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

61–70 of 75 posts

Re: TV May Die Soon

#61

Post by majewsky »

nawitus wrote: post #12

One problem with the TV discourse is that it mixes together different meanings of "TV". One is the actual technology to broadcast video, second is the act of broadcasting video to consumers, and the third is the actual receiver, e.g. physical a television screen. The first one will surely die, and has already died for most(?) young people where I live. But that doesn't really matter much as content can be streamed us…

Anecdote time: I'm nearly the only one in my group of friends who still has a TV, and it's become a tradition for us to gather once a week to watch the "heute-show" (a German copy of The Daily Show, but only broadcasted weekly) at my place, and maybe have some political discussions afterwards. So in this particular case, timeslotted broadcasting actually brings us together.

Re: TV May Die Soon

#62

Post by feld »

brianwawok wrote: post #45
DiabloD3 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Audiophile products are always a scam. People who talk about owning them are not to be trusted.

Re: TV May Die Soon

#63

Post by JakeAl »

hackuser wrote: post #42
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.

And people say that like it's a bad thing. Cable can tell a lot about it's viewers. So can your TV hardware itself. The issue is how and whether they use that data in a way that is consumer-friendly. I'd say anything that takes the control away from the consumer is bad. I would prefer my curation, aggregation and recommendation tools be isolated and give me control over who knows what about me and exactly how it's used. I have no problem opting in for advertising and marketing from specific companies I support, but unfortunately no one gives me that option. I block ads because I have no control over how the third party ad networks use and distribute my data. I don't use paid services for that same reason.

Re: TV May Die Soon

#64

Post by coldtea »

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…

>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.

They might already be selling it for all we know ("privacy statement" aside).

Also, it doesn't matter at all, if many other people don't also do the same move.

Re: TV May Die Soon

#65

Post by coldtea »

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…

>will never die in that sense: I can watch Presidential addresses via the White House's Youtube channel via Youtube's Live feature as well as many local OTA broadcast channels.

If "presidential addresses" are what's supposed to keep a medium afloat, it's doomed already.

Millenials don't even watch as much sports as older generations anymore...

Re: TV May Die Soon

#66

Post by Namrog84 »

coldtea wrote: post #65
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…

> will never die in that sense: I can watch Presidential addresses via the White House's Youtube channel via Youtube's Live feature as well as many local OTA broadcast channels. If "presidential addresses" are what's supposed to keep a medium afloat, it's doomed already. Millenials don't even watch as much sports as older generations anymore...

They might not watch as much traditional sports. But there is a rapidly rising amount of viewers watching esports and other streaming games. While a game isn't a sport; a sport is a game.

This audience is growing rapidly and is already quite large too.

Re: TV May Die Soon

#67

Post by Namrog84 »

As some have already stated. TV is the wrong word here.

"Television or TV is a telecommunication medium used for transmitting moving images in monochrome (black-and-white), or in color, and in two or three dimensions and sound. "

This sounds like everything from traditional broadcast TV to YouTube to twitch to snapchat. You are remotely seeing something on a display. It's technically TV is it not?

Re: TV May Die Soon

#68

Post by madebysquares »

I've been hearing this targeted audience and advertising for several years. However for as long as I've been watching Hulu, YouTube etc I rarely see ads that interest me. I wish they used that data better.

Re: TV May Die Soon

#69

Post by melq »

feld wrote: post #62
brianwawok wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Audiophile products are always a scam. People who talk about owning them are not to be trusted.

Well, I wouldn't say always. But there is no need to spend a thousand dollars on headphone 'gear'. There is also no need for a dedicated DAC unless your source is audibly noisy. MacBook pros for instance have perfectly good audio circuitry capable of driving normal impedance headphones to ear damaging volume w/o distortion. If you want to buy a DAC and amp for your 32ohm headphones that's cool, but you're just buying an exceptionally expensive volume control.

Re: TV May Die Soon

#70

Post by brendangregg »

coldtea wrote: post #64
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…

> 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. They might already be selling it for all we know ("privacy statement" aside). Also, it doesn't matter at all, if many other people don't also do the same move.

But what if Netflix can be a role model for other companies? Doing the right thing, and being successful.

Before I joined, I was a little cynical about big business and the shady moves you hear about to make a profit. It's been refreshing to join Netflix and find it to be an honest company with a simple business model: build a product that people want to buy.

Post reply on HN