lost. It really hits you when the measure of Rebecca Black [youtube.com] 's success is that she's climbing the iTunes charts instead of Billboard. The RIAA isn't going the way of the dinosaurs, they're already gone.

Re:Get a clue, Olde Skoolers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35733516)

And you old timers don't get that "just data" isn't cool now. We kids buy our music on large vinyl discs from brick and mortar stores in sketchy parts of town.

Apple doesn't care about my local band!

Re:Get a clue, Olde Skoolers (1)

darjen (879890) | more than 3 years ago | (#35733354)

Cable companies would offer ala-carte if they could. Unfortunately, the content providers are the ones who hold sway in this matter.

This is a about broadcast rights (2)

NixieBunny (859050) | more than 3 years ago | (#35732924)

From TFA: "We haven’t negotiated rights for our programs to be viewed on anything other than a real TV. The question remains, what constitutes a real TV?"

I think the cable guys have their knickers in a twist because soon the only thing their cable will carry is TCP/IP.

I don't even have a "real" TV (1)

Cheech Wizard (698728) | more than 3 years ago | (#35733056)

Yup - They're fucked. I haven't had a "real" TV in a couple of years. I do have Netflix (mainly to get DVDs), but mostly I just "find" what I want to watch online and watch when I want and commercial free. Then again, I don't watch TV very often other than The Daily Show and Colbert.

Re:I don't even have a "real" TV (1)

Pulzar (81031) | more than 3 years ago | (#35733544)

Yup - They're fucked.

They're fucked because the guy who doesn't own a TV and doesn't watch any of it, wants to stream the occasional thing he does watch?

Hey, listen -- they don't care about you. They care about those who do watch TV and have TV sets, and they don't want to lose them. You don't matter to the TV world.

Re:I don't even have a "real" TV (1)

scrib (1277042) | more than 3 years ago | (#35733586)

I do that too, and I hope the people who produce TV shows figure out where they are going wrong.

To the TV viewer, the marginal cost of a TV show is $0. People pay for cable/internet service, but other than pay-per-view, they expect to be able to watch any channel at no additional cost. Sure, it costs money to make a show, but the consumer is conditioned for it to be free. It's time for show producers to figure out how to deliver their content for free...

How? Well, advertising. I download the versions of the show with the ads cut out, but only because (legal or not) those are the only ones available to download free. The show distributors could easily create the show with commercials already in it and release their own torrents and track the downloads to give advertisers a way to know about how many viewers there were. I would download a torrent from the actual producer WITH ads instead of the pirated copies with various local station logos and varying quality that you can find these days. (I've gotten torrents with local storm warnings etc in them.)

Another option is to look back to the Golden Age of Television and have the actors promote products themselves. If you want to cut out commercials, go with product placement. The quality of "DWTS" or "Survivor" would be unaffected by hawking a few products. Or, go with the soccer model and have ads on screen during the action.

Distribution by torrent is cheap, and if you run the tracker, you can keep reasonable distribution counts and charge advertisers accordingly.

Re:This is a about broadcast rights (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 3 years ago | (#35733178)

THIS!

What is a "TV" is going to cause issues. Many TVs, and most of the big screen ones have a microprocessor and running Linux. Are they "computers" or are they TV's? BluRay and DVD players now have Netflix and other services embedded into them, clearly indicating some microprocessor for decode and an OS to manage the HW. Are those "computers" too?

Please define what is a TV for us, and then let us rip your description to shreds.

Re:This is a about broadcast rights (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#35733296)

Clearly, a TV is anything that we believe that we have licenced you to display our precious, precious 'premium content' on. We would be happy to adjust the number of TVs, for a price.

Re:This is a about broadcast rights (1)

ArhcAngel (247594) | more than 3 years ago | (#35733322)

My new 42" Panasonic Viera has Netflix, Facebook, DLNA, Pandora, and several other apps. It also has an ATSC OTA receiver.
What about Sony's Google TV? I hope Sony Entertainment isn't one of the companies bitching about what a TV is.

Re:This is a about broadcast rights (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#35733450)

Here in the UK you only have to pay a TV license if you're watching live TV. iPlayer is free. So, we don't pay a TV license, and any time someone has mentioned a worthwhile TV program to me (which was.. one time this year!) I just looked it up on iPlayer.

Re:This is a about broadcast rights (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35733800)

Wrong. iPlayer is just timeshifted broadcast content, that still cost money to make, funded from the TV "license", and they DO count a computer receiving it in any fashion to effectively be a TV. The only exemption is for a detuned TV with no aerial which is used purely as a console / DVD player / etc display ... and you have to dig down to paragraph 62,584 subsection Z in the terms before they grudgingly admit even that.

I would certainly agree that the TV "license" is far too expensive, and enforced in a misleading and menacing manner by a largely unaccountable organisation, so by all means go on evading it, but be aware that's technically what you're doing ... [bbctvlicence.com]

Re:This is a about broadcast rights (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 3 years ago | (#35733404)

The only reason to sign up for cable is because it makes the internet price cheaper. Powerusers/etc just stream internet tv back to their regular TV. What's the point of the cable TV plan? To watch more advertisements and not be able to choose when to watch the show you want to watch?

Yes! (0)

Weezul (52464) | more than 3 years ago | (#35732968)

Yes of course, it's just another television set in that its purpose is consuming. You cannot truly use an iPad for production, i.e writing, video editing, programming, etc.

It would be a mistake however to assume that iPad's are for purely passive media consumption, ala video, books, and music. Instead, iPads allow for interactive media consumption, ala games.

No.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35733162)

There's already people making music on tablets. It may or may not be good music, but the tools are there. And I don't see why you couldn't use the ipad for writing, although you'd want a handwriting recognition app or an external keyboard. It may not have the power yet, but I can imagine a day when tablets will support video editing.

It might not be the best platform for every type of creation, but there's nothing inherently blocking creativity, either.

Re:No.... (2)

ahankinson (1249646) | more than 3 years ago | (#35733282)

You mean like this? http://www.apple.com/ipad/from-the-app-store/imovie.html

I just attended a concert and a workshop where one of the performers was using two iPads as control surfaces for electro-acoustic music. To me, the iPad (currently) is more like "Web 1.0", where, for most people, it was a medium focused on consuming. If you don't think Apple is going to make this work in the consumer space, and guarantee its success, you don't know Apple.

Re:No.... (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#35733556)

If you don't think Apple is going to make this work in the consumer space, and guarantee its success, you don't know Apple.

What? Is Steve Jobs god now? The iPod, iPhone and iPad have been pretty successful, but Apple have had plenty of misses over the years too. It just so happens that in arenas like MP3 players, phones and tablet computers, and online music stores, the options really sucked before Apple came along.

I was actually considering getting a Xoom for video editing. I can imagine a touch interface working really nicely for that. I know I'd much rather have 1GB of RAM than 512MB in that scenario.

Re:Yes! (1)

localman57 (1340533) | more than 3 years ago | (#35733188)

Yeah. It's funny to think that they're OK with data coming in over TCP/IP if it goes to a set-top box provided by the cable provider. Which then goes out, potentially, over HDMI. Now they're (perpetually) developing wireless HDMI. And this would presumably be ok. Yet, bringing it into a box provided by the cable company, then streaming it out over 802.11 isn't ok. Go figure.

This reminds me a bit of when I put up my own web page in 1996. I actually sent emails to some companies asking if I could put their logo up on my site (my favorites page) as an image link to their site. A few of them (Mr. Showbiz was one), said no, because they needed to keep control of their trademarks. I feel like that level of market understanding is where the cable companies are now.

Re:Yes! (1)

Albanach (527650) | more than 3 years ago | (#35733260)

Yes of course, it's just another television set in that its purpose is consuming. You cannot truly use an iPad for production, i.e writing, video editing, programming, etc.

Do you have a basis for this? The original iPad was launched along with an iPad iWorks suite with word processor, spreadsheet and presentation software.

The iPad 2 was launched with iMovie and GarageBand. You have muti-track creation and editing of videos and music.

I have no doubt these are not up there with pro-level tools. Nonetheless, given the volume of sales, I believe there are a great many people using their iPads for content generation.

Re:Yes! (1)

xnpu (963139) | more than 3 years ago | (#35733640)

While those apps were available, they didn't come pre-installed on my iPad. I still don't have them.

My 15 year old CRT however comes with Chess and some Tetris ripoff built-in.

iPad is not always a media consumption device (2)

rubypossum (693765) | more than 3 years ago | (#35733482)

GarageBand for iPad is pretty sweet and I use it to make music, not all of which sucks. Pages is pretty decent for putting together a letter or flyer, it's not as nice as Pages for Mac but you really could layout just about anything in it. I can't vouch for Keynote or Numbers because I haven't bought them for iPad but they're probably at least as nice as their Mac counterparts. MS Office app knock-offs abound, so many I haven't even bought one. For non-Apple apps you have Freeform which I like better than Inkscape for creating application icons (even if it doesn't support SVG.) I've written a few hundred lines of code/html using Textastic, it would be great if they polish it up a bit more. A few other production apps on my iPad are Sketchpad, Elance, oDesk, Photoshop Express, iOctocat and Remoter VNC.

I spend more time with my iPad playing World of Goo or watching Netflix than using any of these. But I don't think that will always be the case, I think the apps will just get better and better and will eventually be easier to use than the Desktop apps.

Re:Yes! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35733764)

While I get your point about iPads not being for production, I'm finding that I am using far more productivity tools than I imagined I would.

I bought the iPad 2 expecting more of a "fun" experience, and while I do have that I'm also using Evernote, Numbers, Pages, Photoshop Express, etc. Certainly, the manner in which I'm writing/working is different than on a full blown laptop/desktop, but I would say it is very usable for productivity. Not to mention customized applications, such as the online menu and order taking at a local restaurant.

Just my $.02

Re:Yes! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35733810)

There are production use cases... art (Sketchbook etc.) and some of the music apps are being used to create tracks, score film, and for live performance. I agree the typing ergonomics are dismally bad. Need one of these sweet bowtie avatars to do the speech recognition: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGYFEI6uLy0

Grandma (4, Informative)

xnpu (963139) | more than 3 years ago | (#35732994)

Ask my grandma and she'll tell you anything that can display TV programs is obviously a TV of some kind!

One doesn't disagree with my grandma.

Re:Grandma (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35733030)

Cringely, is that you?

The TV is everywhere (1, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#35733012)

TV execs need to sit in the luxury spa for a day just contemplating what that means.

Too mean it boils down into the following opportunities:
1) An advertising outlet is in every persons pocket, computer, cable box. table.
2) More information on the locality of viewers.

I would work on inserting local adds based on .. well locality. Of course, global advertisers would still be there.
I would also create 5-8 minute shows when 8 second commercial. Get people who are commuting.
I would put every god dan piece of TV and movie I can online. with advertising. Like Hulu used to try to do.
Sell and advertising free subscription, but make all the content available every way. Get some ad revenues from Show that would in no way be viewed on broadcast TV anymore.

I would bill there service as a replacement for a DVR. they selling point being :No need to upgrade: don't need a different unit for different delivery methods; don't need to schedule; It's all online and easy

They need to really accept the fact the previous models of advertising where very wrong. That's OK, and expected. It started with no data, and the data capturing mechanism they developed pretty much ensured middle class 'white bread' families dictated what was on TV. Now that they are getting better data, they should accept it and develop models for it.

Re:The TV is everywhere (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 3 years ago | (#35733366)

I still can't believe that DVRs are so widely used. When most people who have a DVR have internet fast enough to stream video, it kind of seems like we are living in a backwards world. Why should I have to remember to record something, worry about overlapping shows, and worry about shows that start early, end late, or start late because of delays (due to sports), when I really should just be able to watch whatever I want, whenever I want. As long as I'm paying for access to it in the first place that is.

Re:The TV is everywhere (2)

SydShamino (547793) | more than 3 years ago | (#35733442)

So you want to watch next week's shows today? Sorry, they haven't finished post-production yet. You'll have to wait.

Okay... now they're done. Let's have 25 million people separately download them? Waste of internet bandwidth? Yes. Maybe we can use P2P to distribute the bandwidth. No, wait, that uses the same amount of bandwidth, just spread over more uploaders. Hmm...

Maybe we can use a centralized broadcast that can transmit it just once, let anyone who wants it cache it, then use that broadcast's bandwidth to transmit other things? And then people who miss the centralized broadcast can get a copy separately later? Let's do it!

Re:The TV is everywhere (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35733618)

If you subscribe to shows then they could be distributed en mass via multicast with a torrent like error correction algorithm. Ship it to everyone, most people get it all, some people lose a couple of packets and ask for it from the rest of the swarm. I would hope that shipping data to only the people that care would be easier then shipping all the data to every device everywhere regardless of if it cared or not.

Re:The TV is everywhere (1)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 3 years ago | (#35733626)

I don't think we (the U.S.) have the infrastructure to have everybody doing on-demand all the time yet. Yes, it works when some people do it, but to have all people do it would really overdraw our bandwidth capabilities.

That point rarely gets brought up and I am glad to see someone sees the point of centralized broadcasting.

/..gov.pr.stock.biz.gov; joined at the hype? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35733026)

that url doesn't resolve yet? stuff that really matters seems to be almost less than nothing (debt, destruction, repeat) now? gadgets.gov.story? fake.science.math.pr.religion.gov.story

mynutswon; let the 'market' (used to be fearless population) decide what matters?

there was never any such thing as wampum. nor were there ANY gods. no war. no hunger. no disease. no pollution. that was here. 400 years ago (teepeeleaks etchings). wake up?

Over-the-air & Cable TV are dead... (0)

Eggplant62 (120514) | more than 3 years ago | (#35733034)

The days of broadcast TV served at the expense of commercial breaks are over. I strongly dislike commercials and will avoid listening to/watching them, sometimes at extreme costs.

In October last year I got rid of the cable TV, kept the cable internet feed, and bought myself a Roku player. I rarely watch commercials anymore. I choose what I want to watch, and I can even stream stuff I've digitized and stored on disk on other machines on my network. And I'm paying far less, by orders of magnitude, for the couple subscriptions that I watch on the Roku as compared to cable TV.

How can broadcast/cable TV compete with this?

Re:Over-the-air & Cable TV are dead... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35733166)

How can broadcast/cable TV compete with this?

Legislation, of course!

Re:Over-the-air & Cable TV are dead... (1)

Hijacked Public (999535) | more than 3 years ago | (#35733226)

What are some examples of the 'extreme costs' you accept in lieu of watching a commercial?

Re:Over-the-air & Cable TV are dead... (1)

Eggplant62 (120514) | more than 3 years ago | (#35733348)

Throwing physical objects and breaking the TV. Yes, it's been done.

Re:Over-the-air & Cable TV are dead... (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#35733660)

Lemme take some guesses:

1. CSI Microsoft product placement
2. GM ad, especially one for OnStar (DURR DRIVING IZ HARD) or the ones where they just diss Toyota
3. Mac vs. PC

Did I guess right?

Re:Over-the-air & Cable TV are dead... (1)

rritterson (588983) | more than 3 years ago | (#35733232)

Maybe they can't. But I would suggest:

-reduce the number of ads by an order of magnitude and increase the relevance of the remaining by the same factor. Some weekend movies have 8 minute commercial breaks for Christ sake! No wonder we hate them so much
-allow me to watch the content whenever I want, wherever I want. None of this 5 most recent episodes crap. None of this web only, no mobile viewing either.
-make the fee 10x less than cable, the fees for which are out of control.

-I'd also like to see a try at a crowd sourced patronage system for TV. I'd pay a lot more if I knew I was paying the director and cast directly, and then they could release the content under creative commons or something. Don't know if enough people would pay though.

Re:Over-the-air & Cable TV are dead... (3, Interesting)

slyrat (1143997) | more than 3 years ago | (#35733300)

The days of broadcast TV served at the expense of commercial breaks are over. I strongly dislike commercials and will avoid listening to/watching them, sometimes at extreme costs.

In October last year I got rid of the cable TV, kept the cable internet feed, and bought myself a Roku player. I rarely watch commercials anymore. I choose what I want to watch, and I can even stream stuff I've digitized and stored on disk on other machines on my network. And I'm paying far less, by orders of magnitude, for the couple subscriptions that I watch on the Roku as compared to cable TV.

How can broadcast/cable TV compete with this?

Where TV can compete is with live showing of programs. I've found that if you are interested in watching sports the best option is through actual TV / cable. You get much better picture and if you hate commercials just start watching it 30 min to an hour after start and just skip through the commercials with a dvr. Almost all other types of TV shows / programs are just about as good without paying for TV. Another aspect that has happened is twitter commentary on live shows when the shows are going on. This also gives a good reason to watch live shows or first shown shows. These are good ways to get people back to watching actual TV rather than after the fact recorded TV. I'm not someone who watches any of the above, but I can see the appeal of it.

Re:Over-the-air & Cable TV are dead... (1)

Wovel (964431) | more than 3 years ago | (#35733472)

It is true (for now) because blackout restrictions in place soley to protect local broadcasters. This will change as MLB and others renegotiate contracts..

Re:Over-the-air & Cable TV are dead... (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#35733632)

I have a similar system, but with bittorrent :P

I'd pay for reasonably priced DRM-free episodes though. Let me know when TV catches up with games and music.

Re:Over-the-air & Cable TV are dead... (1)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 3 years ago | (#35733814)

How can broadcast/cable TV compete with this?

They won't do it, but one way they could, would be to try to serve their customers while also using their superior technology. Broadcast is just plain more efficient than transmitting each identical packet n times where n is the number of users. More efficient means lower cost -- a competitive advantage.

In theory they could offer you everything you are getting right now, but either cheaper or better. If you're streaming for free, they could stream to you at a higher bitrate / less jitter / etc (or even "stream" at slower-than-realtime; i.e. not stream at all, and timeshift, getting you "perfect" bitrate and no jitter at all -- sort of like what bittorrent users enjoy, except massively more efficient). If you're streaming for pay (e.g. Netflix) they could offer it at a lower cost to you, because their cost would be lower than Netflix's cost.

Since they are neglecting the give-the-people-want-the-want aspect, though, they have a disadvantage that is more than canceling out their advantage. The catch there is that the disadvantage only applies to "critical" customers who think about what they're getting for how much money. I know people who still pay a month satellite or cable TV bill, and if you say those expensive services that also include many long of commercial breaks is "over," that's complete news to them. There's a lot of inertia out there, which typical Slashdot users wouldn't be able to identify with.

Geez, just look at the context of this. We're talking about fucking iPads, a product of the very same old school of thought, where you'll take what is offered rather than get what you want. People are still buying into the walled garden like it's a good idea, rather than horrifically retro. How is cable TV any different than that? Its days are over?! Maybe for you and me, but for many, it's not over at all.

"Rights holders" = Feudal lords (2)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#35733038)

For anyone vested in study of medieval law and renaissance, the behavior of these 'rights holders' are no different than how the feudal lords behaved at the wake of the renaissance. It doesnt matter where the reasoning for this 'right holding' stems from - when you give control of things/concepts/positions that majority of the population needs to a few, the result always ends up the same, regardless of the justification for it. Intentions dont guarantee a desirable result.

History repeating itself again, however lack of knowledge makes people unable to realize that they are seeing a movie that was made long before and shown repeatedly in theaters worldwide.

Re:"Rights holders" = Feudal lords (3, Insightful)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 3 years ago | (#35733098)

I'm pretty sure that the "majority of the population" do not need entertainment shows created by someone else. This isn't food we are talking about.

Re:"Rights holders" = Feudal lords (1)

psyklopz (412711) | more than 3 years ago | (#35733220)

The fact is, our culture has been privatized.

When has that ever happened at all in history?

Re:"Rights holders" = Feudal lords (1)

Iamthecheese (1264298) | more than 3 years ago | (#35733314)

When books were sold. Before that is was when paintings were sold and musicians were patronized. Before that it was the joker in the castle and the busker on the streets. People have always paid for culture. The only thing that's changed is the medium.

Re:"Rights holders" = Feudal lords (2)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 3 years ago | (#35733514)

I'm sorry, when did it become impossible for me to make up my own story and tell it to other people? Our culture hasn't been privatised at all, its just that you want someone else to do the work of creating and presenting.

Re:"Rights holders" = Feudal lords (2)

localman57 (1340533) | more than 3 years ago | (#35733238)

Yes, you need them. But it's just a higher level need. Just like you need social interaction. If all we needed was food, we'd be on the same level as animals. The ability to consume and contemplate information from outside of your immediate observation is fundamental to being human.

Re:"Rights holders" = Feudal lords (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 3 years ago | (#35733530)

No. You may need entertainment, but that doesn't equate to an absolute need for their entertainment. There is ample scope for other forms of entertainment - people managed it before TV existed...

Re:"Rights holders" = Feudal lords (1)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 3 years ago | (#35733792)

And yet we developed the TV and used it for entertainment.

Before that we had Bach. Before that Shakespeare. Before that bards, skalds and other storytellers that told the same stories and musicians that played the same music, developed by previous generations, over and over, because that's what the people wanted, a polished and practiced product not the lackluster crud they could come up with by themselves.

People have always wanted polished entertainment done by professionals. TV just makes the audience bigger.

Re:"Rights holders" = Feudal lords (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 3 years ago | (#35733274)

If you "need" the Simpsons, something is wrong. We don't need media shovelware; culture is not from the media factory.

I see a tremendous future in this (1)

harrytuttle777 (1720146) | more than 3 years ago | (#35733086)

As a member in good standing of the United American Evil Masonic Overlord's of the United States of America, I applaud this innovation. It used to be that we could only persuade the population while they were at home watching the tube. Now thanks to the iPad we can indoctrinate the hearts and minds of the populace wherever they are at given moment. HeheheHe Haahahaha. And even better yet, it includes an attached camera. This TV watches them while they are watching TV.

Seriously what is not to love. It is a brave brave new world.

Re:I see a tremendous future in this (1)

sandytaru (1158959) | more than 3 years ago | (#35733200)

So you're saying there are now fnords on the iPad?

Er, what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35733126)

I guess I must be new here...The summary says they're moving away from Netflix and to Roku? Logical disconnect anyone?

Waiting for them to wake up... (1)

bsquizzato (413710) | more than 3 years ago | (#35733148)

The only thing I want cable for is sports. More specifically, the one I care about most is NHL hockey. So, that's 1 or 2 channels out of however many hundreds I have to pay $60 for to buy in on HD/digital service. I would gladly rely on HD antenna for "general TV watching" and streamed media for the sports. I'm already paying for fast internet (from my cable provider, imagine that), why not make good use of it?

Well, thank God the NHL offers Gamecenter Live so I can watch NHL on my Roku! Oh wait, the NHL blacks out all my local teams games so that I either have to 1) go to the game or 2) buy cable to watch it. (yes, #3 option is a proxy. Which is against the service agreement, and is a big hassle in itself to get a reliable one unless I know someone with lots of bandwidth willing to run a reliable server in another city.)

Well, guess what, I don't care *enough* to pay the extra $60 to watch my local games. And I'm not enough of a sports nut to watch all these other NHL teams play, and I'd guess I'm not the only one that falls into this market demographic. You could have our subscriptions NHL, but with these stupid policies you get $0.

Re:Waiting for them to wake up... (1)

chrisgeleven (514645) | more than 3 years ago | (#35733194)

If they can get blackouts to end for local games, I'm done with cable.

Re:Waiting for them to wake up... (1)

2bfree (113445) | more than 3 years ago | (#35733340)

That's why it won't happen; at least not unless they are forced to do so.

Location Blocking (1)

Sparrow1492 (1962256) | more than 3 years ago | (#35733158)

Great. Now stop blocking content to it based on geolocation. I'm getting real tired of hitting Youtube videos in Germany where the "content is not avaialbe in your region." I'm actually willing to watch your ads if you'd just let me see the content without resorting to some sort of VPN or proxy solution.

Re:Location Blocking (1)

AlecC (512609) | more than 3 years ago | (#35733290)

The trouble is that the advertisers don't want you. Either they are US only retailers, or the advertising is being paid for by the US branch or franchise. The broadcasters need to get their minds around location-appropriate advertising, and put German ads when you view. But broadcaster are very, very parochial. They are used to thinking only in terms of US distribution, and even limited areas within the US. Both their contracts and their minds are locked on to this model. If they couldn't manage location-appropriate advertising themselves, Google (and probably many others) could do it for them. But that would mean handing control of what they think of as their crown jewels, the advertising slots, to others.

It needs a generational change at the top of the major broadcasters before they will handle the Net properly. In fact, I would expect Fox, owned by Murdock who has fingers in many nations, to be more flexible than the "Big 3" who have lived their lives within the borders of the US.

if the ipod is a extra outlet why can't buy cable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35733222)

if the ipod is a extra outlet why can't you buy the cable box like in canada. If the cable co wants to down that road they better open there system to any box that will work on it with out being forced to rent anything.

Instead of fighting it, they should embrace it (1)

sandytaru (1158959) | more than 3 years ago | (#35733266)

Have the ability to detect that your program is being streamed to an iPad and offer additional options on commercials. "After the show, tap this button to be taken directly to our website to learn more about this product!" Regular TV commercials are passive, but interactive advertising gives you direct feedback into the efficacy of the advertising campaign. Make it easy and seamless and legitimate looking, and bored people will happily click away.

A TV That's Incapable of Displaying Porn (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 3 years ago | (#35733272)

Some other tablet vendor will soon hit Apple's prices and the usability will be good enough, but the flexibility will close the deal. Apple's walled garden necessarily has a fixed size.

Re:A TV That's Incapable of Displaying Porn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35733542)

Why won't an iPad display porn? Just because there are no apps? The internet still works great on one, and last I checked was chock full of porn.

Content hungry? (1)

vawwyakr (1992390) | more than 3 years ago | (#35733330)

It's still portrayed as though people doing this are the super video hungry watching five screens at once "crazy" people. It's the exact opposite though! I made this switch and haven't looked back because I don't watch a ton of TV and when I do I want to just watch what I want to watch not whatever is on right now. When they envision people watching video over the net they get this vision of some cyber geek in the basement with neon lights all over and 20 TVs when they should be thinking about their bread and butter audience of moms, dads and kids.

Just include a TV function (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 3 years ago | (#35733370)

They should just add a over-the-air TV receiver to the next version, then it would really be just like a TV. Japanese mobile phones have had that for years, although they tend to be limited to the lower quality 1seg broadcasts. 1seg reduces resolution and frame rate but increases reception so is ideal for portable devices, so for example most sat-nav / in-car entertainment systems include it now. IIRC Brazil also uses it.

Re:Just include a TV function (1)

xnpu (963139) | more than 3 years ago | (#35733678)

I have TV on my Chinese cell too. They call it CMMB, but it's digital and pretty good. I'm sure the Chinese tablets will start having it sooner or later. Looking forward to it.

Uhuh... (1)

rickb928 (945187) | more than 3 years ago | (#35733438)

Imagine the joy when the early adopters figure this out.

And the joy when they get tired of haivng their TV in their lap all the time.

Tablets will, repeat, will be a fad. Then they will become a niche product.

Re:Uhuh... (2)

berashith (222128) | more than 3 years ago | (#35733644)

maybe the niche can be avoided if the tablets get big enough to view from a greater distance. Of course, then you wouldnt necessarily want the multi-touch features, maybe just a magic stick that could remotely direct you through options.

iPad v. TV != iPad v. iPhone (1)

starglider29a (719559) | more than 3 years ago | (#35733492)

Before I argue whether iPad is a TV, first tell me why my iPhone ISN'T? I recorded Butler v. UConn on my ATT UVerse so my wife would watch it on the iPad in the morning. Couldn't. Make that, 'was not allowed'. But I COULD have watched it on my iPhone. What is the difference between iPad and iPhone?

So, they're saying SIZE matters?

They may have a point. (1)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 3 years ago | (#35733534)

I never had an iPad in my hands so I don't know - I just wonder, how comfortable is it for producing content (vs consuming it)?
Which is the primary difference between TV (consume) and the modern media (participate).

I mean, I have Opera Mini for my Android phone. It provides superior browsing experience. It's fast, pages load fast, picking links is easy, windows switching is a breeze. But it absolutely sucks when it comes to creating content. Writing posts is difficult. Native language characters are not available. File upload - nada. Editing posts is an exercise in futility. And if you want to paste anything from an outside application, you better have it in the clipboard already - switching tasks kills current session, and you'll have to browse to the posting page anew from scratch.
Meanwhile the built-in browser, while much slower, with much more issues when it comes to viewing pages, slow and annoying, makes posting information on the net possible. Not exactly easy or comfortable, but quite doable, better by a landslide than Opera. So, Opera is information consumer app, watch but don't touch, while the built-in allows to participate.
So, isn't iPad another device to "watch but not touch" the content?

Late 1940s (1)

JackSpratts (660957) | more than 3 years ago | (#35733578)

I think it was around that time, as stereo sets began moving from the lab to the living room, that the head of the musicians union threw down the gauntlet, demanding double the pay for new recording session, reasoning that each loudspeaker was a separate performance deserving of a separate fee. He wouldn't budge either, until a clever record company exec explained that listeners would want new stereo versions of their mono favorites, leading to a huge increase in session work and paychecks to match for union musicians re-recording the old hits. Crisis averted.

TV on iPad = Good for the industry! (1)

sglewis100 (916818) | more than 3 years ago | (#35733616)

Nice to see some cable companies waking up. It would be nice to see the TV channels wake up as well. Here's a hint: If your cable company has an app that lets you watch live TV in your house only, on an iPad or iPhone, you are PRESERVING your status quo. It's an INCENTIVE to me to NOT ditch cable. To KEEP my satellite. To CONTINUE paying $100 a month. Thanks to AirPlay, I can beam it right back onto my TV, and not worry about that one room that doesn't have wiring for satellite or a receiver sitting inside already. It's a reason to keep them, so when my wife watches those garbage reality shows, I can still be in the room watching the game, courtesy of a pair of headphones and an app that hooks into my service. Let it be like that crappy DirecTV Windows only app, too, and let me tap into my already recorded DVR programs. It's one less reason to think about trying to switch to Hulu Plus & Netflix for 1/5th the monthly cost.

son. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35733670)

I have a son who is mentally handicapped, and just learning to read (about kindergarten level). We cut our cable 2-3 years ago when they raised the rates above our viewing habits. We have an old computer re-purposed to drive the HDTV from Hulu and Netflix and burned DVD's (every movie on there has physical disk locked in our cabinet), along with an xbox, and antennae to pick up local sports.

My son was not happy when I wanted to watch something on the main tv, turning off his cartoons. Five minutes later he was sitting in a chair, watching the same cartoon from Netflix on his sisters iPad.

For all practical purposes... the iPad is just another TV

cord cutting (1)

mu51c10rd (187182) | more than 3 years ago | (#35733738)

As some other posters mentioned, I too cut the satellite tv and went with an OTA antenna, Dlink Boxee, and WD TV Live. I haven't looked back and neither has the family. I even added Playon for good measure to stream anything neither device has. I have Hulu Plus and Netflix subscriptions for TV and movies. Overall, for a one time cost of 280 dollars, and monthly recurring costs of 17 dollars, I replaced my 80 dollars a month TV with a much better option. The Cable/Satellite companies really don't get it. They are going to be phased out of existence. I am much happier with TV over the internet and think it very viable upon my anecdotal evidence.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?