×

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!

Will MySpace Disrupt Television?

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the my-aye-aye dept.

Television 146

newsblaze writes "In the Media space, the internet has been threatening to be a highly disruptive technology for some time now. So far it has done quite a number on newspapers, who still don't understand the internet. There are a lot of people who like to have the paper in their hands, though, so newspapers are holding on. Television has no such ties to a physical medium. When Murdoch bought Myspace, I wondered how long it would be before he either found something to do with it — or gave up. Now it seems Murdoch has found a way to leverage his position, and put a massive squeeze on television. How far can he take this — and what will be the result?"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

146 comments

There's nothing worth watching on TV. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19940683)

Not a lot more online. Let's get out more.

Will Myspace Disrupt Television (3, Funny)

alfrin (858861) | more than 6 years ago | (#19940693)

There's nothing worth watching on TV

So MySpace will disrupt television then.

MySpace Invader? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19940809)

Oooh. I'd play that.

Re:Will Myspace Disrupt Television (1)

kdemetter (965669) | more than 6 years ago | (#19943281)

I wouldn't know that , since i don't use Myspace , but i know that i use my pc more and more , and my tv less .
I guess there are 3 reasons to that :
- there is barely anything that interests me on tv anyone ( always the same movies )
- there is an endless amount of interesting stuff on the internet
- my gaming addiction is stronger than tv series addiction .

Re:There's nothing worth watching on TV. (5, Funny)

sudo (194998) | more than 6 years ago | (#19940707)

... he says that while spending endless hours sitting in front of the 'puter waiting for First Post

Re:There's nothing worth watching on TV. (1, Insightful)

The13thMonkey (1105729) | more than 6 years ago | (#19940751)

There's nothing worth watching on TV because Murdoch owns a lot of the airwaves.

Re:There's nothing worth watching on TV. (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 6 years ago | (#19941829)

Nah, I don't think that is true. Even when there is nothing worth watching on the TV in the stations he owns, it doesn't do anything to the other stations that aren't worth watching. I mean common, 265 channels with satellite and some cable packages and nothing interesting or good to watch that you haven't already seen!

There just isn't that many good things on and they repeat the hell of what is. Even the news repeats the hell out of things. You find stories on the one interesting item all week if not all month long.

Re:There's nothing worth watching on TV. (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | more than 6 years ago | (#19942301)

There's nothing worth watching on TV because Murdoch owns a lot of the airwaves.
Well at least one monkey took the bait. But apparently very few -- only ~70 posts in 4 hours on the front page. That "nobodycares" tag seems about right.

But nice troll posting anyways, Slashdot Editor. And nice Fox News -like/sensationalism-flavored headline and closing line of the article summary: "Will MySpace Disrupt Television?" "How far can he [Murdock] take this -- and what will be the result?" I don't know, you tell me. I come here for news, not questions. If you don't know, then come back when you do. Stop trying to waste my time with inflammatory maybes.

Re:There's nothing worth watching on TV. (1)

The13thMonkey (1105729) | more than 6 years ago | (#19942763)

Dear Mr Dog,

Fewer books, more TV.

Well at least one monkey took the bait. But apparently very few -- only ~70 posts in 4 hours on the front page. That "nobodycares" tag seems about right.

Hoisted by your own petard methinks.

Re:There's nothing worth watching on TV. (5, Informative)

urikkiru (801560) | more than 6 years ago | (#19940789)

The last time that I moved apartments, it was to move in with a friend of mine. We talked about it briefly, and decided we didn't want cable. Oh, we have a cable *modem*, but no actual broadcast television stations. Honestly, I have not ever missed it, and it's been about 3 years now. Oh, there's the occasional show that I want to see, and I try an episode online here or from a friend's DVD collection there. If I like it, I rent or buy it, and watch it. Or just watch it at a friends house. I watch a bit of Anime now and then as well.

By and large however, TV is really no longer a way I spend a lot of my time. I really, really enjoy the lack of advertising bombarding me in my life.

Just my 2 cents.

Re:There's nothing worth watching on TV. (4, Insightful)

fotbr (855184) | more than 6 years ago | (#19941203)

Not to mention how much time it frees up for other things. More coding, web surfing, photography, painting, writing, woodworking, hunting, fishing, restoring an old car/truck/motorcycle, whatever your choice of hobbies may be.

Or you could just spend all the former TV time playing WoW.

Re:There's nothing worth watching on TV. (1, Interesting)

camperslo (704715) | more than 6 years ago | (#19941327)

Heavy amounts of advertising is certainly a major force in driving people away from traditional tv.
I believe the tv rules were similar to radio. IIRC, years ago at license renenwal time stations would commit to a certain amount of public affairs programming and a maximum hourly number of minutes of advertising.
The advertising cap didn't apply two weeks of the year. Typically stations would run more during the December holiday period, and in election years right before an election.

It didn't really occur to me until just now, but I think the dropping of those regulations is likely to be a major reason for the Christmas advertising season ramping up so early now (basically at Thanksgiving).

Besides too many regular ads being very disruptive of any kind of programming with complex content, I think those lengthy "infomercials", which were not allowed before, are also doing quite a bit to alienate viewers.

Watching over-the air tv, I now record just a handful of things to watch when I want to, and the rest of the time I'm not tuned in. The days of having a tv on in the background, or sitting through a show I don't really care for to catch another later, are gone. I'll no-longer accept planning my time around a broadcast schedule. Using a PVR I may be ahead of the curve a bit, but it seems likely most are either headed the same directly, or have already left for pay services.

With digital tv ramping up, if broadcasters were smart, they'd be putting on some worthwhile content all the time treating time like valuable bandwidth. With the ability to handle multiple program channels over one transmitter and in one licensed channel they have the potential to bring people back to broadcast tv.
Those making programming decisions seem like total idiots. Even the shows I like often don't have very many shows per season compared with many years ago.

With computers as PVRs (using something like Eye-TV on a Mac), one can edit out the commercials without tooo much effort. If the commercials are poorly done and there are too many, people will be more likely to take the time to remove them.

So far I'd say that using a PVR has actually increased my seeing commercials on shows I like. Between watching some ads live (often while recording), stopping and viewing - and even saving some - while editing, and catching some in episodes I otherwise would have missed, I think I'm seeing more of the ads that might interest me than in the past. I at least skim past all of them, some I would have certainly skipped by wandering out of the room previously.

If net based content can't be recorded automatically (or at least viewed on demand), is loaded with ads, and doesn't compete with SD and HD TV quality, it'd be even worse than regular tv. If I can't save it DRM-free, and remove ads if I want to, I doubt I'll be watching.

Re:There's nothing worth watching on TV. (1)

dosius (230542) | more than 6 years ago | (#19941663)

A friend of mine has started using one of those webcam repeaters to simulcast Cartoon Network.

The stream is a plain old wmv9 and can be played with MPlayer. And everything that can be played with MPlayer can be *ripped* with MPlayer...

I'd like to see some full-time TV-to-Internet repeaters fire up around the world, it'll be interesting. xD

-uso.

Re:There's nothing worth watching on TV. (1)

nwbvt (768631) | more than 6 years ago | (#19942219)

People giving up TV (or just cable) and deciding they actually like its absence is nothing new and existed well before anyone could claim the Internet was killing it off.

And as for "lack of advertising bombarding" you, I'm guessing thats only because you have a good ad blocked installed in your browser. Well, if you have a PVR, you can skip ads on TV as well. And there are plenty of ads online, and as ad blockers become more and more common, advertisers are going to become more and more creative and effective in defeating them. The fact is, if you want something for free, it will most likely be supported by advertising. And while there will be a never ending cat and mouse game between consumers and advertisers on how to deliver the ads, they will continue to exist.

Re:There's nothing worth watching on TV. (1)

Leebert (1694) | more than 6 years ago | (#19942483)

Oh, we have a cable *modem*, but no actual broadcast television stations.
Try plugging the cable into the TV. You may be surprised that you actually do have cable TV.

(I only use it to watch C-SPAN!)

Paying for TV even if you don't subscribe? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#19942631)

We talked about it briefly, and decided we didn't want cable. Oh, we have a cable *modem*, but no actual broadcast television stations.
How much extra per month do you have to pay your cable company for cable Internet without cable television? Some people have claimed in comments to other stories that the TV non-subscriber surcharge is nearly as high as the price of a cable TV subscription.

Maybe not your page, but Kiefer's rocks (1)

rjamestaylor (117847) | more than 6 years ago | (#19942831)

I watched the last season on Mypace's 24 Page [myspace.com]. Great quality video; few ads; updated within a few hours of the broadcast airing. I work night shift so I always missed the regular broadcast. Having it available online on demand was awesome.


Yeah, I think more of THAT could disrupt TV. Not your stinking, Javascript-laden, Flash-blasting, Emo shrine. But Kiefer's rocks!

Re:Maybe not your page, but Kiefer's rocks (1)

dubiousmike (558126) | more than 6 years ago | (#19943371)

that was less about myspace tv and much, much more about fox tv leveraging their myspace bandwidth to do their on demand, which is lakc luster at best. The quality is good. the amount of content fox puts online is horrific. i was telling a friend about hell's kitchen and that it was on fox on demand. he couldn't find it. fox does a grreat job at hiding it from their network tv site, only linking it from an innocuous "on demand" text link in a drop down menu.

MySpace killed the Video Star... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19943039)

Had to be said...

Here's a better question: (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19940709)

Is newsblaze the new Piquepaille? Or just a shill who got lucky?

Too much honor for Murderock. (0, Offtopic)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 6 years ago | (#19940715)

Television is disrupted already. Too much honor for Murderock.

Re:Too much honor for Murderock. (2, Insightful)

scottrocket (1065416) | more than 6 years ago | (#19940847)

...and I've noticed a lot of MySpace references "worked into" various television scripts-cahoots or buzz scripting?

newsblaze? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19940761)

Holy shit. My head is still hurting from trying to read that "article." The whole thing is filled with incomplete sentences and fragments of thoughts. A note to Ms Strasbaugh: Take some writing classes. A note to NewsBlaze: Hire some qualified editors. As long as there is writing this bad out there, the established print media has nothing to fear from "Citizen Journalists." As for the "content" of the article, MySpace has struck a deal for a show that has no established viewer base at this time (simply because the show doesn't exist yet). Apparently to Ms Strasbaugh, this is the death knell for television.

Re:newsblaze? (2, Informative)

deftcoder (1090261) | more than 6 years ago | (#19941359)

I read the first "sentence" (i.e. a collection of sentences strewn together with commas) and saw the "it's" at the end. At that point, I closed the tab the article was loaded in.

Please, for the love of $DEITY, don't let people who can't speak English write articles.

Re:newsblaze? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19942167)

Please, for the love of $DEITY, don't let people who can't speak English write articles.

Yeah, and they should learn what i.e. means, and maybe also what strewn means, so they'd realize that "strewn together" is an oxymoron.

Re:newsblaze? (1)

hoooocheymomma (1020927) | more than 6 years ago | (#19941957)

I tried to read the article and thought I was just spacing out, but after reading your comments I went back and realized I was having trouble reading the article because it was written in pigeon english. Thank you.

Re:newsblaze? (1)

fat_mike (71855) | more than 6 years ago | (#19942515)

Newsblaze just links to others content, plus her and the other "contributing authors". I don't think they'll be around real long.

Myspace replacing TV...hahaha. I am all advertisers bait. 28-34, disposable income, own my own home, laugh at myspace.

Maybe if the 16-25 age group wasn't so fucking lazy and Myspace would win, but it won't.

AOL failed and had a shitload more money than myspace.

'The Bigger Picture' (4, Funny)

slughead (592713) | more than 6 years ago | (#19940775)

Many people who would normally watch 6 hours of TV a day are now using myspace for a similar amount of time.

I'd say myspace has already disrupted television and will continue to do so, since a large portion of hours of television watched are these kids who are now using myspace.

Comparing the two, it's hard to say which is worse. Customizing your myspace and/or writing in a blog can help one practice essential computer savvy and writing skills, whereas TV has the benefit of not being plagued with emos.

It also could be argued that myspace 'comments'--which take up most of the average myspace user's time--actually diminish writing skills and intelligence (seriously, read somebody's comments; anybody).

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to comb my hair over my forehead at an angle and take subtly sad photos of myself from a downward angle and blog about how 'indy rock' (emo) is 'the only joy in my desilate, sole-crushing, nitemarish, interminible, bleak, black, life.' [sic.]

Re:'The Bigger Picture' (1)

Ma8thew (861741) | more than 6 years ago | (#19940941)

You clearly have no clue what you're talking about. Saying Indie Rock is analogous to 'Emo' is like saying Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club is Death Metal.

Re:'The Bigger Picture' (2, Insightful)

slughead (592713) | more than 6 years ago | (#19941077)

You clearly have no clue what you're talking about. Saying Indie Rock is analogous to 'Emo' is like saying Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club is Death Metal.

"Indy Rock" technically means ANY music from the 'Rock' super-genre that is signed to a label not directly owned by the handful of big record companies.

I know a great assortment of emos, and trust me, they all call their 'screamo' and slow, sensitive cry-baby emo rock 'indie' (indy). This is sometimes even contrary to the publisher of the music; sometimes the 'indy' band is really contracted directly to one of the megamusic companies.

To say that indy rock is different from regular rock musically is actually a as-great a distortion of musical taxonomy as saying all indy is emo.

"Indy", in truth, shouldn't even imply any particular style of music. However, it is, I'm afraid, a colloquialism in the 'emo' community for emo and screamo music.

If you listen to independent music and it's not emo, I'd suggest calling it something other than 'indy'. It's sort of like when gay people stole the 'rainbow' color scheme and Apple had to change their logo.

Re:'The Bigger Picture' (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19941221)

If you listen to independent music and it's not emo, I'd suggest calling it something other than 'indy'.

If you like to hack code, but don't do it for illegal purposes, then you should call yourself something other than a "hacker". Fucking get real...

Re:'The Bigger Picture' (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19941599)

And all this time I thought Indianapolis had a huge music scene...

You give in too easily. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19941733)

I want to take back both the rainbow and the word, "gay".

Re:You give in too easily. (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 6 years ago | (#19941895)

Take it back then. If used appropriately, it can still be used in a sentence without pointing out homosexuals. I'll give you a hint, saying "that's gay" wouldn't be a message conveying happy thoughts.

Indie Rock (2, Informative)

mwigmani (558450) | more than 6 years ago | (#19942139)

"Indy Rock" technically means ANY music from the 'Rock' super-genre that is signed to a label not directly owned by the handful of big record companies.

While I agree the term 'indie' started from there, it's evolved to something different, and is closer to the term 'underground' than anything else. In musical terms (as opposed to film, in which the term indie has also changed over time) 'Indie Rock' is really an umbrella term (comparable to 'Electronica') that encompasses a variety of sub-genres such as lo-fi, pop underground, college rock, dance-punk, twee, indie-electronic, etc. while simultaneously describing a certain 'sound' that came out of the rock underground in the 90s exemplified by bands like Pavement, Guided By Voices, Built to Spill, Archers of Loaf, Olivia Tremor Control, etc.

It's a very confusing and subjective term, and is really inadequate for proper differentiation of musical genres, but we're stuck with it, and regardless of how it's used within the emo community, emo is certainly not synonymous with indie rock, it's simply a child of the indie node.

MOD PARENT UP +1 Pretentious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19942781)

Get a grip. Indie rock is any independant rock, period, and yes I am a musician and have been for over 20 years.

Fixed that for you (5, Funny)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 6 years ago | (#19941035)

Many people who would normally watch 6 hours of TV a day are now using Slashdot for a similar amount of time.

I'd say Slashdot has already disrupted television and will continue to do so, since a large portion of hours of television watched are these dorks who are now using Slashdot.

Comparing the two, it's hard to say which is worse. Customizing your Slashdot homepage and/or writing in a blog can help one practice essential computer savvy and writing skills, whereas TV has the benefit of not being plagued with nerds.

It also could be argued that Slashdot 'comments'--which take up most of the average Slashdot user's time--actually diminish writing skills and intelligence (seriously, read somebody's comments; anybody).

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to comb my hair over my forehead at an angle and take subtly sad photos of myself from a downward angle and blog about how 'Linux' (gnu) is 'the only joy in my desilate, sole-crushing, nitemarish, interminible, bleak, black, life.' [sic.]

Re:Fixed that for you (1)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 6 years ago | (#19941169)

It also could be argued that Slashdot 'comments'--which take up most of the average Slashdot user's time--actually diminish writing skills and intelligence (seriously, read somebody's comments; anybody).
Could be worse. The comments on Digg are so moronic, other peoples' stupidity can cause passive damage to your own brain cells.

This has been proven in "OMG!!!! The coolest article EVER! You must see this!!!!!1111" [digg.com]

Re:Fixed that for you (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 6 years ago | (#19941397)

Many people who would normally watch 6 hours of TV a day are now using Slashdot for a similar amount of time.
I disagree. If I wasn't posting on Slashdot, I'd be doing something productive, not watching TV.

Re:'The Bigger Picture' (1)

UbuntuDupe (970646) | more than 6 years ago | (#19941559)

If people are fleeing TV for myspace (or slashdot, or youtube, etc.), how would the mainstream media become aware of this? How do they collect their ratings? Do they still have people fill out cards indicating what they watched at various times? Doesn't the method of picking these people tend to exclude those who most likely do turn to the internet?

Re:'The Bigger Picture' (1)

Plutonite (999141) | more than 6 years ago | (#19942203)

Customizing your myspace and/or writing in a blog can help one practice essential computer savvy and writing skills
Customizing your myspace makes you computer savvy? Dude, if you have a myspace account that you're serious about, you're probably not computer savvy at all. Or something. And here I was, thinking that finding heap overflows in OS libraries and rooting the occasional federal government web-server was a good way to stay "computer savvy".

*sits on bed and cries*

 

I never thought I'd say this, but... (3, Funny)

evanbd (210358) | more than 6 years ago | (#19940795)

The linked article actually has worse editing than the slashdot summary. What is the world coming to?

I suppose asking the slashdot editors to link to high quality writeups is a little far-fetched, so I won't even bother.

Re:I never thought I'd say this, but... (1)

BKX (5066) | more than 6 years ago | (#19940973)

What's really funny is that I read the article for the bad spelling and poor grammar and I was surprised to see none. Article's writing was stuccato. It lacked articles.

So what was wrong it then?

The last paragraphs. Entirely composed of sentence fragments. Random words. Sucked.

Re:I never thought I'd say this, but... (1)

evanbd (210358) | more than 6 years ago | (#19941031)

Sentence fragments, missing commas, extra commas, redundant phrases, its vs. it's... And that's just in the first two paragraphs. I stopped reading after that.

Re:I never thought I'd say this, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19941049)

BKX doesn't consider that to fall under the category of "grammar." Or he simply doesn't understand what the word means.

Re:I never thought I'd say this, but... (1)

mahlerfan999 (1077021) | more than 6 years ago | (#19941167)

What's really funny is that I read the article for the bad spelling and poor grammar and I was surprised to see none. Article's writing was stuccato. It lacked articles. So what was wrong it then? The last paragraphs. Entirely composed of sentence fragments. Random words. Sucked.

In other words, it was alot like a James Ellroy novel!

Okay, seriously now, the excitement and exaggerated claims on that article combined with the lack of focus and structure lead me to believe that the article was written by a high school student. Well that's the wonderful nature of the net. Everyone has their voice and we have to filter out these type of stories from interesting and well written stories. oh wait I thought that was what Slashdot was for...

Onward into the Past! (4, Insightful)

gelfling (6534) | more than 6 years ago | (#19940835)

I mean who the hell is going to watch game shows and reality shows on their laptop? If anything, leveraging MySpace means that TV eventually turns into YouTube length 'segments' e.g. the average television show will now be 10 minutes long and sponsored by one ad, just like TV was in the late 1940's early 50's

Re:Onward into the Past! (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 6 years ago | (#19941101)

For some reason I read "myspace" in the title as "youtube," since it seems a more natural comparison. Anyways, in repsonse to your comment, I do think the Interent with disrupt TV, but I don't think laptops will have much to do with. Not until more people have broadband-connected PVRs in their livingrooms can the revolution be televised (I just had to say that). But it will happen.

Re:Onward into the Past! (1)

Propaganda13 (312548) | more than 6 years ago | (#19941583)

I just use video-out to show it on my TV. I've watched shows on all of the network sites. None of them are perfect, but the commercial breaks are only one commercial long.

Re:Onward into the Past! (1)

rapidweather (567364) | more than 6 years ago | (#19941759)

Ah, TV in the 50's.
Jackie Gleason broke his leg just moments into his show, doing a little jig across the stage. It was live. He fell, just laid there, then a hand reached under the curtain from backstage, and dragged him under the curtain and out of sight of the audience. He was injured, but they did not say much about it. The rest of the show was pretty much a blank, no commercials to run, and we had to wait until the next show came on, in about 20 minutes or so. The next week, when his show returned, they explained what had happened and Jackie had to drop his signature onstage jig from then on.


Next one:

John Cameron Swayze, who had a nightly news show, did a live Timex wristwatch commercial involving a watch strapped to the propeller of an outboard motor mounted in a barrel. The motor could be tilted up and out of the tank just like it would be when mounted on the back of a boat. He showed the audience that the watch was mounted on the propeller, submerged it, and cranked up the motor, giving the throttle a good twist, revving up the motor. Then stopping the motor, and tilting it up, camera zoomed in on the propellor to be seen by all, he had a look of horror on his face as the watch was gone. Peered down into the tank. It was quite a laugh, but most felt sorry for him as he was well liked by the television audience. He recovered somewhat, but it was obvious to everyone that the test was a disaster.

The next night, re-did the commercial, this time following the engineers instructions on not revving up the outboard motor so much, as the watch was slung off the propeller in the first test. The watch survived the second night's test, and he pointed out that it was the same watch that was "tested" the night before. We all took his word for it. I believe the crystal was somewhat cracked, but the watch stayed water-tight. I don't remember him fishing the watch out of the tank the first night to see if it was unharmed, the tank was too deep. Timex watches in those days were rather big, did not have jeweled bearings, and could not compare to 17 jewel watches that were more expensive, and more accurate. 21 jewel watches were even better, and most of these were fairly thin, compared to the bulky Timex. So, it was tough on a Timex to endure a test like the one John Cameron Swayze did on his show, the weight worked against the watch riding on a fast-moving outboard motor propeller.

Rapidweather

MySpace? Not really. (3, Insightful)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 6 years ago | (#19940881)

I don't think of MySpace has a competitor to anything. Of course, all I know about MySpace is that's it's for personal blogs and such. It's only used by people who want to put their lives on the web, and mostly teens. Then again I've never even visited myspace.com, so what do I know.

If there's any real competitor to television, it's two-fold because it's on two levels: television networks (who buy/make shows) and show creators themselves (professional vs amateur).

1. It's the beginning of the end for "networks". The iTunes Store has the possibility of becoming a direct distributor between content creators and viewers/listeners. No need to pay for all those crappy "channels packages". I'll even mention the stupid fact that you're forced to get the "basic package" just so you can pay for the "extra packages" from which you only want two or three channels out of eight. It would also prevent networks from killing shows. The best example is the near-death of Family Guy, which Fox had neglected so much at the beginning that it's almost a miracle it survived. It would also prevent networks from continuing to poor cash into long-dead series like The Simpsons. Yes, Homer is funny, but let's get real, they're nearly two decades old now. We get a good episode for every ten crappy ones.

2. YouTube. Given that Google now control YouTube, and via such partnerships such as putting YouTube on the iPhone and the AppleTV, allows regular people to reach other people quite easily and (more importantly) beyond computer-only access. And now that YouTube is switching to H.264, the only thing preventing others to do the same thing as Apple is access rights to YouTube's servers.

Re:MySpace? Not really. (0, Flamebait)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 6 years ago | (#19941127)

I don't think of MySpace has a competitor to anything. Of course, all I know about MySpace is that's it's for personal blogs and such. It's only used by people who want to put their lives on the web, and mostly teens. Then again I've never even visited myspace.com, so what do I know.
You really ought to learn about something before pontificating in public about it.

Just myself, I've found 3 new-to-me musicians and downloaded their music from myspace.

While myspace has all those boring blogs on it, it has also managed to become a central location for all kinds of artists. Musicians, painters, even music/movie/book/etc publishers who aren't otherwise part of the murdoch empire, have made myspace pages central to their online presence.

Re:MySpace? Not really. (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 6 years ago | (#19941279)

You really ought to learn about something before pontificating in public about it.
That's why I said "I don't think", "all I know" and especially "then again I've never even visited myspace.com, so what do I know."

And your comment only re-enforces what I thought: MySpace is only blogs and stuff. It doesn't matter if there's talented people putting their work online, it's still only blogs. I'm not gonna watch their stuff sitting in front of a fucking computer screen.

Sorry about the "fucking computer screen", I've just watched Hell's Kitchen.

Re:MySpace? Not really. (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 6 years ago | (#19941981)

Almost every sight on my space looks like it was designed by a 4th grader. And each page has a different song playing in the background so opening the pages in different tabs is a no-no. Imagine cookie cutter pages with floating text on stationary background that consist of some picture tiles a thousand times over the page. It seems the best way to stand out is to make your page more annoying.

I have a few friends who use MySpace because they think it is or makes them cool or something. These are people who aren't into computers that much so I guess being able to do something is an ego boost for them. Kind of like using a template in MS frontpage or whatever their app is that does stamped webpages. I cannot stand it. So if you like looking at something that makes you think if you could just get your eyes to bleed everything would be ok, then check out Myspace, If not, then don't go or hang around it.

Oh yea, And to remain on topic, your right too. Except that the blogs aren't really about anything interesting or important. I read one that was more like a diary of a slacker. They wrote everything including what they had for lunch (mac and cheese).

Re:MySpace? Not really. (1)

lawrenlives (991376) | more than 6 years ago | (#19942293)

The question should be "Will Rupert Murdoch disrupt television". Owns 30+ network stations, a major network, major satellite providers, without even speaking to his print empire.

Next thing you know, your favourite series is only available through his providers and it's for the SUPER SECRET FINALE, tune in at MYSPACE.COM. That's how I see it anyways. And sure, we all know that there's an endless amount of dreck on myspace, but teenagers also have an endless amount of disposable income. They may not know their own power, but people in marketing do, heh.

Re:MySpace? Not really. (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 6 years ago | (#19942429)

That's why I said "I don't think", "all I know" and especially "then again I've never even visited myspace.com, so what do I know."
Which was precisely my point - if you know enough to say that you don't know WTF you are talking about, why are you talking in the first place?

And your comment only re-enforces what I thought: MySpace is only blogs and stuff. It doesn't matter if there's talented people putting their work online, it's still only blogs.
You only hear what you want to. If these are [myspace.com] just [myspace.com] blogs [myspace.com] then so are http://www.mgm.com/ [mgm.com] and http://www.fox.com/ [fox.com] and most other 'corporate' media sites.

Re:MySpace? Not really. (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 6 years ago | (#19942639)

Hey buddy, it's called having an opinion. Get a grip.

As for MGM and Fox, it's called websites, not blogs.

Geeze.

Re:MySpace? Not really. (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 6 years ago | (#19942809)

Hey buddy, it's called having an opinion. Get a grip.
Lol! What you have sir, is a guess .
Having an opinion requires you at least know something about the subject.

As for MGM and Fox, it's called websites, not blogs.
Precisely my point. Just as the mgm and fox websites are not blogs,
neither are the myspace pages for Film Movement, M.I.A., nor Twisted Records.

MySpace? Ya really. (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 6 years ago | (#19941795)

Of course, all I know about MySpace is that's it's for personal blogs and such. It's only used by people who want to put their lives on the web, and mostly teens. Then again I've never even visited myspace.com, so what do I know.
I go to mySpace for bands: They put samples and tour dates.

Here, do you like horror punk and/or psychobilly? Then enjoy Zombina and the Skeletones! [myspace.com]
And I found these guys through Guitar Hero: Freezepop [myspace.com] (stream only, no sample free MP3s).
MTV is dead, long live MySpace!

Re:MySpace? Ya really. (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 6 years ago | (#19942447)

If you can stream it, you can download it.
Check out the DownloadHelper extension for firefox.
I use it on myspace, youtube, etc. Very easy to use.

Re:MySpace? Ya really. (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 6 years ago | (#19943583)

If you can stream it, you can download it.
Check out the DownloadHelper extension for firefox.
I use it on myspace, youtube, etc. Very easy to use.
Fer sure, but I mention it because the first band I linked offers the mp3s, all metadata included and all. 's nice
The other band, who has a wider distribution channel, doesn't offer them to non-hackers.

Interesting take... (3, Insightful)

Manuka (4415) | more than 6 years ago | (#19940903)

...but I find it really hard to take seriously any news outlet that can make so many spelling and grammatical mistakes in a single story. Apparently the proofreader/fact checker has gone the way of the printed newspaper.

Re:Interesting take... (1)

newsblaze (894675) | more than 6 years ago | (#19941071)

Thanks, I'm not sure what caused that. I had to go to another office to fix it because my connection was breaking up today. All those errors were deleted characters.

What else does he bring? (1)

abes (82351) | more than 6 years ago | (#19940915)

While it's true that Murdoch is in somewhat of a unique position of both owning a largely used website, and a TV station, I question what he'll really be able to do with it. Certainly other stations (NBC and ABC, for example) have some of the content online. It's not well done, and it still a poor replica of what they're doing on the actual broadcast. Though still much better than other stations, such as Comedy Central (which probably should win awards for worse design ever).

The current state of Myspace doesn't speak well of what's to come. If I have to navigate Myspace's space, it will certainly act as a deterient. If they create new content, it seems doubtful to me it will be as good as the broadcast shows (and that's for the most part a fairly low benchmark).

I think other companies, like Joost, have the right idea of providing a real client on all the platforms. It works fairly well for the most part, thought it does suffer from frequent pauses. Oh, and lack of content. But besides that, it's a good idea.

Remember Steve Case? (1)

Quadraginta (902985) | more than 6 years ago | (#19941749)

While it's true that Murdoch is in somewhat of a unique position of both owning a largely used website, and a TV station...

Nah. The same organization owning a big Internet site and a big content source isn't new. That's what the famous AOL/TimeWarner merger was all about ten or so years ago. Remember how well that worked out?

I question what he'll really be able to do with it.

Yeah, I would too. This sounds more like dangerous overreach than the Rly Kewl Synergy the breathless teenybopper article suggests it is. I doubt serious investors who remember the 90s will touch this with a ten-foot pole.

Remind me, what else does Murdoch own? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19940955)

Oh yes, Fox, Fox News, BSkyB, Star TV...

Wrong question... (1)

argent (18001) | more than 6 years ago | (#19941019)

The question shouldn't be "will MySpace disrupt TV?", it's "How much more will MySpace disrupt TV than streaming video already has?". The current leader in the "most televisions staked" vampire hunter contest has to be YouTube...

Re:Wrong question... (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 6 years ago | (#19942647)

I'd say the real question is: "will anything disrupt television more than Bit Torrent already has?" Millions of people now get their television with a high-speed connection and a Torrent client. Heck, you can go to any major Torrent site and grab high-quality rips of all the current TV shows. As long as you don't mind giving up on-demand video, and having to queue your downloads for later viewing, you don't need a cable bill. Maybe that would be different if the major cable outfits offered a quality service without commercials ... but they don't.

Huh? (2, Funny)

bryan1945 (301828) | more than 6 years ago | (#19941027)

"Known world wide as the ultimate spot for networking..."

What? I thought this was the ultimate spot for 14 year olds to put up useless crap on the net.

And great, "my so called life" and something else is going to be played via myspace. Wow, taking over the world 10 years behind at a time.

My Space (2, Interesting)

proadventurer (1071064) | more than 6 years ago | (#19941365)

The more people who use myspace or watch TV, the less people in my space - the outdoors. Thanks Murdoch, I hope you make some money!

Only one thing will disrupt television (in the US) (4, Insightful)

dada21 (163177) | more than 6 years ago | (#19941407)

That thing is the FCC. The FCC holds back broadcast technology, and in the end the medium, because it is too slow to diagnose where the market is heading and make changes to its regulations. This is done on purpose -- the FCC is provided for, and promoted, solely by those who previously controlled the distribution media like television and radio.

Right now, we have cable and satellite for TV, and for Internet, for am majority of households and businesses. Both solutions are antiquated, and ready to be replaced. WiFi routers have proven that small-band radio hardware can be shared in relatively small spaces. All of my neighbors have routers, and we all work well together without major issues. In large urban areas, there are more problems with routers, yes, but this is the FCC's fault for not opening up the spectrum. Imagine how well broadcast technology would work if most of the currently used broadcast spectrum was unlicensed.

The major television and radio networks are scared to death of what would happen if gigabit wireless because available in an unlicensed manner. "On-demand" would take on new meaning. Nielsen would be replaced with real-time, and accurate, statistics sold by Google Analytics or a variety of actual competitors (unlike Nielsen, who has no real competitors). Shows would make it, or break it, not just on mega-advertiser income, but also the chance to make an income based on direct viewer sponsorship (subscription), or a myriad of other income streams (AdSense, or who knows what else?).

It is the regulation of the spectrum that is killing television and radio, as free market capitalists look for new ways to get information to those who want it. PeerCasting is amazing technology, which I already use to broadcast live church sermons to communities. It works well, so much better than public "Channel 19" a week or two later. When you can PeerCast straight to your car or your portable radio, the commercial radio stations will be dead. When you can watch one of a thousand TV shows, and become a hub for 5 or 10 others to watch it, the need for huge servers and huge pipes out of a studio will be ended. But that day won't happen with the FCC mandating frequency use to what worked 20 years ago.

MySpace isn't the killer -- MySpace is just finding a way to be relevant using the tiny bit of wired connectivity they have available. Imagine a peercasted or torrented YouTube, shared by millions, anonymous, and unable to be regulated by the State. That's a future I'm ready for.

Re:Only one thing will disrupt television (in the (4, Insightful)

fermion (181285) | more than 6 years ago | (#19943059)

The thing about regulation is that allowed a business to live in a predictable environment and allows consumers to have predictable product. Much of our life is regulated, and the regulation causes problems. I can no longer awns out a million emails to random email addresses selling fake drugs and not expect some possible reprucusions. It is terribly unfair as it removes significant profit opportunities. However, there is benifit as consumers have some security in knowing that they are more likely to receive a stated product in exchange for payment.

Other regulation, like the ones of the FCC, help distribute limited resources. In the case of broadcast radio and television, the monopoly covers a section and locality of the public airwaves.In exchange for the monopoly, the business agrees to some limite. Complaining about it is like public companies complaining about the regulation of the stock market. Companies that do not want such regulation, and want to treat the companies cash like thier own private liquid accounts, can choose to be private. There is no law forcing a company public.

The boradcasters have been given a monopoly over the airwaves. They have given enough leeway in what to transmit. The only thing that has changed is that others have come in, and with much less public financing, created a competing system of content delivery. The broadcasters, coddled by years of monopoly status, are apparently unable to work in a free market. Sure they are less free than the paid station, but then they also have the only non subscription fee product. If they can't survive with the huge public subsidy of free bandwidth, then I can only assume that they are truly incompetent. No myspace isn't the killer. Softness from monopoly status is. Braodcast content is an extremely inefficient use of the bandwidth, and cannot support the bloated structure that seems to define most broadcast companies.

And who really cares if broadcaster go off the air. That should be seen as a success. Privately funded enterprises killing government subsidized monopoly. Who can be against that? With the broadcasters gone, the bandwidth can be used for something else, by entrepenuers who are willing to rent the space at auction determined market value. I must say that I do not look forward to paying for radio and television, but I also realize that it might be better that continuously hearing people bitch about how unfair the rules are. Give the airwaves back to the public. Let the market decide how to use them best in the post analog world. Even the threat of such a thing will have the whiny wussy broadcast executives going to the hill and saying how absolutely happy they are with regulation.

Demographics, Si Vous Plais? (1)

Token_Internet_Girl (1131287) | more than 6 years ago | (#19941421)

Unless their custom series is a show about black eyeliner and self-mutilation, I highly doubt the majority of MySpace users will be interested.

Internet, not internet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19941579)

Please, an internet is just any TCP/IP-based network. The Internet is the one that spans the globe..

TV is dead (1)

mrshowtime (562809) | more than 6 years ago | (#19941679)

It's a shame that broadcasters, more specifically, the affiliates, are having to pay an enormous amount of money to upgrade all of their equipment to broadcast in HD, when in less than 10 years "broadcasting" television will be a moot point. What is the point of all the regulation and brouhaha and money spent on what amounts to six channels worth of content? Most of the "big four" have started to put their shows for free viewing (with commercials) on their home page. I never watched one episode of "30 rock" off of my cable box this past year, I watched it on NBC's "on demand" site. The same goes for Prison Break and My name is Earl. I download via torrents, all of the shows I can't get, like "Peep Show" and "Life on Mars," but even then the BBC and Channel 4 offer the episodes for free on their respective websites for download (only to UK though). The biggest hurdle in "internet tv" is that ubiquitous "Black Box" that consumer electronics manufacturers have been searching for decades to decades to find. The 360 and the PS3 are the first iteration in what will be the future. The 360 is offering essentially basic cable to 360 owners this fall and I am certain that the PS3 will have something similar, especially since Sony owns a huge catalogue of films.

Re:TV is dead (3, Interesting)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 6 years ago | (#19941859)

The biggest hurdle in "internet tv" is that ubiquitous "Black Box" that consumer electronics manufacturers have been searching for decades to decades to find. The 360 and the PS3 are the first iteration in what will be the future. The 360 is offering essentially basic cable to 360 owners this fall and I am certain that the PS3 will have something similar, especially since Sony owns a huge catalogue of films.
Which is probably why all the gamers are keeping store shelves clear of Wii boxes and allowing those consoles to gather some dust before a sports fan feels the need to kill time between seasons with electronic reenactments of his adored teams and buys the necessary hardware for that purpose. They aren't actually game consoles, they're media hubs that happen to play games.

Hasn't Been Anything worthwhile on TV (1)

fast turtle (1118037) | more than 6 years ago | (#19941923)

in 20 years, which is why I gave up TV. Much rather pick up a book and read as it's portable and in an SFF that fits comfortably in the hand plus it uses no power.

As though this were the first innovation in TVLand (2, Insightful)

winomonkey (983062) | more than 6 years ago | (#19942021)

A pretty good pile of non-sentences in a non-article about a pretty big non-story. TV will be killed by MySpace in the same way that it was killed by TiVo (only watching what the users wants?!) and by DVDs (which, with entire seasons of content being made available, was going to kill TV as opposed to increase overall viewrships), and by the VCR (content, when and where you want it?!), etc etc.

Meaning, of course, that TV will still be around long after MySpace goes the way of Geocities and Tripod.

Summary Misleading (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19942201)

In fact, what is happening is that a new show is being put online, on myspace. Did Youtube disrupt network television? Because this amounts to the same thing, but with only one show, and no user-created content.

Threat to TV? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19942407)

So MySpace lets you download torrents now?

Murdoch Disrupts Everything (2, Interesting)

MrSteveSD (801820) | more than 6 years ago | (#19942439)

I don't know about the impact of MySpace, but the biggest disruption of established media has been with the news. People are no longer confined to just a few news channels and papers owned by just a handful of people. Things that were possible before, such as D-Notices (where the UK media are blocked from reporting something by the government) are now quite ineffective. However, Murdoch and the big outlets do have a big web presence and we should avoid them like the plague.

Using the UK Freedom of Information act, it has recently emerged that Tony Blair had 3 telephone conversations with Rupert Murdoch in the 10 days leading up to the invasion of Iraq. No doubt he wanted to know how much support he would get. War sells papers and increases viewing figures, so it would not have been a good business decision for Murdoch to oppose the war. Do you really want to sit there passively consuming Rupert Murdoch's political views, channelled though different newsreaders and outlets? We should be avoiding Murdoch's empire as much as possible. It's not healthy for so much of the media to be owned by so few people. Fortunately the net makes it easy to hunt around and find more independent outlets.

If anyone is interested, the FOI request was made by Lord Avebury and it took him a long time to get the information released.

Re:Murdoch Disrupts Everything (1)

heinousjay (683506) | more than 6 years ago | (#19942503)

Why would it be preferable for me to digest your views as opposed to Rupert Murdoch's? Aside from the obvious bit where you figure anything you believe must be superior.

Re:Murdoch Disrupts Everything (3, Insightful)

MrSteveSD (801820) | more than 6 years ago | (#19942651)

No, of course not. That would be just as bad. The point is that no one person should have so much power to push their views on the people. It's better to have lots of different people speaking their own mind.

No (1)

p0et xtar (866640) | more than 6 years ago | (#19943085)

I don't even care about reading this article. With how many other sites there are expect tv to be effected but only in improving which shows people view as legit and which shows people view as total crap and don't care to watch.

Nothings new under the sun... (1)

streetphantom (1075615) | more than 6 years ago | (#19943525)

Whether the corporations moving picture is transmitted via antenae, satelite or cable, or adsl, its the same old same old. However, Video on demand of people lighting farts is progress i suppose.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...