[opendtv] Re: Apple TV Ensures TV's Future Is Not Just Apps, For One Really Obvious Reason - Forbes

  • From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2015 06:28:34 -0500

On Nov 1, 2015, at 9:37 PM, Manfredi, Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Craig, you are arguing like someone who has an axe to grind. The article
mentioned people who like watching linear TV. The article was not delving
into the details of how non-linear TV content might be delivered to the
household. This is when I wonder what motivates you to argue this way. Why
the compulsion to insist that the old-school live channel delivery method is
still being used? Why do you even care enough to insist?

You are the one with the axe to grind. YOU are trying to convince us that
linear channels are going to go away; that everything can and will be delivered
on demand. You have an axe to grind with Apple, telling us the author of the
article that launched this thread was gushing about Apple TV.

Aside from the fact that a significant portion of the most popular TV programs
are coverage of live events, the linear network is a very popular way in which
to aggregate and promote TV content. This is not going to change, as the author
pointed out. I just took advantage of your bias to get under your skin...

again.

The DVR depends on some knowledge of the linear TV world. In most cases a
viewer either marks a program/series they like for recording, they look at the
linear program guide to find a program to record, or they hear about a program
as it is promoted in something they are watching. They record the program for
time shifted viewing among other reasons. Bottom line, a DVR makes linear TV
more valuable and convenient, just as TV Everywhere makes the content from an
umbilical service mobile and accessible on demand.

No, you are wrong, again. The Internet is simply the most flexible medium, to
deliver the content any which way, from any number of sources. Internet
delivery DOES NOT MEAN the material can only be viewed on demand. Remember?
What compels you not to get this? We've been over thins tons of times.

Sorry, you are the one saying that the Internet makes linear TV unnecessary;
that every program can be delivered whether live or from a server. While this
is true, and may well happen in time, it does not mean that linear TV will go
away, as you keep suggesting.

And yes, we have been over this too many times. Yet you keep suggesting that
all programming will move to on demand. In reality, the linear networks with
popular original content will move to the Internet; whether they make a program
available on demand after it starts remains to be seen.

What is virtually certain is that many content owners will program linear
channels, even if delivered via the Internet. You keep telling us that they
will take the axe to linear TV.

Around and around. The trend goes against this "things as they are" thinking
you have, Craig. The simple truth is that for material best viewed on demand,
if people are using their DVRs still, that's often because that's the only
way they know.

Pure crap. It take an active decision to re or something. They knew about the
show first, and made the decision to record it. In a non linear world, you must
first discover a show to watch it. It may seem like a minor difference, but it
is real. In many cases people discover shows on linear channels just because
the TV is on and tuned to that channel. Program adjacency is not the powerful
force it was in the 3-4 channel world, but it is still a significant factor, as
are all the promos embedded in linear programming.

Even behind legacy MVPD pay walls, they could be using either the Internet or
in-system on demand options. But they are used to the old way, so they
continue to use it. And, content that's now solely behind legacy MVPD pay
walls is finding its way to the Internet, Craig.

All content (other than live news and some events) finds its way to FOTA and
now FOTI services...

Eventually.

That is the nature of episodic programming. After the highest value is
extracted the show goes into syndication around the world. And a great deal of
TV content is just filler that is not worth saving.

It's not the other way around. Yes, even ESPN, even HBO and ShowTime, etc.
etc., are moving, or have moved, outside your much-beloved walled gardens.

They are all still paid services, and thus just behind different pay walls.
I repeat: the UI for watching TV using a web browser, and the UI for watching
TV using "apps," is virtually identical. Don't give me this stuff about
"pull-down menus and palettes." Anyone developing a web site with TV content
is free to do so intelligently, Craig, and for the most part, they do. I urge
you to find out the truth about these things, before describing problems that
don't exist.

How the PC is connected is irrelevant,

BS. It's not irrelevant to a person who wonders why he's being told to use
limited-use boxes for sending online TV content to his TV set, Craig. It's
totally relevant.

There is virtually no difference between "tapping" and "clicking,"

DUH.

Well, there you have it. Then don't waste time arguing, Craig. With a mouse
and a browser, the user interacts with TV content exactly the same as he does
with the "app," except that the big screen is too far away to tap.

To be fair, many TVs are connected to game consoles that are used for
streaming TV; Microsoft offers a board for the X-Box that connects to
cable TV systems.

No difference. And what's more, with Windows 10, I also get the X-Box UI. You
simply need to inform yourself of how TV content is presented to browsers,
Craig.

4. To conserve space and energy - PCs are typically large and
ugly.

Nope. There are plenty of "small form factor" or "micro form factor" PCs
these days.

Tablet sales are declining relative to the very high initial
adoption rates, but the total number of tablets being sold is
still increasing,

The sales volume of tablets, year to year, is dropping, way more so than PCs.
The number in consumer hands is leveling off. Just like you'd expect with any
product that's saturated the market. PCs are a lot more mature than tablets,
and yet their sales are not dropping anywhere close to as fast. That's
because the new smartphones, and the new two-in-one PCs, make credible
alternatives for tablets. But not the other way around.

We are not moving to a PC centric info sphere

Again, just words. There are devices that support the human interface. PCs
are one such device, and are probably the most flexible of such devices.
Other such devices are limited by their form factor, e.g. because they have
to be ultra-portable (smartphones, fitness watches). And some such devices,
like the streaming TV boxes this article talks about, are not flexible nor do
they have a good excuse not to be. They don't need to be portable or mobile,
nor are they constrained to working with just a very small display. That's
the bottom line.

Bert



----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:

- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org

- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.



----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:

- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org

- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. opendtv
  3. Archive
  4. 11-2015