Live data from Hacker News

TV is broken

minimalmac.com

111–120 of 264 posts

Re: TV is broken

#111
Broken for whom?

Beatrix isn't the customer. She's the product being sold. TV is only broken if the customers (advertisers) start to lose their ability to manipulate a lot of people into buying things.

Hopefully young Beatrix is an outlier like her parents and she'll never get hooked. But it could be that, like most adults, she'll get used to sitting there through the commercials, wasting 8 minutes of her life to get 22 minutes of entertainment. Plus, of course, whatever she wastes on buying things that she doesn't need.

Re: TV is broken

#112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Folks are already paying the amount that commercial-free TV would cost Not even close. Take the entire amount of advertising $$ spent on TV ($100B+) and divide by the folks watching. That is the money that people would have to shell out one way or another.

By my top-of-head calculations: $100B advertising / ~160MM households = $625/household/year, or about $50/mo. You're right, I wasn't even close. I was way over.

I said people watching. You chose to interpret that as households/year.

Good luck.

Re: TV is broken

#113

There are many other things that are broken too. My fancy expensive name-brand digital TV takes a full minute to boot up from a cold start, longer than it took my tube based TV from the 1950s to warm up. Once on, it takes almost a full second to change channels while it rebuffers the stream of the channel being changed to. This prevents quickly flipping through channels to see what is on. As a result I just don't bot…

Here's a question for my fellow amateur economists: What happens to the quality of broadcast television when you increase the supply of broadcast channel-hours by a factor of 50 and you don't increase the supply of viewers at all?

I used to watch TV, like most people. Then, in the 1990's, the number of channels started increasing. More options, great. Twice as many channels did allow for more specialization, so maybe there were twice as many things I wanted to watch. When it reached four times as many channels, though, there were still only twice as many things I wanted to watch. Ten times as many channels, and now I wasn't sure if there were even twice as many as in the old days, because the budgets for the good shows were being spread among more shows to provide vehicles for more ads in all those new broadcast channel-hours.

Then, along came TiVo. Ah, TV was fun again. I could skim the cream. Couldn't imagine life without it. But as the years passed, the things I grabbed with TiVo were losing quality, too, seemingly bleeding budget to the shows "out there" that my TiVo and I ignored.

Then, my TV set broke. I assumed I'd have to get a new one quickly because, of course, everyone had to have a TV, right? I was sure I'd go crazy without it.

But I didn't. As time passed, I found I grew less motivated to get a new one, not more.

Well, after years of no TV, we finally got one a few weeks ago, so we wouldn't have to gather 'round the laptop for Netflix and slide shows of family vacations. The image is spectacular. But I can't believe what I'm so clearly seeing. They may call themselves The Travel Channel, Discovery Channel, History Channel, Food Network, Science Channel, or whatever, but they're all "Paid Programming", reality for rednecks, and pseudoscience for suckers, punctuated by screaming ads.

Even the islands of quality have clearly suffered extreme beach erosion.

But at least DVR technology has improved. Sorry, JUST KIDDING. You'd think that after years of Moore's Law, Comcast could make a cable box that didn't act as though I was waking it from a nap with each key press. You'd think that a product called an "HD DVR" would have an HD interface (wouldn't you?), instead of one with the display resolution of the lower half of a Nintendo DS. You'd think with so few needles hidden in the haystack of broadcasting, their interface would help you navigate the guide and find shows to watch, but apparently nobody at Comcast HQ has ever used Amazon to find a book.

Either that or they never watch TV.

Re: TV is broken

#114

There are many other things that are broken too. My fancy expensive name-brand digital TV takes a full minute to boot up from a cold start, longer than it took my tube based TV from the 1950s to warm up. Once on, it takes almost a full second to change channels while it rebuffers the stream of the channel being changed to. This prevents quickly flipping through channels to see what is on. As a result I just don't bot…

> We won't even get into how 720 screens don't really have 720 display pixels so even perfect size matches are resampled and interpolated Since there's nowhere near 720 pixels x 60 frames/sec worth of information being sent to your TV, who cares?

Maybe because resampling and interpolation are more damaging to lower-resolution streams?

Also, depending on the video source, there might very well be a 720p x 60Hz signal being sent to the TV.

Re: TV is broken

#115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>TV for kids just sucks these days. The audience isn't kids, it's grandparents who imagine that their grandkids will be entertained by it. I am curious about what you mean by 'TV for kids'. It seems to me that 'kid shows' have been pretty good since the early nineties (Ducktales, Animaniacs, Gargoyles, the DC Animated universe cartoons). More recently: Kim Possible, Spectacular Spider-Man, Samurai Jack, Sym-Bionic Ti…

Where do you see these? I certainly never see them on cable when I visit friends and family. I saw Kim Possible once a long time ago, and I also was really impressed with Teen Titans, enough to get the box set. Are these on a channel they don't get? On AMZN or Netflix? Or do you just have to get them through BitTorrent? There might be some good stuff, but it's never on. Spongebob Squarepants is always on... I wonder…

Oh I forgot about Teen Titans. If you liked that you'll definitely enjoy Spectacular Spider-Man, Young Justice, and The Avengers (they were all available on YouTube recently).

Also check out Sym-Bionic Titan, it's the Firefly of animated TV shows.

Re: TV is broken

#116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By my top-of-head calculations: $100B advertising / ~160MM households = $625/household/year, or about $50/mo. You're right, I wasn't even close. I was way over.

I said people watching. You chose to interpret that as households/year. Good luck.

99% of households have a TV, and that number is probably from the 2000 census. What numbers do you think are more accurate?

Re: TV is broken

#117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup. I've been cable-free for about 2 years now, and I'd never go back. Since Comcast "discounts" cable internet (which, by the way, is my /only/ high-speed option besides 768kbit/sec DSL -- I have the 20mbit package or whatever they're selling it as these days) if you bundle it with basic cable, it only ends up being about $1.50 cheaper to NOT have basic cable. That said, basic cable is seriously not worth $1.50/mon…

In some cases and at some times in the past it was actually cheaper to get the internet service when bundled with Cable TV service. In effect, some are or were somewhat paid to get it.

The cable company pays a per-subscriber charge for come channels (most notably ESPN). For others (like HSN), the broadcaster pays the cable company. If they can get you to sign up for basic cable they're still making a bit of money, since all the ones they pay for are in higher tiers.

If you have internet through your cable provider they already have to make sure the signal gets to your house and you're already in the computer, so adding you as a TV subscriber costs them nothing at all.

I never watch broadcast TV, but when my internet connection goes down it's a handy troubleshooting tool - when I flip the TV on and see car commercials it means there's no cable break.

Re: TV is broken

#118
post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"But imho it's not so much TV that is broken. It's advertising. In today's world of on-demand personalized information, advertising has zero value." What happens to Google & Facebook without advertising?

This is my least favorite argument when talking about removing advertising from my life. Facebook and Google will simply do something else. Why is "ad supported" always considered the only business model?

What business model do you see for Google that doesn't involve advertising but would allow them to continue providing Gmail and search? Yes, they might conceivably charge $15/mo for a while. But then Comcast will come along and say, "Hey, here's a (mediocre) search and email service that we will bundle for 'free'!" and just like that, Google basically stops providing search and email (or provides it only to bundling partners).

Re: TV is broken

#119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have money, and I want to watch Season 2, Episode 2 of the West Wing, which my friend just told me is worth watching. I cannot give them my money, to watch it. I could wait a couple days for Netflix to mail me the DVD, but by then the impulse might pass. TV is broken.

It's not ideal that you have to use a mishmash of services to get what you want when you want it. But there are multiple delivery mechanisms for a lot of popular content. For instance, you could watch the West Wing Season 2 on iTunes: http://itunes.apple.com/us/tv-season/the-west-wing-season-2/... Or Amazon Instant Video: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0047N63NE/ref=tmm_aiv_titl...

...neat. Substitute another movie or show that you'd like to watch but can't.
Post reply on HN