Live data from Hacker News

TV is increasingly for old people

washingtonpost.com

41–50 of 57 posts

Re: TV is increasingly for old people

#41

I don't understand why older people hang on to less optimal way of doing things? I hope I never do this. Being able to watch content at any time you want is better than having to schedule your time around broadcasts. No advertisements is better than having to endure advertisement breaks in the middle of a show. Same with newspapers. You can't share newspaper content easily. You can't click on a word and Google it or…

>I don't understand why older people hang on to less optimal way of doing things?

Because they are used to it and it works for them, so they couldn't be bothered? It's not all about "optimization" of options and full utilization of potential features, sometimes personal convenience is more important.

>Same with newspapers. You can't share newspaper content easily. You can't click on a word and Google it or look up information about Ukraine's president while reading the news paper. Newspapers take up space in your house and unread newspapers are a huge waste. I get some people like distraction free reading, without a glaring bright screen so the case here isn't as clear cut as with a TV, but the point is valid.

Not being able to "click on a word and Google it" is exactly why some people prefer newspapers. And it's exactly why some people who read the news on the web actually read 1-2 articles, skim 90% of them, and end up with cat videos somewhere on the corners of YouTube.

Also some people don't like sharing content. Why would I want to share a news item? As if I'm the purveyor of news to my un-englightened friends? Finally, "newspapers taking space in a house" is a first world problem if there ever was one. Let's be honest: nobody really considered "newspapers taking place" a real problem...

Re: TV is increasingly for old people

#42
post #36

I don't understand why older people hang on to less optimal way of doing things? I hope I never do this. Being able to watch content at any time you want is better than having to schedule your time around broadcasts. No advertisements is better than having to endure advertisement breaks in the middle of a show. Same with newspapers. You can't share newspaper content easily. You can't click on a word and Google it or…

I think having a dedicated TV with cable is optimal: 1. Computers and Internet are for work (HN being an exception), TV is for entertainment. It makes sense to keep things separate, even physically separate. 2. If I watch TV, I do *not* want to be bothered about thinking what to watch. I reserve these kinds of decisions for work or for things that actually matter. 3. If another person makes the program for me, I'm li…

There are a lot of different modes of entertainment. One that you describe is pretty rare - "Show me something I would like to see, I don't care what, maybe something new".

Obviously this is a useful mode to have. TV channels about wildlife and history are good examples - you can turn them on even for 10 minutes while you do some chores, for example. But for "stateful" content like sports or TV series this is suboptimal. And that's the bulk of entertainment.

Re: TV is increasingly for old people

#43
post #30

Is this simply because regular TV has advertising and advertisers want to target the people with the most money? There is a huge gap in wealth between generations thanks to debt via housing and education. Are advertisers putting pressure on program makers to make shows that appeal to old people? I'd guess they've done a lot of thinking on this.

"There is a huge gap in wealth between generations thanks to debt via housing and education"

You sound like there's a ton of incentive to make TV channels for teenagers, promote mortgage and colleges on it. Capture all the unserved audience, make $$$s. If that's where all money go in this generation.

Re: TV is increasingly for old people

#44
There's some mixing in this thread of "watching via cable programming" and "watching TV/movie content on a TV versus a computer or mobile device."

For the former, even among people not paying at all, or not paying for it through the traditional cable company means, big-studio TV content seems more popular than ever (unsurprising since it's higher quality than ever, with still-increasing amounts of money pouring into it). This shift ultimately seems like one that will only hurt the traditional broadcast networks, as well as the cable networks that fill themselves with "passive watching" content versus the stuff that (currently, at least) plays much better in the newer distribution channels. Or maybe stuff like reality will just move online later when that demographic moves online if cable starts to fail. That's probably an area where the "it just works, and it's on, set it and forget" aspect of cable is actually a very large advantage, though. Otherwise, about the only non-large-content-library advantage of cable is that fast forward/rewind on my DVR work way better than on online streaming.

Extreme space and budget restrictions seem to be the only reason to give up the latter. The couch or recliner + TV viewing experience is hard to do without (I did it for a couple of years after moving and being short on space, and then couldn't believe I'd done it for so long after getting a TV again).

Re: TV is increasingly for old people

#45
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because in a lot of ways a decent smart TV at say 50 inches with iPlayer is lot less fuss than messing about with a pc and a much smaller display an suboptimal sound.

Smart TV and cable are not the same.

Why your chopping logic and nit picking here

Re: TV is increasingly for old people

#46

I don't understand why older people hang on to less optimal way of doing things? I hope I never do this. Being able to watch content at any time you want is better than having to schedule your time around broadcasts. No advertisements is better than having to endure advertisement breaks in the middle of a show. Same with newspapers. You can't share newspaper content easily. You can't click on a word and Google it or…

> Older people, by virtue of having been around longer should be more capable of recognizing the pattern of new innovation

Not necessarily. The current generations of "old people" have always had TV; they have always had books, newspapers and magazines; they have always had cassettes for music (vinyl was the reserve of a rich minority and CDs weren't mainstream until the '90s). They have always had cars, trains, electricity, airplanes. They were already 30+ by the time videogames and PCs came about, which is why they left them to their kids. In fact, they saw the digital revolution happening in the workplace and were taken aback, to the point where, 30 years later, they are still not particularly comfortable with it.

The generations that saw real technological revolutions, innovations changing their way of life in radical ways, were the ones that fought the first and second World War. A lot of them didn't have home telephones or electricity while growing up, often even running water was missing; they didn't have cars, trains were expensive, and the thought of flying was just ludicrous. They bought the first radios and TVs and marveled at silent movies. Those generations could recognise change; the current oldies mostly saw marginal improvements, all considered. They spent most of their time actually dealing with social changes, rather than technological; which is why they are responding to the current wave of changes with a barrage of social prescriptions (i.e. silly new laws) -- they can see the social change happening, although they don't really understand the technological underpinnings of it.

Re: TV is increasingly for old people

#47
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Smart TV and cable are not the same.

Why your chopping logic and nit picking here

I wasn't trying to be a jerk, I should have explained myself better. Basically using a smart tv is analogous to young people using the internet in this situation because

A. You are picking and choosing your content.

B. You aren't exposed to advertisers (unless you are using hulu but even then you are picking what show you want to watch)

C. You aren't paying a massive monthly subscription.

D. It works using the internet, not cable.

The article isn't so much about using a TV (the actual device that displays the picture) or a computer monitor as it was about watching "traditional" tv (the content, shown in a scheduled manner)

Re: TV is increasingly for old people

#49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ironically, even when I own the DVD I'll still watch the Netflix streaming version, simply because it is more convenient.

You should rip your DVDs and store them on a hard drive connected to a Roku/WDTV/whatever...

That would require more work though. It's like telling someone to rip all your CDs and put it on your phone instead of streaming it from Spotify.

Re: TV is increasingly for old people

#50
You could also say that TV is increasingly for the young. Vice, House of Cards, etc. are great but they're targeting the 20+ crowd. There's an explosion of new shows and programs for kids on cable. Some of them, like Adventure Time, are so well done that I enjoy watching them. In fact, you could call this a bit of a "golden age" for this sort of thing.

Watching shows on the internet is great. The acting talent and quality there has really improved. But, I see this less as taking away from cable, and more as taking away from the box office. Kevin Spacey was doing great movies 10+ years ago, and now he's headlining Netflix's service. Honestly, I think these long running tv shows are a better format for a lot of actors. Breaking Bad just can not be done in a 2-3 hour movie, or in a syndicated format where each episode needs to be treated more or less independently (e.g. Law and Order). However, Netflix didn't really start that trend, cable did.

Also, cable/tv "owns" the coax cable running through the house: the fastest and most reliable way of moving information around the average US home. There's new technologies like Moca that are going to make a lot of things possible that currently are very flakey with current wireless/alt-ethernet solutions.

TV has always been (mostly) about mindless entertainment. I think the shows that are successful outside of a traditional cable package succeed because they were probably inappropriate for the cable programming format anyways. Services like Netflix are filling a new niche, but I don't think they can significantly take away the core value of cable for most people.

Post reply on HN