Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

TV May Die Soon

shellypalmer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 75 posts

Re: TV May Die Soon

#41

Post by skrebbel »

> FANG is delivering actionable data to advertisers in ways that traditional broadcasters simply can’t.

The "N" in that weird acronym stands for Netflix. The day they start selling my data to advertisers is the day I'm back to torrenting. I feel like the author is so ad-focused that she doesn't even see this: the whole article is about ads.

Netflix is showing that you can make fantastic, super expensive content, even niche content, without advertising. To me that feels much more profound than "Youtube has more data about you than ABC so advertisers will prefer that".

Re: TV May Die Soon

#42

Post by hackuser »

DiabloD3 wrote: post #18

We keep getting "TV is dead/dying/will live forever" stories on HN. tl;dr of all of them is essentially: TV, as a non-time-shifted non-live broadcast medium, is dead: Netflix et al, Youtube, Torrent, and at the very least, DVRs, killed it; people watch non-live content how they want, when they want, frequently choosing to just "Netflix binge" it. TV, as a live broadcast medium (eg, emergency news), will never die in…

The article doesn't say that; it says TV is at risk because it lacks data about its viewers.

Re: TV May Die Soon

#43

Post by hackuser »

skrebbel wrote: post #41

> FANG is delivering actionable data to advertisers in ways that traditional broadcasters simply can’t. The "N" in that weird acronym stands for Netflix. The day they start selling my data to advertisers is the day I'm back to torrenting. I feel like the author is so ad-focused that she doesn't even see this: the whole article is about ads. Netflix is showing that you can make fantastic, super expensive content, even…

Data about you is valuable. Netflix can sell it without displaying the ads itself. I'd be surprised if they aren't tracking users and monetizing that information, like seemingly every other business in the world.

But maybe someone knows ...

Re: TV May Die Soon

#44

Post by douche »

hkmurakami wrote: post #31
Spooky23 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AM is dead. Listen to the ads, not the god awful programming sometime. There's only so many prostate pills to be sold... I don't think it's a real business anymore, IMO there are a few ultra conservative types supporting the whole thing.

Isn't AM where Sports radio lives?

In the Boston area, we basically have 93.7 WEEI and 98.5 the Sportshub, two FM stations. I don't even know what the AM stations are, or if they exist.

Re: TV May Die Soon

#45

Post by brianwawok »

DiabloD3 wrote: post #38
CharlesW wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ... it's still a goddamned 128kbit or less stream. Arguably, this is worse quality than ye olde FM on average. I don't claim to be a "golden ears" or anything, but I find 64 kbps HE-AAC to offer better-than-FM quality. (HE-AACv2 benefits really only make sense at 48 kbps or lower.) Hydrogenaudio tests showed that a good HE-AAC encoder does just slightly (imperceptibly) worse than Opus at 64 kbps[1]. [1] http://list…

The problem with those listening tests is the playback medium is not controlled: ie, what were they using (what headphones, what headphone amp, what DAC, etc; or what speakers, what speaker amp, what DAC, was the room properly treated, etc); and what is their level of hearing damage (ie, their age)? If everyone is taking their test on their phone with low grade earbuds plugged in, or exceptionally bad car audio syste…

I have never spent over $100 on headphones. $50 is usually enough. I have plenty of things to geek out on in life, audio quality is not one of them. Seems like many many many tech people are like me.

Re: TV May Die Soon

#46

Post by maxerickson »

hackuser wrote: post #43
skrebbel wrote: post #41

> FANG is delivering actionable data to advertisers in ways that traditional broadcasters simply can’t. The "N" in that weird acronym stands for Netflix. The day they start selling my data to advertisers is the day I'm back to torrenting. I feel like the author is so ad-focused that she doesn't even see this: the whole article is about ads. Netflix is showing that you can make fantastic, super expensive content, even…

Data about you is valuable. Netflix can sell it without displaying the ads itself. I'd be surprised if they aren't tracking users and monetizing that information, like seemingly every other business in the world. But maybe someone knows ...

I thought Netflix had a whole bunch of product placement deals?

There can be advertising without breaking out of the content.

Re: TV May Die Soon

#47

Post by Symbiote »

tener wrote: post #17
beatpanda wrote: post #9

There's a huge opportunity for the attentive. Rock and roll got started largely because the major broadcasters moved away from radio and into television, and as a result operating an FM radio station got crazy cheap, leaving lots of room for experimentation. I have had my fingers crossed for years that the same thing is going to happen to terrestrial TV.

Sorry to ruin your hopes: any free spectrum will be consumed by wireless data transmission systems.

As one example, but a big one, that's the plan in the European Union.

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-207_en.htm

Re: TV May Die Soon

#48

Post by mgbmtl »

Roedou wrote: post #29
rmason wrote: post #27

Television isn't dying. Over the air TV though is on life support. Just like gas stations someday soon local TV stations will be ancient history.

What's the story with gas stations in the US? Are they dying out / being replaced by something else as well?

In big cities, I think that between higher fuel efficiency and the small margins that stations make, it's not surprising to see the smaller stations close. (Anecdotally, in my neighbourhood, a few stations closed, our tiny neighbourhood/borough of 60k people had a dozen gas stations, now down to 5)

Re: TV May Die Soon

#49

Post by Spooky23 »

rdiddly wrote: post #32
Spooky23 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AM is dead. Listen to the ads, not the god awful programming sometime. There's only so many prostate pills to be sold... I don't think it's a real business anymore, IMO there are a few ultra conservative types supporting the whole thing.

If there are ads at all, somebody sold those & got paid.

True, but prostate pills are the equivalent of a strip-mall with a karate studio and dollar store -- usually dying.

Re: TV May Die Soon

#50

Post by clubm8 »

easyfrag wrote: post #40
DiabloD3 wrote: post #18

We keep getting "TV is dead/dying/will live forever" stories on HN. tl;dr of all of them is essentially: TV, as a non-time-shifted non-live broadcast medium, is dead: Netflix et al, Youtube, Torrent, and at the very least, DVRs, killed it; people watch non-live content how they want, when they want, frequently choosing to just "Netflix binge" it. TV, as a live broadcast medium (eg, emergency news), will never die in…

I wonder if YouTube Live and other similar services could scale up to serve in a time of true crises. Back in 2001 the web's bandwidth limitations were laid bare on 9/11 and that was with static text & pictures. CNN had to go to a "bare bones" text site and even that had trouble. Things have improved dramatically since then of course but delivering live video to billions of users simultaneously?

They held up fine during the Boston Bombing.
Post reply on HN