[opendtv] Re: The Guardian: Cord-cutting: beginning of the end for linear television
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 13:43:54 -0400
On Jul 18, 2015, at 7:24 PM, Albert Manfredi <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Well, at least you picked a good example. The platitude approach you were
using would claim that people have "options," of using film or digital
photography. The realistic approach is that the new scheme, being far, far
more convenient for consumers, almost totally displaced the legacy technology.
Now, can you extend this to linear TV consumption?
That depends on consumer behavior. Some linear TV will be displaced by VOD.
Some can never be displaced as it is delivered live - please note that this is
still linear streams, even if the delivery medium is broadband versus cable,
DBS or broadcast.
The fact is that most TV is still viewed via the linear channels, not VOD. So
to answer you directly, I do not think linear will be displaced to the same
degree that film was displaced.
Btw, Kodak's "business model" was NOT to make money selling cameras. The
business model was more like Gillette's. The camera is a way for getting
people to continuously buy film, just as the razor handle gets people to buy
your design of blades. For Kodak to convert its model to digital photography
was as difficult as it seems to be for walled garden MVPDs to convert their
business to unwalled OTT sites.
Some companies are able to make major transition other cannot. Xerox had the
core technologies for the graphical user interface for computing and did
nothing with it. HP was a huge test and measurement company that became a huge
computer company through acquisitions but list their way; but they did get a
big chunk of the printer market, giving people who use digital cameras a way to
print their photographs.
I don't think you can demonstrate that Canon was in the film selling business.
I did not say they were. I said that a number of companies that made film
cameras made the transition to digital cameras. And that many of them faded
away as digital cameras became w feature of smart phones. But Cannon
successfully moved to the high end with digital SLRs for professionals, AND
added HD video capabilities that made most of the expensive HD cameras from
video equipment manufacturers like Sony and Panasonic expensive dinosaurs.
Hence, it's an invalid comparison with Kodak. Canon was always in the
business of selling the camera, as a one-time sale. What difference could it
possibly make to Canon, whether that camera used film or a semiconductor, for
image retention?
You missed it entirely.
Oswald maybe. WTC? I don't think so.
You missed it again.
After the first plane went into the WTC, the New York TV News helicopters
swarmed around the WTC like fireflies. All of the TV networks went live with
this "breaking news" story and showed the second plane as it came in and
rotated 90 degrees to maximize the number of floors hit and engulfed in the
resulting jet fuel fire.
Eventually a French videography crew doing a documentary on New York fire
fighters, came forward with a video of the first plane hitting the WTC.
This was civilian footage.NThere were no camera crews out there aiming their
cameras at the twin towers right when the planes hit, with live feeds back to
the studio?
Wrong.
There were no live feeds of the first impact. Every network news organization
was live when the second plane hit.
But in any event, let's pretend they are good examples. There may be two
hours of TV, in perhaps 25 years of TV, that really benefitted Craig, as an
individual among many, with truly "live" distribution. Fair enough. New
distribution methods have no problem supporting that occasional "live"
programming.
How absurd. I have watched many thousands of hours of live TV over the years. I
was simply making a point about the impact that live TV can have, and ALWAYS
will have as it relates to the coverage of major events.
Obviously the Internet can and does support linear streaming channels - Sling
and Sony are doing it at this moment. The notion that any program, even the
linear streams can be accessed on demand is important. I often rewind the live
program I am watching via my DVR. This can also be done via networked DVRs for
every source in any MVPD service. I fully understand the value in allowing on
demand access to linear programming after it has aired.
But you go a step too far predicting that on demand access will completely
eliminate the need for linear networks in the future. I agree that the number
of linear networks will shrink, but that business model will not go away; it
will co-exist with on demand access to the content.
Focus, Craig. Explain to us why you think it is more "convenient" to tune
into the live stream, than to use VOD for your background racket?
Both are relatively easy to access. But this is cultural, AND in many cases
brainless. It is easy to turn the TV on. Not much harder to select a channel.
It takes a bit more thought and effort to choose a VOD program. And in many
cases the background noise is live throw away content like a new channel or
breakfast television.
I took nothing "out of context." You keep repeating that live is "more
convenient," and then you deny it when I point that out.
Even when I explain what I meant you still argue...
Craig is on his usual absurdity roll. So, tell us, Craig. If you turn on the
TV to watch the linear stream of NCIS, this is not "by appointment"?
Yes it is an appointment - you know the time and channel and want to watch it.
What I was talking about is simply turning the TV on and perhaps channel
surfing until you land on some "interesting" background noise.
Anything you decide to watch on linear streams is "by appointment," unless
it's recorded on a PVR and seen later, or just background noise, both of
which can easily be served by VOD just as well as "live stream."
Whatever. Tell this to Les Moonves...
Halleluja. So again, you could have gone back to the top and spared yourself
an awful lot of verbiage, right Craig? Why would people *not* use VOD for
that background racket role? Tell us. Because, you believe, linear is "more
con_____." Fill in those blanks.
Call it habit, cultural, or whatever, but you are trying to fix something that
ain't broken, that generates the majority of TV industry revenues. And need I
remind you that those live streams are the key to generating the second revenue
stream from subscriber fees?
Obviously other models can work. The music industry no longer cares about
"live" except for concerts, which are expensive appointments. They now are
happy to get a few fractions of a cent each time a song is streamed to someone.
Maybe someday we will be able to buy TV this way - i.e. full access to
everything, pay for what you watch.
We are not there yet and I doubt you and I will live long enough to see such a
paradigm shift.
So, trying to think rigorously, like engineers, instead of floundering around
with vagueness: Film vs digital photography is indeed very close to an all or
nothing event, IN SPITE OF the platitudes written by the photo mags of the
day. The photo mags sounded similar to your beliefs in this linear/VOD case,
like film and digital would coexist for an extended period. It in fact did
not turn out that way. Film dropped off rapidly, as soon as digital got to
the 13 Mpel quality level, giving film a good run for its money. Prices came
down, quality was no longer a credible limit of digital, so digital took over.
And digital is taking over the ways TV content can be delivered. But that does
not mean that it is killing linear networks. They have survived and grown in
number even as consumers were given new options and improved choice.
I think it is a bit early to be writing the obituary for linear TV.
In the linear vs on demand debate, as we have been over and over again, both
live and on demand can be met with new distribution media.
There is no dispute about this Bert. Other than DBS and terrestrial broadcast
content distribution is clearly moving to IP over the Internet. Maybe packaged
media survives for collectors - there is a small but thriving market for music
on vinyl.
**The problem** is that the infrastructure for on demand, which
infrastructure CAN ALSO SUPPORT LIVE, is very different from an
infrastructure that will ONLY support live. The live-only infrastructure is
much cheaper. The live or on-demand infrastructure is much more involved.
We agree that this will all shift to the Internet. We disagree about how that
shift will impact TV distribution business models.
So the question is, given that live is only rarely needed if on demand is an
option, just how much emphasis does it make sense to invest in live-only
infrastructure?
That infrastructure already exists. No investment is required other than
maintenance and upgrades as standards evolve - e.g. SDTV -> HDTV -> UHDTV...
Can we avoid continuing to go around this circle?
There is no circle Bert. Multiple business models can co-exist.
Regards
Craig
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
