Comments on: The Future of Television? http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/ OPEN creative communities Thu, 15 Jul 2010 03:40:08 -0700 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Patrick Dinnen http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/comment-page-1/#comment-72 Patrick Dinnen Thu, 20 Apr 2006 20:20:38 +0000 http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/#comment-72 Alan Thanks for your response to my comments. I have to admit that I'm a strong (and likely wrong) ideologue on some of these questions, assuming that massive passives are only passive because of obstacles to being more actively engaged and not because they like things the way they are. I'm not sure about the comparison of VCRs and PVRs. They do have similar basic functions, but the differences seem to me to be greater than the similarities. In our household at least, it seems that the PVR is actually used for qualityshifting (TM) more than timeshifting, that is we tend to PVR shows that we would never otherwise have tried, and if they turn out to be good then we hit 'record season' and as easy as that we no longer have to watch prime time crud just because that's what's on. I think that the combination of convenience and capacity of a PVR as opposed to VCR opens up lots of options. I guess what I'm (hopefully) arguing for is the impending death of prime time. That widespread use of PVRs et al will mean that good shows get made and seen and bad ones can't make money just because they're in that 7pm-10pm slot. Don't even get me started on my techno-utopian hopes for what this will do to the TV advertising landscape. Alan
Thanks for your response to my comments. I have to admit that I’m a strong (and likely wrong) ideologue on some of these questions, assuming that massive passives are only passive because of obstacles to being more actively engaged and not because they like things the way they are.

I’m not sure about the comparison of VCRs and PVRs. They do have similar basic functions, but the differences seem to me to be greater than the similarities. In our household at least, it seems that the PVR is actually used for qualityshifting (TM) more than timeshifting, that is we tend to PVR shows that we would never otherwise have tried, and if they turn out to be good then we hit ‘record season’ and as easy as that we no longer have to watch prime time crud just because that’s what’s on. I think that the combination of convenience and capacity of a PVR as opposed to VCR opens up lots of options.

I guess what I’m (hopefully) arguing for is the impending death of prime time. That widespread use of PVRs et al will mean that good shows get made and seen and bad ones can’t make money just because they’re in that 7pm-10pm slot.

Don’t even get me started on my techno-utopian hopes for what this will do to the TV advertising landscape.

]]> By: Alan Sawyer http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/comment-page-1/#comment-71 Alan Sawyer Thu, 20 Apr 2006 16:24:23 +0000 http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/#comment-71 I'd love to see all of that come together, although I would want to use my existing HDMI-capable TV set as the monitor. I do that today, with HDMI feeds from my PVR and my DVD player, as well as a converted DVI->HDMI feed from a PC (an IBM, of course!) running Windows MCE. Unfortunately, my TV has only one HDMI input so I use a 4-way Gefen HDMI switch. Doing so limits me to a single digital output to the TV so I can’t divide up the screen real estate into multiple windows (e.g. viewing PVR playback + PC simultaneously). It’s better than nothing but not what I’m really looking for. Also, I'm still, obviously, highly dependent on my cable company -- for the cable feed to my PVR, the PVR itself and the analog feed to one of my Windows MCE. I do have a second MCE using an ATI HDTV card to pick up over the air ATSC signals, but I don't have a mast antenna so it's pretty flaky. It would be great to see broadband delivery of HD content! Windows MCE is a novelty, but certainly isn’t the media hub many of us are looking for. Apple is certainly a prime candidate to introduce such a 'disruptive' technology – and I hope they do it soon! I’d love to see all of that come together, although I would want to use my existing HDMI-capable TV set as the monitor. I do that today, with HDMI feeds from my PVR and my DVD player, as well as a converted DVI->HDMI feed from a PC (an IBM, of course!) running Windows MCE. Unfortunately, my TV has only one HDMI input so I use a 4-way Gefen HDMI switch. Doing so limits me to a single digital output to the TV so I can’t divide up the screen real estate into multiple windows (e.g. viewing PVR playback + PC simultaneously). It’s better than nothing but not what I’m really looking for.

Also, I’m still, obviously, highly dependent on my cable company — for the cable feed to my PVR, the PVR itself and the analog feed to one of my Windows MCE. I do have a second MCE using an ATI HDTV card to pick up over the air ATSC signals, but I don’t have a mast antenna so it’s pretty flaky. It would be great to see broadband delivery of HD content!

Windows MCE is a novelty, but certainly isn’t the media hub many of us are looking for. Apple is certainly a prime candidate to introduce such a ‘disruptive’ technology – and I hope they do it soon!

]]> By: Mark Kuznicki http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/comment-page-1/#comment-70 Mark Kuznicki Thu, 20 Apr 2006 15:50:47 +0000 http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/#comment-70 Alan, thanks for joining the conversation! What I am waiting for is for Apple to combine a true media-centre pc/application embedded into a living room sized flat-screen HD monitor/HDMI hub, together with <a href="http://www.itiva.com/thecompany.html" rel="nofollow">quantum streaming technology</a> to distribute HD video content on demand over standard broadband IP networks. A familiar remote-driven 10 feet user experience together with a stable virus-free OS, open networks and open standards for media consumption and high definition video and sound quality in a single living room appliance will be the tipping point, and the ingredients are there. I don't think we should expect Microsoft and partners to deliver this package - this is Apple's area of competitive advantage, and just such a device is probably sitting on a test bench as I write this. Alan, thanks for joining the conversation! What I am waiting for is for Apple to combine a true media-centre pc/application embedded into a living room sized flat-screen HD monitor/HDMI hub, together with quantum streaming technology to distribute HD video content on demand over standard broadband IP networks. A familiar remote-driven 10 feet user experience together with a stable virus-free OS, open networks and open standards for media consumption and high definition video and sound quality in a single living room appliance will be the tipping point, and the ingredients are there. I don’t think we should expect Microsoft and partners to deliver this package – this is Apple’s area of competitive advantage, and just such a device is probably sitting on a test bench as I write this.

]]> By: Alan Sawyer http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/comment-page-1/#comment-69 Alan Sawyer Thu, 20 Apr 2006 13:45:22 +0000 http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/#comment-69 Oops.... looking back now I see that I really should have addressed my comments to Patrick. Oops…. looking back now I see that I really should have addressed my comments to Patrick.

]]> By: Alan Sawyer http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/comment-page-1/#comment-68 Alan Sawyer Thu, 20 Apr 2006 13:43:46 +0000 http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/#comment-68 Mark, I think you touch on some interesting points. There is a viral quality to technology adoption that can influence and accelerate change, especially within the home where one early adopter can mentor the rest of the household in the adoption of a new techology. I had an experience similar to yours when I brought a PVR into the home -- my wife's viewing habits changed quickly. And she now uses my MP3 player all the time :-o Cost is a factor, as you point out, but it is only one of many barriers to technology adoption. Many of the 'massive passives' have lots of money to spend on technology but either are fearful of it or don't understand the benefits of it. If it were offered to them free, many still wouldn't be interested due to fear or lack of knowledge. As well, for many, I think, the need (or even the desire) to placeshift just isn't there. It's just not part of their lifestyle or mindset. As for timeshifting, the tried-and-true VCR works very well for that. Watching TV is, to them, a passive, programmed activity. It's a form of escapism and there's a comfort in the fact that they can engage in it effortlessly. Having said all of that, I do suspect that the rate of change may be somewhat faster than we've outlined in the End of TV reports. In Canada in particular, we're behind the curve on PVR adoption due to the only-recent introduction of PVRs by our cable and satellite providers as opposed to the well-established U.S. Tivo presence. However, even if everyone trades their VCR for a PVR, this really doesn't change the dynamics of the industry signficanlty. Increased uptake by consumers of video on demand (VOD), for example, would have a much greater impact. The impending shutdown of analogue signals will be a catalyst for change as many of the massive passives will need to upgrade their TV equipment. By that time, VOD will be much more robust and network PVRs will be standard cable/satellite offerings. This may be the catalyst that changes things most and accelerates the rate of change. Similarly, with the forthcoming introduction of Wireless Local Number Portability (WLNP) in Canada, we will see significant initial churn, leading to a lot of handset replacement. At this time, many more users will end up with video-capable handsets and this may lead to accelerated growth in the mobile video area. Alan Sawyer IBM Global Business Services (Canada) Mark,

I think you touch on some interesting points.

There is a viral quality to technology adoption that can influence and accelerate change, especially within the home where one early adopter can mentor the rest of the household in the adoption of a new techology. I had an experience similar to yours when I brought a PVR into the home — my wife’s viewing habits changed quickly. And she now uses my MP3 player all the time :-o

Cost is a factor, as you point out, but it is only one of many barriers to technology adoption. Many of the ‘massive passives’ have lots of money to spend on technology but either are fearful of it or don’t understand the benefits of it. If it were offered to them free, many still wouldn’t be interested due to fear or lack of knowledge.

As well, for many, I think, the need (or even the desire) to placeshift just isn’t there. It’s just not part of their lifestyle or mindset. As for timeshifting, the tried-and-true VCR works very well for that. Watching TV is, to them, a passive, programmed activity. It’s a form of escapism and there’s a comfort in the fact that they can engage in it effortlessly.

Having said all of that, I do suspect that the rate of change may be somewhat faster than we’ve outlined in the End of TV reports. In Canada in particular, we’re behind the curve on PVR adoption due to the only-recent introduction of PVRs by our cable and satellite providers as opposed to the well-established U.S. Tivo presence. However, even if everyone trades their VCR for a PVR, this really doesn’t change the dynamics of the industry signficanlty. Increased uptake by consumers of video on demand (VOD), for example, would have a much greater impact.

The impending shutdown of analogue signals will be a catalyst for change as many of the massive passives will need to upgrade their TV equipment. By that time, VOD will be much more robust and network PVRs will be standard cable/satellite offerings. This may be the catalyst that changes things most and accelerates the rate of change.

Similarly, with the forthcoming introduction of Wireless Local Number Portability (WLNP) in Canada, we will see significant initial churn, leading to a lot of handset replacement. At this time, many more users will end up with video-capable handsets and this may lead to accelerated growth in the mobile video area.

Alan Sawyer
IBM Global Business Services (Canada)

]]> By: meta data weblog » Blog Archive » The Future of Television? http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/comment-page-1/#comment-52 meta data weblog » Blog Archive » The Future of Television? Fri, 07 Apr 2006 19:43:51 +0000 http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/#comment-52 [...] Posted From: Mark Kuznicki in Remarkk! : http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/ Tom Purves provides more iSummit perspective here. The sky isn’t falling just yet and there is time to adjust, thanks to the massive passives: [...] [...] Posted From: Mark Kuznicki in Remarkk! : http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/ Tom Purves provides more iSummit perspective here. The sky isn’t falling just yet and there is time to adjust, thanks to the massive passives: [...]

]]> By: Patrick Dinnen http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/ OPEN creative communities Thu, 15 Jul 2010 03:40:08 -0700 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 Comments on: The Future of Television? http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/ OPEN creative communities Thu, 15 Jul 2010 03:40:08 -0700 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Patrick Dinnen http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/comment-page-1/#comment-72 Patrick Dinnen Thu, 20 Apr 2006 20:20:38 +0000 http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/#comment-72 Alan Thanks for your response to my comments. I have to admit that I'm a strong (and likely wrong) ideologue on some of these questions, assuming that massive passives are only passive because of obstacles to being more actively engaged and not because they like things the way they are. I'm not sure about the comparison of VCRs and PVRs. They do have similar basic functions, but the differences seem to me to be greater than the similarities. In our household at least, it seems that the PVR is actually used for qualityshifting (TM) more than timeshifting, that is we tend to PVR shows that we would never otherwise have tried, and if they turn out to be good then we hit 'record season' and as easy as that we no longer have to watch prime time crud just because that's what's on. I think that the combination of convenience and capacity of a PVR as opposed to VCR opens up lots of options. I guess what I'm (hopefully) arguing for is the impending death of prime time. That widespread use of PVRs et al will mean that good shows get made and seen and bad ones can't make money just because they're in that 7pm-10pm slot. Don't even get me started on my techno-utopian hopes for what this will do to the TV advertising landscape. Alan
Thanks for your response to my comments. I have to admit that I’m a strong (and likely wrong) ideologue on some of these questions, assuming that massive passives are only passive because of obstacles to being more actively engaged and not because they like things the way they are.

I’m not sure about the comparison of VCRs and PVRs. They do have similar basic functions, but the differences seem to me to be greater than the similarities. In our household at least, it seems that the PVR is actually used for qualityshifting (TM) more than timeshifting, that is we tend to PVR shows that we would never otherwise have tried, and if they turn out to be good then we hit ‘record season’ and as easy as that we no longer have to watch prime time crud just because that’s what’s on. I think that the combination of convenience and capacity of a PVR as opposed to VCR opens up lots of options.

I guess what I’m (hopefully) arguing for is the impending death of prime time. That widespread use of PVRs et al will mean that good shows get made and seen and bad ones can’t make money just because they’re in that 7pm-10pm slot.

Don’t even get me started on my techno-utopian hopes for what this will do to the TV advertising landscape.

]]> By: Alan Sawyer http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/comment-page-1/#comment-71 Alan Sawyer Thu, 20 Apr 2006 16:24:23 +0000 http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/#comment-71 I'd love to see all of that come together, although I would want to use my existing HDMI-capable TV set as the monitor. I do that today, with HDMI feeds from my PVR and my DVD player, as well as a converted DVI->HDMI feed from a PC (an IBM, of course!) running Windows MCE. Unfortunately, my TV has only one HDMI input so I use a 4-way Gefen HDMI switch. Doing so limits me to a single digital output to the TV so I can’t divide up the screen real estate into multiple windows (e.g. viewing PVR playback + PC simultaneously). It’s better than nothing but not what I’m really looking for. Also, I'm still, obviously, highly dependent on my cable company -- for the cable feed to my PVR, the PVR itself and the analog feed to one of my Windows MCE. I do have a second MCE using an ATI HDTV card to pick up over the air ATSC signals, but I don't have a mast antenna so it's pretty flaky. It would be great to see broadband delivery of HD content! Windows MCE is a novelty, but certainly isn’t the media hub many of us are looking for. Apple is certainly a prime candidate to introduce such a 'disruptive' technology – and I hope they do it soon! I’d love to see all of that come together, although I would want to use my existing HDMI-capable TV set as the monitor. I do that today, with HDMI feeds from my PVR and my DVD player, as well as a converted DVI->HDMI feed from a PC (an IBM, of course!) running Windows MCE. Unfortunately, my TV has only one HDMI input so I use a 4-way Gefen HDMI switch. Doing so limits me to a single digital output to the TV so I can’t divide up the screen real estate into multiple windows (e.g. viewing PVR playback + PC simultaneously). It’s better than nothing but not what I’m really looking for.

Also, I’m still, obviously, highly dependent on my cable company — for the cable feed to my PVR, the PVR itself and the analog feed to one of my Windows MCE. I do have a second MCE using an ATI HDTV card to pick up over the air ATSC signals, but I don’t have a mast antenna so it’s pretty flaky. It would be great to see broadband delivery of HD content!

Windows MCE is a novelty, but certainly isn’t the media hub many of us are looking for. Apple is certainly a prime candidate to introduce such a ‘disruptive’ technology – and I hope they do it soon!

]]> By: Mark Kuznicki http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/comment-page-1/#comment-70 Mark Kuznicki Thu, 20 Apr 2006 15:50:47 +0000 http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/#comment-70 Alan, thanks for joining the conversation! What I am waiting for is for Apple to combine a true media-centre pc/application embedded into a living room sized flat-screen HD monitor/HDMI hub, together with <a href="http://www.itiva.com/thecompany.html" rel="nofollow">quantum streaming technology</a> to distribute HD video content on demand over standard broadband IP networks. A familiar remote-driven 10 feet user experience together with a stable virus-free OS, open networks and open standards for media consumption and high definition video and sound quality in a single living room appliance will be the tipping point, and the ingredients are there. I don't think we should expect Microsoft and partners to deliver this package - this is Apple's area of competitive advantage, and just such a device is probably sitting on a test bench as I write this. Alan, thanks for joining the conversation! What I am waiting for is for Apple to combine a true media-centre pc/application embedded into a living room sized flat-screen HD monitor/HDMI hub, together with quantum streaming technology to distribute HD video content on demand over standard broadband IP networks. A familiar remote-driven 10 feet user experience together with a stable virus-free OS, open networks and open standards for media consumption and high definition video and sound quality in a single living room appliance will be the tipping point, and the ingredients are there. I don’t think we should expect Microsoft and partners to deliver this package – this is Apple’s area of competitive advantage, and just such a device is probably sitting on a test bench as I write this.

]]> By: Alan Sawyer http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/comment-page-1/#comment-69 Alan Sawyer Thu, 20 Apr 2006 13:45:22 +0000 http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/#comment-69 Oops.... looking back now I see that I really should have addressed my comments to Patrick. Oops…. looking back now I see that I really should have addressed my comments to Patrick.

]]> By: Alan Sawyer http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/comment-page-1/#comment-68 Alan Sawyer Thu, 20 Apr 2006 13:43:46 +0000 http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/#comment-68 Mark, I think you touch on some interesting points. There is a viral quality to technology adoption that can influence and accelerate change, especially within the home where one early adopter can mentor the rest of the household in the adoption of a new techology. I had an experience similar to yours when I brought a PVR into the home -- my wife's viewing habits changed quickly. And she now uses my MP3 player all the time :-o Cost is a factor, as you point out, but it is only one of many barriers to technology adoption. Many of the 'massive passives' have lots of money to spend on technology but either are fearful of it or don't understand the benefits of it. If it were offered to them free, many still wouldn't be interested due to fear or lack of knowledge. As well, for many, I think, the need (or even the desire) to placeshift just isn't there. It's just not part of their lifestyle or mindset. As for timeshifting, the tried-and-true VCR works very well for that. Watching TV is, to them, a passive, programmed activity. It's a form of escapism and there's a comfort in the fact that they can engage in it effortlessly. Having said all of that, I do suspect that the rate of change may be somewhat faster than we've outlined in the End of TV reports. In Canada in particular, we're behind the curve on PVR adoption due to the only-recent introduction of PVRs by our cable and satellite providers as opposed to the well-established U.S. Tivo presence. However, even if everyone trades their VCR for a PVR, this really doesn't change the dynamics of the industry signficanlty. Increased uptake by consumers of video on demand (VOD), for example, would have a much greater impact. The impending shutdown of analogue signals will be a catalyst for change as many of the massive passives will need to upgrade their TV equipment. By that time, VOD will be much more robust and network PVRs will be standard cable/satellite offerings. This may be the catalyst that changes things most and accelerates the rate of change. Similarly, with the forthcoming introduction of Wireless Local Number Portability (WLNP) in Canada, we will see significant initial churn, leading to a lot of handset replacement. At this time, many more users will end up with video-capable handsets and this may lead to accelerated growth in the mobile video area. Alan Sawyer IBM Global Business Services (Canada) Mark,

I think you touch on some interesting points.

There is a viral quality to technology adoption that can influence and accelerate change, especially within the home where one early adopter can mentor the rest of the household in the adoption of a new techology. I had an experience similar to yours when I brought a PVR into the home — my wife’s viewing habits changed quickly. And she now uses my MP3 player all the time :-o

Cost is a factor, as you point out, but it is only one of many barriers to technology adoption. Many of the ‘massive passives’ have lots of money to spend on technology but either are fearful of it or don’t understand the benefits of it. If it were offered to them free, many still wouldn’t be interested due to fear or lack of knowledge.

As well, for many, I think, the need (or even the desire) to placeshift just isn’t there. It’s just not part of their lifestyle or mindset. As for timeshifting, the tried-and-true VCR works very well for that. Watching TV is, to them, a passive, programmed activity. It’s a form of escapism and there’s a comfort in the fact that they can engage in it effortlessly.

Having said all of that, I do suspect that the rate of change may be somewhat faster than we’ve outlined in the End of TV reports. In Canada in particular, we’re behind the curve on PVR adoption due to the only-recent introduction of PVRs by our cable and satellite providers as opposed to the well-established U.S. Tivo presence. However, even if everyone trades their VCR for a PVR, this really doesn’t change the dynamics of the industry signficanlty. Increased uptake by consumers of video on demand (VOD), for example, would have a much greater impact.

The impending shutdown of analogue signals will be a catalyst for change as many of the massive passives will need to upgrade their TV equipment. By that time, VOD will be much more robust and network PVRs will be standard cable/satellite offerings. This may be the catalyst that changes things most and accelerates the rate of change.

Similarly, with the forthcoming introduction of Wireless Local Number Portability (WLNP) in Canada, we will see significant initial churn, leading to a lot of handset replacement. At this time, many more users will end up with video-capable handsets and this may lead to accelerated growth in the mobile video area.

Alan Sawyer
IBM Global Business Services (Canada)

]]> By: meta data weblog » Blog Archive » The Future of Television? http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/comment-page-1/#comment-52 meta data weblog » Blog Archive » The Future of Television? Fri, 07 Apr 2006 19:43:51 +0000 http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/#comment-52 [...] Posted From: Mark Kuznicki in Remarkk! : http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/ Tom Purves provides more iSummit perspective here. The sky isn’t falling just yet and there is time to adjust, thanks to the massive passives: [...] [...] Posted From: Mark Kuznicki in Remarkk! : http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/ Tom Purves provides more iSummit perspective here. The sky isn’t falling just yet and there is time to adjust, thanks to the massive passives: [...]

]]> By: Patrick Dinnen http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/comment-page-1/#comment-72 Patrick Dinnen Thu, 20 Apr 2006 20:20:38 +0000 http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/#comment-72 Alan Thanks for your response to my comments. I have to admit that I'm a strong (and likely wrong) ideologue on some of these questions, assuming that massive passives are only passive because of obstacles to being more actively engaged and not because they like things the way they are. I'm not sure about the comparison of VCRs and PVRs. They do have similar basic functions, but the differences seem to me to be greater than the similarities. In our household at least, it seems that the PVR is actually used for qualityshifting (TM) more than timeshifting, that is we tend to PVR shows that we would never otherwise have tried, and if they turn out to be good then we hit 'record season' and as easy as that we no longer have to watch prime time crud just because that's what's on. I think that the combination of convenience and capacity of a PVR as opposed to VCR opens up lots of options. I guess what I'm (hopefully) arguing for is the impending death of prime time. That widespread use of PVRs et al will mean that good shows get made and seen and bad ones can't make money just because they're in that 7pm-10pm slot. Don't even get me started on my techno-utopian hopes for what this will do to the TV advertising landscape. Alan
Thanks for your response to my comments. I have to admit that I’m a strong (and likely wrong) ideologue on some of these questions, assuming that massive passives are only passive because of obstacles to being more actively engaged and not because they like things the way they are.

I’m not sure about the comparison of VCRs and PVRs. They do have similar basic functions, but the differences seem to me to be greater than the similarities. In our household at least, it seems that the PVR is actually used for qualityshifting (TM) more than timeshifting, that is we tend to PVR shows that we would never otherwise have tried, and if they turn out to be good then we hit ‘record season’ and as easy as that we no longer have to watch prime time crud just because that’s what’s on. I think that the combination of convenience and capacity of a PVR as opposed to VCR opens up lots of options.

I guess what I’m (hopefully) arguing for is the impending death of prime time. That widespread use of PVRs et al will mean that good shows get made and seen and bad ones can’t make money just because they’re in that 7pm-10pm slot.

Don’t even get me started on my techno-utopian hopes for what this will do to the TV advertising landscape.

]]> Comments on: The Future of Television? http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/ OPEN creative communities Thu, 15 Jul 2010 03:40:08 -0700 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Patrick Dinnen http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/comment-page-1/#comment-72 Patrick Dinnen Thu, 20 Apr 2006 20:20:38 +0000 http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/#comment-72 Alan Thanks for your response to my comments. I have to admit that I'm a strong (and likely wrong) ideologue on some of these questions, assuming that massive passives are only passive because of obstacles to being more actively engaged and not because they like things the way they are. I'm not sure about the comparison of VCRs and PVRs. They do have similar basic functions, but the differences seem to me to be greater than the similarities. In our household at least, it seems that the PVR is actually used for qualityshifting (TM) more than timeshifting, that is we tend to PVR shows that we would never otherwise have tried, and if they turn out to be good then we hit 'record season' and as easy as that we no longer have to watch prime time crud just because that's what's on. I think that the combination of convenience and capacity of a PVR as opposed to VCR opens up lots of options. I guess what I'm (hopefully) arguing for is the impending death of prime time. That widespread use of PVRs et al will mean that good shows get made and seen and bad ones can't make money just because they're in that 7pm-10pm slot. Don't even get me started on my techno-utopian hopes for what this will do to the TV advertising landscape. Alan
Thanks for your response to my comments. I have to admit that I’m a strong (and likely wrong) ideologue on some of these questions, assuming that massive passives are only passive because of obstacles to being more actively engaged and not because they like things the way they are.

I’m not sure about the comparison of VCRs and PVRs. They do have similar basic functions, but the differences seem to me to be greater than the similarities. In our household at least, it seems that the PVR is actually used for qualityshifting (TM) more than timeshifting, that is we tend to PVR shows that we would never otherwise have tried, and if they turn out to be good then we hit ‘record season’ and as easy as that we no longer have to watch prime time crud just because that’s what’s on. I think that the combination of convenience and capacity of a PVR as opposed to VCR opens up lots of options.

I guess what I’m (hopefully) arguing for is the impending death of prime time. That widespread use of PVRs et al will mean that good shows get made and seen and bad ones can’t make money just because they’re in that 7pm-10pm slot.

Don’t even get me started on my techno-utopian hopes for what this will do to the TV advertising landscape.

]]> By: Alan Sawyer http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/comment-page-1/#comment-71 Alan Sawyer Thu, 20 Apr 2006 16:24:23 +0000 http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/#comment-71 I'd love to see all of that come together, although I would want to use my existing HDMI-capable TV set as the monitor. I do that today, with HDMI feeds from my PVR and my DVD player, as well as a converted DVI->HDMI feed from a PC (an IBM, of course!) running Windows MCE. Unfortunately, my TV has only one HDMI input so I use a 4-way Gefen HDMI switch. Doing so limits me to a single digital output to the TV so I can’t divide up the screen real estate into multiple windows (e.g. viewing PVR playback + PC simultaneously). It’s better than nothing but not what I’m really looking for. Also, I'm still, obviously, highly dependent on my cable company -- for the cable feed to my PVR, the PVR itself and the analog feed to one of my Windows MCE. I do have a second MCE using an ATI HDTV card to pick up over the air ATSC signals, but I don't have a mast antenna so it's pretty flaky. It would be great to see broadband delivery of HD content! Windows MCE is a novelty, but certainly isn’t the media hub many of us are looking for. Apple is certainly a prime candidate to introduce such a 'disruptive' technology – and I hope they do it soon! I’d love to see all of that come together, although I would want to use my existing HDMI-capable TV set as the monitor. I do that today, with HDMI feeds from my PVR and my DVD player, as well as a converted DVI->HDMI feed from a PC (an IBM, of course!) running Windows MCE. Unfortunately, my TV has only one HDMI input so I use a 4-way Gefen HDMI switch. Doing so limits me to a single digital output to the TV so I can’t divide up the screen real estate into multiple windows (e.g. viewing PVR playback + PC simultaneously). It’s better than nothing but not what I’m really looking for.

Also, I’m still, obviously, highly dependent on my cable company — for the cable feed to my PVR, the PVR itself and the analog feed to one of my Windows MCE. I do have a second MCE using an ATI HDTV card to pick up over the air ATSC signals, but I don’t have a mast antenna so it’s pretty flaky. It would be great to see broadband delivery of HD content!

Windows MCE is a novelty, but certainly isn’t the media hub many of us are looking for. Apple is certainly a prime candidate to introduce such a ‘disruptive’ technology – and I hope they do it soon!

]]> By: Mark Kuznicki http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/comment-page-1/#comment-70 Mark Kuznicki Thu, 20 Apr 2006 15:50:47 +0000 http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/#comment-70 Alan, thanks for joining the conversation! What I am waiting for is for Apple to combine a true media-centre pc/application embedded into a living room sized flat-screen HD monitor/HDMI hub, together with <a href="http://www.itiva.com/thecompany.html" rel="nofollow">quantum streaming technology</a> to distribute HD video content on demand over standard broadband IP networks. A familiar remote-driven 10 feet user experience together with a stable virus-free OS, open networks and open standards for media consumption and high definition video and sound quality in a single living room appliance will be the tipping point, and the ingredients are there. I don't think we should expect Microsoft and partners to deliver this package - this is Apple's area of competitive advantage, and just such a device is probably sitting on a test bench as I write this. Alan, thanks for joining the conversation! What I am waiting for is for Apple to combine a true media-centre pc/application embedded into a living room sized flat-screen HD monitor/HDMI hub, together with quantum streaming technology to distribute HD video content on demand over standard broadband IP networks. A familiar remote-driven 10 feet user experience together with a stable virus-free OS, open networks and open standards for media consumption and high definition video and sound quality in a single living room appliance will be the tipping point, and the ingredients are there. I don’t think we should expect Microsoft and partners to deliver this package – this is Apple’s area of competitive advantage, and just such a device is probably sitting on a test bench as I write this.

]]> By: Alan Sawyer http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/comment-page-1/#comment-69 Alan Sawyer Thu, 20 Apr 2006 13:45:22 +0000 http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/#comment-69 Oops.... looking back now I see that I really should have addressed my comments to Patrick. Oops…. looking back now I see that I really should have addressed my comments to Patrick.

]]> By: Alan Sawyer http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/comment-page-1/#comment-68 Alan Sawyer Thu, 20 Apr 2006 13:43:46 +0000 http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/#comment-68 Mark, I think you touch on some interesting points. There is a viral quality to technology adoption that can influence and accelerate change, especially within the home where one early adopter can mentor the rest of the household in the adoption of a new techology. I had an experience similar to yours when I brought a PVR into the home -- my wife's viewing habits changed quickly. And she now uses my MP3 player all the time :-o Cost is a factor, as you point out, but it is only one of many barriers to technology adoption. Many of the 'massive passives' have lots of money to spend on technology but either are fearful of it or don't understand the benefits of it. If it were offered to them free, many still wouldn't be interested due to fear or lack of knowledge. As well, for many, I think, the need (or even the desire) to placeshift just isn't there. It's just not part of their lifestyle or mindset. As for timeshifting, the tried-and-true VCR works very well for that. Watching TV is, to them, a passive, programmed activity. It's a form of escapism and there's a comfort in the fact that they can engage in it effortlessly. Having said all of that, I do suspect that the rate of change may be somewhat faster than we've outlined in the End of TV reports. In Canada in particular, we're behind the curve on PVR adoption due to the only-recent introduction of PVRs by our cable and satellite providers as opposed to the well-established U.S. Tivo presence. However, even if everyone trades their VCR for a PVR, this really doesn't change the dynamics of the industry signficanlty. Increased uptake by consumers of video on demand (VOD), for example, would have a much greater impact. The impending shutdown of analogue signals will be a catalyst for change as many of the massive passives will need to upgrade their TV equipment. By that time, VOD will be much more robust and network PVRs will be standard cable/satellite offerings. This may be the catalyst that changes things most and accelerates the rate of change. Similarly, with the forthcoming introduction of Wireless Local Number Portability (WLNP) in Canada, we will see significant initial churn, leading to a lot of handset replacement. At this time, many more users will end up with video-capable handsets and this may lead to accelerated growth in the mobile video area. Alan Sawyer IBM Global Business Services (Canada) Mark,

I think you touch on some interesting points.

There is a viral quality to technology adoption that can influence and accelerate change, especially within the home where one early adopter can mentor the rest of the household in the adoption of a new techology. I had an experience similar to yours when I brought a PVR into the home — my wife’s viewing habits changed quickly. And she now uses my MP3 player all the time :-o

Cost is a factor, as you point out, but it is only one of many barriers to technology adoption. Many of the ‘massive passives’ have lots of money to spend on technology but either are fearful of it or don’t understand the benefits of it. If it were offered to them free, many still wouldn’t be interested due to fear or lack of knowledge.

As well, for many, I think, the need (or even the desire) to placeshift just isn’t there. It’s just not part of their lifestyle or mindset. As for timeshifting, the tried-and-true VCR works very well for that. Watching TV is, to them, a passive, programmed activity. It’s a form of escapism and there’s a comfort in the fact that they can engage in it effortlessly.

Having said all of that, I do suspect that the rate of change may be somewhat faster than we’ve outlined in the End of TV reports. In Canada in particular, we’re behind the curve on PVR adoption due to the only-recent introduction of PVRs by our cable and satellite providers as opposed to the well-established U.S. Tivo presence. However, even if everyone trades their VCR for a PVR, this really doesn’t change the dynamics of the industry signficanlty. Increased uptake by consumers of video on demand (VOD), for example, would have a much greater impact.

The impending shutdown of analogue signals will be a catalyst for change as many of the massive passives will need to upgrade their TV equipment. By that time, VOD will be much more robust and network PVRs will be standard cable/satellite offerings. This may be the catalyst that changes things most and accelerates the rate of change.

Similarly, with the forthcoming introduction of Wireless Local Number Portability (WLNP) in Canada, we will see significant initial churn, leading to a lot of handset replacement. At this time, many more users will end up with video-capable handsets and this may lead to accelerated growth in the mobile video area.

Alan Sawyer
IBM Global Business Services (Canada)

]]> By: meta data weblog » Blog Archive » The Future of Television? http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/comment-page-1/#comment-52 meta data weblog » Blog Archive » The Future of Television? Fri, 07 Apr 2006 19:43:51 +0000 http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/#comment-52 [...] Posted From: Mark Kuznicki in Remarkk! : http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/ Tom Purves provides more iSummit perspective here. The sky isn’t falling just yet and there is time to adjust, thanks to the massive passives: [...] [...] Posted From: Mark Kuznicki in Remarkk! : http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/ Tom Purves provides more iSummit perspective here. The sky isn’t falling just yet and there is time to adjust, thanks to the massive passives: [...]

]]> By: Patrick Dinnen http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/comment-page-1/#comment-71 Alan Sawyer Thu, 20 Apr 2006 16:24:23 +0000 http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/#comment-71 I'd love to see all of that come together, although I would want to use my existing HDMI-capable TV set as the monitor. I do that today, with HDMI feeds from my PVR and my DVD player, as well as a converted DVI->HDMI feed from a PC (an IBM, of course!) running Windows MCE. Unfortunately, my TV has only one HDMI input so I use a 4-way Gefen HDMI switch. Doing so limits me to a single digital output to the TV so I can’t divide up the screen real estate into multiple windows (e.g. viewing PVR playback + PC simultaneously). It’s better than nothing but not what I’m really looking for. Also, I'm still, obviously, highly dependent on my cable company -- for the cable feed to my PVR, the PVR itself and the analog feed to one of my Windows MCE. I do have a second MCE using an ATI HDTV card to pick up over the air ATSC signals, but I don't have a mast antenna so it's pretty flaky. It would be great to see broadband delivery of HD content! Windows MCE is a novelty, but certainly isn’t the media hub many of us are looking for. Apple is certainly a prime candidate to introduce such a 'disruptive' technology – and I hope they do it soon! I’d love to see all of that come together, although I would want to use my existing HDMI-capable TV set as the monitor. I do that today, with HDMI feeds from my PVR and my DVD player, as well as a converted DVI->HDMI feed from a PC (an IBM, of course!) running Windows MCE. Unfortunately, my TV has only one HDMI input so I use a 4-way Gefen HDMI switch. Doing so limits me to a single digital output to the TV so I can’t divide up the screen real estate into multiple windows (e.g. viewing PVR playback + PC simultaneously). It’s better than nothing but not what I’m really looking for.

Also, I’m still, obviously, highly dependent on my cable company — for the cable feed to my PVR, the PVR itself and the analog feed to one of my Windows MCE. I do have a second MCE using an ATI HDTV card to pick up over the air ATSC signals, but I don’t have a mast antenna so it’s pretty flaky. It would be great to see broadband delivery of HD content!

Windows MCE is a novelty, but certainly isn’t the media hub many of us are looking for. Apple is certainly a prime candidate to introduce such a ‘disruptive’ technology – and I hope they do it soon!

]]> Comments on: The Future of Television? http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/ OPEN creative communities Thu, 15 Jul 2010 03:40:08 -0700 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Patrick Dinnen http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/comment-page-1/#comment-72 Patrick Dinnen Thu, 20 Apr 2006 20:20:38 +0000 http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/#comment-72 Alan Thanks for your response to my comments. I have to admit that I'm a strong (and likely wrong) ideologue on some of these questions, assuming that massive passives are only passive because of obstacles to being more actively engaged and not because they like things the way they are. I'm not sure about the comparison of VCRs and PVRs. They do have similar basic functions, but the differences seem to me to be greater than the similarities. In our household at least, it seems that the PVR is actually used for qualityshifting (TM) more than timeshifting, that is we tend to PVR shows that we would never otherwise have tried, and if they turn out to be good then we hit 'record season' and as easy as that we no longer have to watch prime time crud just because that's what's on. I think that the combination of convenience and capacity of a PVR as opposed to VCR opens up lots of options. I guess what I'm (hopefully) arguing for is the impending death of prime time. That widespread use of PVRs et al will mean that good shows get made and seen and bad ones can't make money just because they're in that 7pm-10pm slot. Don't even get me started on my techno-utopian hopes for what this will do to the TV advertising landscape. Alan
Thanks for your response to my comments. I have to admit that I’m a strong (and likely wrong) ideologue on some of these questions, assuming that massive passives are only passive because of obstacles to being more actively engaged and not because they like things the way they are.

I’m not sure about the comparison of VCRs and PVRs. They do have similar basic functions, but the differences seem to me to be greater than the similarities. In our household at least, it seems that the PVR is actually used for qualityshifting (TM) more than timeshifting, that is we tend to PVR shows that we would never otherwise have tried, and if they turn out to be good then we hit ‘record season’ and as easy as that we no longer have to watch prime time crud just because that’s what’s on. I think that the combination of convenience and capacity of a PVR as opposed to VCR opens up lots of options.

I guess what I’m (hopefully) arguing for is the impending death of prime time. That widespread use of PVRs et al will mean that good shows get made and seen and bad ones can’t make money just because they’re in that 7pm-10pm slot.

Don’t even get me started on my techno-utopian hopes for what this will do to the TV advertising landscape.

]]> By: Alan Sawyer http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/comment-page-1/#comment-71 Alan Sawyer Thu, 20 Apr 2006 16:24:23 +0000 http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/#comment-71 I'd love to see all of that come together, although I would want to use my existing HDMI-capable TV set as the monitor. I do that today, with HDMI feeds from my PVR and my DVD player, as well as a converted DVI->HDMI feed from a PC (an IBM, of course!) running Windows MCE. Unfortunately, my TV has only one HDMI input so I use a 4-way Gefen HDMI switch. Doing so limits me to a single digital output to the TV so I can’t divide up the screen real estate into multiple windows (e.g. viewing PVR playback + PC simultaneously). It’s better than nothing but not what I’m really looking for. Also, I'm still, obviously, highly dependent on my cable company -- for the cable feed to my PVR, the PVR itself and the analog feed to one of my Windows MCE. I do have a second MCE using an ATI HDTV card to pick up over the air ATSC signals, but I don't have a mast antenna so it's pretty flaky. It would be great to see broadband delivery of HD content! Windows MCE is a novelty, but certainly isn’t the media hub many of us are looking for. Apple is certainly a prime candidate to introduce such a 'disruptive' technology – and I hope they do it soon! I’d love to see all of that come together, although I would want to use my existing HDMI-capable TV set as the monitor. I do that today, with HDMI feeds from my PVR and my DVD player, as well as a converted DVI->HDMI feed from a PC (an IBM, of course!) running Windows MCE. Unfortunately, my TV has only one HDMI input so I use a 4-way Gefen HDMI switch. Doing so limits me to a single digital output to the TV so I can’t divide up the screen real estate into multiple windows (e.g. viewing PVR playback + PC simultaneously). It’s better than nothing but not what I’m really looking for.

Also, I’m still, obviously, highly dependent on my cable company — for the cable feed to my PVR, the PVR itself and the analog feed to one of my Windows MCE. I do have a second MCE using an ATI HDTV card to pick up over the air ATSC signals, but I don’t have a mast antenna so it’s pretty flaky. It would be great to see broadband delivery of HD content!

Windows MCE is a novelty, but certainly isn’t the media hub many of us are looking for. Apple is certainly a prime candidate to introduce such a ‘disruptive’ technology – and I hope they do it soon!

]]> By: Mark Kuznicki http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/comment-page-1/#comment-70 Mark Kuznicki Thu, 20 Apr 2006 15:50:47 +0000 http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/#comment-70 Alan, thanks for joining the conversation! What I am waiting for is for Apple to combine a true media-centre pc/application embedded into a living room sized flat-screen HD monitor/HDMI hub, together with <a href="http://www.itiva.com/thecompany.html" rel="nofollow">quantum streaming technology</a> to distribute HD video content on demand over standard broadband IP networks. A familiar remote-driven 10 feet user experience together with a stable virus-free OS, open networks and open standards for media consumption and high definition video and sound quality in a single living room appliance will be the tipping point, and the ingredients are there. I don't think we should expect Microsoft and partners to deliver this package - this is Apple's area of competitive advantage, and just such a device is probably sitting on a test bench as I write this. Alan, thanks for joining the conversation! What I am waiting for is for Apple to combine a true media-centre pc/application embedded into a living room sized flat-screen HD monitor/HDMI hub, together with quantum streaming technology to distribute HD video content on demand over standard broadband IP networks. A familiar remote-driven 10 feet user experience together with a stable virus-free OS, open networks and open standards for media consumption and high definition video and sound quality in a single living room appliance will be the tipping point, and the ingredients are there. I don’t think we should expect Microsoft and partners to deliver this package – this is Apple’s area of competitive advantage, and just such a device is probably sitting on a test bench as I write this.

]]> By: Alan Sawyer http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/comment-page-1/#comment-69 Alan Sawyer Thu, 20 Apr 2006 13:45:22 +0000 http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/#comment-69 Oops.... looking back now I see that I really should have addressed my comments to Patrick. Oops…. looking back now I see that I really should have addressed my comments to Patrick.

]]> By: Alan Sawyer http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/comment-page-1/#comment-68 Alan Sawyer Thu, 20 Apr 2006 13:43:46 +0000 http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/#comment-68 Mark, I think you touch on some interesting points. There is a viral quality to technology adoption that can influence and accelerate change, especially within the home where one early adopter can mentor the rest of the household in the adoption of a new techology. I had an experience similar to yours when I brought a PVR into the home -- my wife's viewing habits changed quickly. And she now uses my MP3 player all the time :-o Cost is a factor, as you point out, but it is only one of many barriers to technology adoption. Many of the 'massive passives' have lots of money to spend on technology but either are fearful of it or don't understand the benefits of it. If it were offered to them free, many still wouldn't be interested due to fear or lack of knowledge. As well, for many, I think, the need (or even the desire) to placeshift just isn't there. It's just not part of their lifestyle or mindset. As for timeshifting, the tried-and-true VCR works very well for that. Watching TV is, to them, a passive, programmed activity. It's a form of escapism and there's a comfort in the fact that they can engage in it effortlessly. Having said all of that, I do suspect that the rate of change may be somewhat faster than we've outlined in the End of TV reports. In Canada in particular, we're behind the curve on PVR adoption due to the only-recent introduction of PVRs by our cable and satellite providers as opposed to the well-established U.S. Tivo presence. However, even if everyone trades their VCR for a PVR, this really doesn't change the dynamics of the industry signficanlty. Increased uptake by consumers of video on demand (VOD), for example, would have a much greater impact. The impending shutdown of analogue signals will be a catalyst for change as many of the massive passives will need to upgrade their TV equipment. By that time, VOD will be much more robust and network PVRs will be standard cable/satellite offerings. This may be the catalyst that changes things most and accelerates the rate of change. Similarly, with the forthcoming introduction of Wireless Local Number Portability (WLNP) in Canada, we will see significant initial churn, leading to a lot of handset replacement. At this time, many more users will end up with video-capable handsets and this may lead to accelerated growth in the mobile video area. Alan Sawyer IBM Global Business Services (Canada) Mark,

I think you touch on some interesting points.

There is a viral quality to technology adoption that can influence and accelerate change, especially within the home where one early adopter can mentor the rest of the household in the adoption of a new techology. I had an experience similar to yours when I brought a PVR into the home — my wife’s viewing habits changed quickly. And she now uses my MP3 player all the time :-o

Cost is a factor, as you point out, but it is only one of many barriers to technology adoption. Many of the ‘massive passives’ have lots of money to spend on technology but either are fearful of it or don’t understand the benefits of it. If it were offered to them free, many still wouldn’t be interested due to fear or lack of knowledge.

As well, for many, I think, the need (or even the desire) to placeshift just isn’t there. It’s just not part of their lifestyle or mindset. As for timeshifting, the tried-and-true VCR works very well for that. Watching TV is, to them, a passive, programmed activity. It’s a form of escapism and there’s a comfort in the fact that they can engage in it effortlessly.

Having said all of that, I do suspect that the rate of change may be somewhat faster than we’ve outlined in the End of TV reports. In Canada in particular, we’re behind the curve on PVR adoption due to the only-recent introduction of PVRs by our cable and satellite providers as opposed to the well-established U.S. Tivo presence. However, even if everyone trades their VCR for a PVR, this really doesn’t change the dynamics of the industry signficanlty. Increased uptake by consumers of video on demand (VOD), for example, would have a much greater impact.

The impending shutdown of analogue signals will be a catalyst for change as many of the massive passives will need to upgrade their TV equipment. By that time, VOD will be much more robust and network PVRs will be standard cable/satellite offerings. This may be the catalyst that changes things most and accelerates the rate of change.

Similarly, with the forthcoming introduction of Wireless Local Number Portability (WLNP) in Canada, we will see significant initial churn, leading to a lot of handset replacement. At this time, many more users will end up with video-capable handsets and this may lead to accelerated growth in the mobile video area.

Alan Sawyer
IBM Global Business Services (Canada)

]]> By: meta data weblog » Blog Archive » The Future of Television? http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/comment-page-1/#comment-52 meta data weblog » Blog Archive » The Future of Television? Fri, 07 Apr 2006 19:43:51 +0000 http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/#comment-52 [...] Posted From: Mark Kuznicki in Remarkk! : http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/ Tom Purves provides more iSummit perspective here. The sky isn’t falling just yet and there is time to adjust, thanks to the massive passives: [...] [...] Posted From: Mark Kuznicki in Remarkk! : http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/ Tom Purves provides more iSummit perspective here. The sky isn’t falling just yet and there is time to adjust, thanks to the massive passives: [...]

]]> By: Patrick Dinnen http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/comment-page-1/#comment-70 Mark Kuznicki Thu, 20 Apr 2006 15:50:47 +0000 http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/#comment-70 Alan, thanks for joining the conversation! What I am waiting for is for Apple to combine a true media-centre pc/application embedded into a living room sized flat-screen HD monitor/HDMI hub, together with <a href="http://www.itiva.com/thecompany.html" rel="nofollow">quantum streaming technology</a> to distribute HD video content on demand over standard broadband IP networks. A familiar remote-driven 10 feet user experience together with a stable virus-free OS, open networks and open standards for media consumption and high definition video and sound quality in a single living room appliance will be the tipping point, and the ingredients are there. I don't think we should expect Microsoft and partners to deliver this package - this is Apple's area of competitive advantage, and just such a device is probably sitting on a test bench as I write this. Alan, thanks for joining the conversation! What I am waiting for is for Apple to combine a true media-centre pc/application embedded into a living room sized flat-screen HD monitor/HDMI hub, together with quantum streaming technology to distribute HD video content on demand over standard broadband IP networks. A familiar remote-driven 10 feet user experience together with a stable virus-free OS, open networks and open standards for media consumption and high definition video and sound quality in a single living room appliance will be the tipping point, and the ingredients are there. I don’t think we should expect Microsoft and partners to deliver this package – this is Apple’s area of competitive advantage, and just such a device is probably sitting on a test bench as I write this.

]]> Comments on: The Future of Television? http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/ OPEN creative communities Thu, 15 Jul 2010 03:40:08 -0700 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Patrick Dinnen http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/comment-page-1/#comment-72 Patrick Dinnen Thu, 20 Apr 2006 20:20:38 +0000 http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/#comment-72 Alan Thanks for your response to my comments. I have to admit that I'm a strong (and likely wrong) ideologue on some of these questions, assuming that massive passives are only passive because of obstacles to being more actively engaged and not because they like things the way they are. I'm not sure about the comparison of VCRs and PVRs. They do have similar basic functions, but the differences seem to me to be greater than the similarities. In our household at least, it seems that the PVR is actually used for qualityshifting (TM) more than timeshifting, that is we tend to PVR shows that we would never otherwise have tried, and if they turn out to be good then we hit 'record season' and as easy as that we no longer have to watch prime time crud just because that's what's on. I think that the combination of convenience and capacity of a PVR as opposed to VCR opens up lots of options. I guess what I'm (hopefully) arguing for is the impending death of prime time. That widespread use of PVRs et al will mean that good shows get made and seen and bad ones can't make money just because they're in that 7pm-10pm slot. Don't even get me started on my techno-utopian hopes for what this will do to the TV advertising landscape. Alan
Thanks for your response to my comments. I have to admit that I’m a strong (and likely wrong) ideologue on some of these questions, assuming that massive passives are only passive because of obstacles to being more actively engaged and not because they like things the way they are.

I’m not sure about the comparison of VCRs and PVRs. They do have similar basic functions, but the differences seem to me to be greater than the similarities. In our household at least, it seems that the PVR is actually used for qualityshifting (TM) more than timeshifting, that is we tend to PVR shows that we would never otherwise have tried, and if they turn out to be good then we hit ‘record season’ and as easy as that we no longer have to watch prime time crud just because that’s what’s on. I think that the combination of convenience and capacity of a PVR as opposed to VCR opens up lots of options.

I guess what I’m (hopefully) arguing for is the impending death of prime time. That widespread use of PVRs et al will mean that good shows get made and seen and bad ones can’t make money just because they’re in that 7pm-10pm slot.

Don’t even get me started on my techno-utopian hopes for what this will do to the TV advertising landscape.

]]> By: Alan Sawyer http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/comment-page-1/#comment-71 Alan Sawyer Thu, 20 Apr 2006 16:24:23 +0000 http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/#comment-71 I'd love to see all of that come together, although I would want to use my existing HDMI-capable TV set as the monitor. I do that today, with HDMI feeds from my PVR and my DVD player, as well as a converted DVI->HDMI feed from a PC (an IBM, of course!) running Windows MCE. Unfortunately, my TV has only one HDMI input so I use a 4-way Gefen HDMI switch. Doing so limits me to a single digital output to the TV so I can’t divide up the screen real estate into multiple windows (e.g. viewing PVR playback + PC simultaneously). It’s better than nothing but not what I’m really looking for. Also, I'm still, obviously, highly dependent on my cable company -- for the cable feed to my PVR, the PVR itself and the analog feed to one of my Windows MCE. I do have a second MCE using an ATI HDTV card to pick up over the air ATSC signals, but I don't have a mast antenna so it's pretty flaky. It would be great to see broadband delivery of HD content! Windows MCE is a novelty, but certainly isn’t the media hub many of us are looking for. Apple is certainly a prime candidate to introduce such a 'disruptive' technology – and I hope they do it soon! I’d love to see all of that come together, although I would want to use my existing HDMI-capable TV set as the monitor. I do that today, with HDMI feeds from my PVR and my DVD player, as well as a converted DVI->HDMI feed from a PC (an IBM, of course!) running Windows MCE. Unfortunately, my TV has only one HDMI input so I use a 4-way Gefen HDMI switch. Doing so limits me to a single digital output to the TV so I can’t divide up the screen real estate into multiple windows (e.g. viewing PVR playback + PC simultaneously). It’s better than nothing but not what I’m really looking for.

Also, I’m still, obviously, highly dependent on my cable company — for the cable feed to my PVR, the PVR itself and the analog feed to one of my Windows MCE. I do have a second MCE using an ATI HDTV card to pick up over the air ATSC signals, but I don’t have a mast antenna so it’s pretty flaky. It would be great to see broadband delivery of HD content!

Windows MCE is a novelty, but certainly isn’t the media hub many of us are looking for. Apple is certainly a prime candidate to introduce such a ‘disruptive’ technology – and I hope they do it soon!

]]> By: Mark Kuznicki http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/comment-page-1/#comment-70 Mark Kuznicki Thu, 20 Apr 2006 15:50:47 +0000 http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/#comment-70 Alan, thanks for joining the conversation! What I am waiting for is for Apple to combine a true media-centre pc/application embedded into a living room sized flat-screen HD monitor/HDMI hub, together with <a href="http://www.itiva.com/thecompany.html" rel="nofollow">quantum streaming technology</a> to distribute HD video content on demand over standard broadband IP networks. A familiar remote-driven 10 feet user experience together with a stable virus-free OS, open networks and open standards for media consumption and high definition video and sound quality in a single living room appliance will be the tipping point, and the ingredients are there. I don't think we should expect Microsoft and partners to deliver this package - this is Apple's area of competitive advantage, and just such a device is probably sitting on a test bench as I write this. Alan, thanks for joining the conversation! What I am waiting for is for Apple to combine a true media-centre pc/application embedded into a living room sized flat-screen HD monitor/HDMI hub, together with quantum streaming technology to distribute HD video content on demand over standard broadband IP networks. A familiar remote-driven 10 feet user experience together with a stable virus-free OS, open networks and open standards for media consumption and high definition video and sound quality in a single living room appliance will be the tipping point, and the ingredients are there. I don’t think we should expect Microsoft and partners to deliver this package – this is Apple’s area of competitive advantage, and just such a device is probably sitting on a test bench as I write this.

]]> By: Alan Sawyer http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/comment-page-1/#comment-69 Alan Sawyer Thu, 20 Apr 2006 13:45:22 +0000 http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/#comment-69 Oops.... looking back now I see that I really should have addressed my comments to Patrick. Oops…. looking back now I see that I really should have addressed my comments to Patrick.

]]> By: Alan Sawyer http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/comment-page-1/#comment-68 Alan Sawyer Thu, 20 Apr 2006 13:43:46 +0000 http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/#comment-68 Mark, I think you touch on some interesting points. There is a viral quality to technology adoption that can influence and accelerate change, especially within the home where one early adopter can mentor the rest of the household in the adoption of a new techology. I had an experience similar to yours when I brought a PVR into the home -- my wife's viewing habits changed quickly. And she now uses my MP3 player all the time :-o Cost is a factor, as you point out, but it is only one of many barriers to technology adoption. Many of the 'massive passives' have lots of money to spend on technology but either are fearful of it or don't understand the benefits of it. If it were offered to them free, many still wouldn't be interested due to fear or lack of knowledge. As well, for many, I think, the need (or even the desire) to placeshift just isn't there. It's just not part of their lifestyle or mindset. As for timeshifting, the tried-and-true VCR works very well for that. Watching TV is, to them, a passive, programmed activity. It's a form of escapism and there's a comfort in the fact that they can engage in it effortlessly. Having said all of that, I do suspect that the rate of change may be somewhat faster than we've outlined in the End of TV reports. In Canada in particular, we're behind the curve on PVR adoption due to the only-recent introduction of PVRs by our cable and satellite providers as opposed to the well-established U.S. Tivo presence. However, even if everyone trades their VCR for a PVR, this really doesn't change the dynamics of the industry signficanlty. Increased uptake by consumers of video on demand (VOD), for example, would have a much greater impact. The impending shutdown of analogue signals will be a catalyst for change as many of the massive passives will need to upgrade their TV equipment. By that time, VOD will be much more robust and network PVRs will be standard cable/satellite offerings. This may be the catalyst that changes things most and accelerates the rate of change. Similarly, with the forthcoming introduction of Wireless Local Number Portability (WLNP) in Canada, we will see significant initial churn, leading to a lot of handset replacement. At this time, many more users will end up with video-capable handsets and this may lead to accelerated growth in the mobile video area. Alan Sawyer IBM Global Business Services (Canada) Mark,

I think you touch on some interesting points.

There is a viral quality to technology adoption that can influence and accelerate change, especially within the home where one early adopter can mentor the rest of the household in the adoption of a new techology. I had an experience similar to yours when I brought a PVR into the home — my wife’s viewing habits changed quickly. And she now uses my MP3 player all the time :-o

Cost is a factor, as you point out, but it is only one of many barriers to technology adoption. Many of the ‘massive passives’ have lots of money to spend on technology but either are fearful of it or don’t understand the benefits of it. If it were offered to them free, many still wouldn’t be interested due to fear or lack of knowledge.

As well, for many, I think, the need (or even the desire) to placeshift just isn’t there. It’s just not part of their lifestyle or mindset. As for timeshifting, the tried-and-true VCR works very well for that. Watching TV is, to them, a passive, programmed activity. It’s a form of escapism and there’s a comfort in the fact that they can engage in it effortlessly.

Having said all of that, I do suspect that the rate of change may be somewhat faster than we’ve outlined in the End of TV reports. In Canada in particular, we’re behind the curve on PVR adoption due to the only-recent introduction of PVRs by our cable and satellite providers as opposed to the well-established U.S. Tivo presence. However, even if everyone trades their VCR for a PVR, this really doesn’t change the dynamics of the industry signficanlty. Increased uptake by consumers of video on demand (VOD), for example, would have a much greater impact.

The impending shutdown of analogue signals will be a catalyst for change as many of the massive passives will need to upgrade their TV equipment. By that time, VOD will be much more robust and network PVRs will be standard cable/satellite offerings. This may be the catalyst that changes things most and accelerates the rate of change.

Similarly, with the forthcoming introduction of Wireless Local Number Portability (WLNP) in Canada, we will see significant initial churn, leading to a lot of handset replacement. At this time, many more users will end up with video-capable handsets and this may lead to accelerated growth in the mobile video area.

Alan Sawyer
IBM Global Business Services (Canada)

]]> By: meta data weblog » Blog Archive » The Future of Television? http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/comment-page-1/#comment-52 meta data weblog » Blog Archive » The Future of Television? Fri, 07 Apr 2006 19:43:51 +0000 http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/#comment-52 [...] Posted From: Mark Kuznicki in Remarkk! : http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/ Tom Purves provides more iSummit perspective here. The sky isn’t falling just yet and there is time to adjust, thanks to the massive passives: [...] [...] Posted From: Mark Kuznicki in Remarkk! : http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/ Tom Purves provides more iSummit perspective here. The sky isn’t falling just yet and there is time to adjust, thanks to the massive passives: [...]

]]> By: Patrick Dinnen http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/comment-page-1/#comment-69 Alan Sawyer Thu, 20 Apr 2006 13:45:22 +0000 http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/#comment-69 Oops.... looking back now I see that I really should have addressed my comments to Patrick. Oops…. looking back now I see that I really should have addressed my comments to Patrick.

]]> Comments on: The Future of Television? http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/ OPEN creative communities Thu, 15 Jul 2010 03:40:08 -0700 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Patrick Dinnen http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/comment-page-1/#comment-72 Patrick Dinnen Thu, 20 Apr 2006 20:20:38 +0000 http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/#comment-72 Alan Thanks for your response to my comments. I have to admit that I'm a strong (and likely wrong) ideologue on some of these questions, assuming that massive passives are only passive because of obstacles to being more actively engaged and not because they like things the way they are. I'm not sure about the comparison of VCRs and PVRs. They do have similar basic functions, but the differences seem to me to be greater than the similarities. In our household at least, it seems that the PVR is actually used for qualityshifting (TM) more than timeshifting, that is we tend to PVR shows that we would never otherwise have tried, and if they turn out to be good then we hit 'record season' and as easy as that we no longer have to watch prime time crud just because that's what's on. I think that the combination of convenience and capacity of a PVR as opposed to VCR opens up lots of options. I guess what I'm (hopefully) arguing for is the impending death of prime time. That widespread use of PVRs et al will mean that good shows get made and seen and bad ones can't make money just because they're in that 7pm-10pm slot. Don't even get me started on my techno-utopian hopes for what this will do to the TV advertising landscape. Alan
Thanks for your response to my comments. I have to admit that I’m a strong (and likely wrong) ideologue on some of these questions, assuming that massive passives are only passive because of obstacles to being more actively engaged and not because they like things the way they are.

I’m not sure about the comparison of VCRs and PVRs. They do have similar basic functions, but the differences seem to me to be greater than the similarities. In our household at least, it seems that the PVR is actually used for qualityshifting (TM) more than timeshifting, that is we tend to PVR shows that we would never otherwise have tried, and if they turn out to be good then we hit ‘record season’ and as easy as that we no longer have to watch prime time crud just because that’s what’s on. I think that the combination of convenience and capacity of a PVR as opposed to VCR opens up lots of options.

I guess what I’m (hopefully) arguing for is the impending death of prime time. That widespread use of PVRs et al will mean that good shows get made and seen and bad ones can’t make money just because they’re in that 7pm-10pm slot.

Don’t even get me started on my techno-utopian hopes for what this will do to the TV advertising landscape.

]]> By: Alan Sawyer http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/comment-page-1/#comment-71 Alan Sawyer Thu, 20 Apr 2006 16:24:23 +0000 http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/#comment-71 I'd love to see all of that come together, although I would want to use my existing HDMI-capable TV set as the monitor. I do that today, with HDMI feeds from my PVR and my DVD player, as well as a converted DVI->HDMI feed from a PC (an IBM, of course!) running Windows MCE. Unfortunately, my TV has only one HDMI input so I use a 4-way Gefen HDMI switch. Doing so limits me to a single digital output to the TV so I can’t divide up the screen real estate into multiple windows (e.g. viewing PVR playback + PC simultaneously). It’s better than nothing but not what I’m really looking for. Also, I'm still, obviously, highly dependent on my cable company -- for the cable feed to my PVR, the PVR itself and the analog feed to one of my Windows MCE. I do have a second MCE using an ATI HDTV card to pick up over the air ATSC signals, but I don't have a mast antenna so it's pretty flaky. It would be great to see broadband delivery of HD content! Windows MCE is a novelty, but certainly isn’t the media hub many of us are looking for. Apple is certainly a prime candidate to introduce such a 'disruptive' technology – and I hope they do it soon! I’d love to see all of that come together, although I would want to use my existing HDMI-capable TV set as the monitor. I do that today, with HDMI feeds from my PVR and my DVD player, as well as a converted DVI->HDMI feed from a PC (an IBM, of course!) running Windows MCE. Unfortunately, my TV has only one HDMI input so I use a 4-way Gefen HDMI switch. Doing so limits me to a single digital output to the TV so I can’t divide up the screen real estate into multiple windows (e.g. viewing PVR playback + PC simultaneously). It’s better than nothing but not what I’m really looking for.

Also, I’m still, obviously, highly dependent on my cable company — for the cable feed to my PVR, the PVR itself and the analog feed to one of my Windows MCE. I do have a second MCE using an ATI HDTV card to pick up over the air ATSC signals, but I don’t have a mast antenna so it’s pretty flaky. It would be great to see broadband delivery of HD content!

Windows MCE is a novelty, but certainly isn’t the media hub many of us are looking for. Apple is certainly a prime candidate to introduce such a ‘disruptive’ technology – and I hope they do it soon!

]]> By: Mark Kuznicki http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/comment-page-1/#comment-70 Mark Kuznicki Thu, 20 Apr 2006 15:50:47 +0000 http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/#comment-70 Alan, thanks for joining the conversation! What I am waiting for is for Apple to combine a true media-centre pc/application embedded into a living room sized flat-screen HD monitor/HDMI hub, together with <a href="http://www.itiva.com/thecompany.html" rel="nofollow">quantum streaming technology</a> to distribute HD video content on demand over standard broadband IP networks. A familiar remote-driven 10 feet user experience together with a stable virus-free OS, open networks and open standards for media consumption and high definition video and sound quality in a single living room appliance will be the tipping point, and the ingredients are there. I don't think we should expect Microsoft and partners to deliver this package - this is Apple's area of competitive advantage, and just such a device is probably sitting on a test bench as I write this. Alan, thanks for joining the conversation! What I am waiting for is for Apple to combine a true media-centre pc/application embedded into a living room sized flat-screen HD monitor/HDMI hub, together with quantum streaming technology to distribute HD video content on demand over standard broadband IP networks. A familiar remote-driven 10 feet user experience together with a stable virus-free OS, open networks and open standards for media consumption and high definition video and sound quality in a single living room appliance will be the tipping point, and the ingredients are there. I don’t think we should expect Microsoft and partners to deliver this package – this is Apple’s area of competitive advantage, and just such a device is probably sitting on a test bench as I write this.

]]> By: Alan Sawyer http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/comment-page-1/#comment-69 Alan Sawyer Thu, 20 Apr 2006 13:45:22 +0000 http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/#comment-69 Oops.... looking back now I see that I really should have addressed my comments to Patrick. Oops…. looking back now I see that I really should have addressed my comments to Patrick.

]]> By: Alan Sawyer http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/comment-page-1/#comment-68 Alan Sawyer Thu, 20 Apr 2006 13:43:46 +0000 http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/#comment-68 Mark, I think you touch on some interesting points. There is a viral quality to technology adoption that can influence and accelerate change, especially within the home where one early adopter can mentor the rest of the household in the adoption of a new techology. I had an experience similar to yours when I brought a PVR into the home -- my wife's viewing habits changed quickly. And she now uses my MP3 player all the time :-o Cost is a factor, as you point out, but it is only one of many barriers to technology adoption. Many of the 'massive passives' have lots of money to spend on technology but either are fearful of it or don't understand the benefits of it. If it were offered to them free, many still wouldn't be interested due to fear or lack of knowledge. As well, for many, I think, the need (or even the desire) to placeshift just isn't there. It's just not part of their lifestyle or mindset. As for timeshifting, the tried-and-true VCR works very well for that. Watching TV is, to them, a passive, programmed activity. It's a form of escapism and there's a comfort in the fact that they can engage in it effortlessly. Having said all of that, I do suspect that the rate of change may be somewhat faster than we've outlined in the End of TV reports. In Canada in particular, we're behind the curve on PVR adoption due to the only-recent introduction of PVRs by our cable and satellite providers as opposed to the well-established U.S. Tivo presence. However, even if everyone trades their VCR for a PVR, this really doesn't change the dynamics of the industry signficanlty. Increased uptake by consumers of video on demand (VOD), for example, would have a much greater impact. The impending shutdown of analogue signals will be a catalyst for change as many of the massive passives will need to upgrade their TV equipment. By that time, VOD will be much more robust and network PVRs will be standard cable/satellite offerings. This may be the catalyst that changes things most and accelerates the rate of change. Similarly, with the forthcoming introduction of Wireless Local Number Portability (WLNP) in Canada, we will see significant initial churn, leading to a lot of handset replacement. At this time, many more users will end up with video-capable handsets and this may lead to accelerated growth in the mobile video area. Alan Sawyer IBM Global Business Services (Canada) Mark,

I think you touch on some interesting points.

There is a viral quality to technology adoption that can influence and accelerate change, especially within the home where one early adopter can mentor the rest of the household in the adoption of a new techology. I had an experience similar to yours when I brought a PVR into the home — my wife’s viewing habits changed quickly. And she now uses my MP3 player all the time :-o

Cost is a factor, as you point out, but it is only one of many barriers to technology adoption. Many of the ‘massive passives’ have lots of money to spend on technology but either are fearful of it or don’t understand the benefits of it. If it were offered to them free, many still wouldn’t be interested due to fear or lack of knowledge.

As well, for many, I think, the need (or even the desire) to placeshift just isn’t there. It’s just not part of their lifestyle or mindset. As for timeshifting, the tried-and-true VCR works very well for that. Watching TV is, to them, a passive, programmed activity. It’s a form of escapism and there’s a comfort in the fact that they can engage in it effortlessly.

Having said all of that, I do suspect that the rate of change may be somewhat faster than we’ve outlined in the End of TV reports. In Canada in particular, we’re behind the curve on PVR adoption due to the only-recent introduction of PVRs by our cable and satellite providers as opposed to the well-established U.S. Tivo presence. However, even if everyone trades their VCR for a PVR, this really doesn’t change the dynamics of the industry signficanlty. Increased uptake by consumers of video on demand (VOD), for example, would have a much greater impact.

The impending shutdown of analogue signals will be a catalyst for change as many of the massive passives will need to upgrade their TV equipment. By that time, VOD will be much more robust and network PVRs will be standard cable/satellite offerings. This may be the catalyst that changes things most and accelerates the rate of change.

Similarly, with the forthcoming introduction of Wireless Local Number Portability (WLNP) in Canada, we will see significant initial churn, leading to a lot of handset replacement. At this time, many more users will end up with video-capable handsets and this may lead to accelerated growth in the mobile video area.

Alan Sawyer
IBM Global Business Services (Canada)

]]> By: meta data weblog » Blog Archive » The Future of Television? http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/comment-page-1/#comment-52 meta data weblog » Blog Archive » The Future of Television? Fri, 07 Apr 2006 19:43:51 +0000 http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/#comment-52 [...] Posted From: Mark Kuznicki in Remarkk! : http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/ Tom Purves provides more iSummit perspective here. The sky isn’t falling just yet and there is time to adjust, thanks to the massive passives: [...] [...] Posted From: Mark Kuznicki in Remarkk! : http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/ Tom Purves provides more iSummit perspective here. The sky isn’t falling just yet and there is time to adjust, thanks to the massive passives: [...]

]]> By: Patrick Dinnen http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/comment-page-1/#comment-68 Alan Sawyer Thu, 20 Apr 2006 13:43:46 +0000 http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/#comment-68 Mark, I think you touch on some interesting points. There is a viral quality to technology adoption that can influence and accelerate change, especially within the home where one early adopter can mentor the rest of the household in the adoption of a new techology. I had an experience similar to yours when I brought a PVR into the home -- my wife's viewing habits changed quickly. And she now uses my MP3 player all the time :-o Cost is a factor, as you point out, but it is only one of many barriers to technology adoption. Many of the 'massive passives' have lots of money to spend on technology but either are fearful of it or don't understand the benefits of it. If it were offered to them free, many still wouldn't be interested due to fear or lack of knowledge. As well, for many, I think, the need (or even the desire) to placeshift just isn't there. It's just not part of their lifestyle or mindset. As for timeshifting, the tried-and-true VCR works very well for that. Watching TV is, to them, a passive, programmed activity. It's a form of escapism and there's a comfort in the fact that they can engage in it effortlessly. Having said all of that, I do suspect that the rate of change may be somewhat faster than we've outlined in the End of TV reports. In Canada in particular, we're behind the curve on PVR adoption due to the only-recent introduction of PVRs by our cable and satellite providers as opposed to the well-established U.S. Tivo presence. However, even if everyone trades their VCR for a PVR, this really doesn't change the dynamics of the industry signficanlty. Increased uptake by consumers of video on demand (VOD), for example, would have a much greater impact. The impending shutdown of analogue signals will be a catalyst for change as many of the massive passives will need to upgrade their TV equipment. By that time, VOD will be much more robust and network PVRs will be standard cable/satellite offerings. This may be the catalyst that changes things most and accelerates the rate of change. Similarly, with the forthcoming introduction of Wireless Local Number Portability (WLNP) in Canada, we will see significant initial churn, leading to a lot of handset replacement. At this time, many more users will end up with video-capable handsets and this may lead to accelerated growth in the mobile video area. Alan Sawyer IBM Global Business Services (Canada) Mark,

I think you touch on some interesting points.

There is a viral quality to technology adoption that can influence and accelerate change, especially within the home where one early adopter can mentor the rest of the household in the adoption of a new techology. I had an experience similar to yours when I brought a PVR into the home — my wife’s viewing habits changed quickly. And she now uses my MP3 player all the time :-o

Cost is a factor, as you point out, but it is only one of many barriers to technology adoption. Many of the ‘massive passives’ have lots of money to spend on technology but either are fearful of it or don’t understand the benefits of it. If it were offered to them free, many still wouldn’t be interested due to fear or lack of knowledge.

As well, for many, I think, the need (or even the desire) to placeshift just isn’t there. It’s just not part of their lifestyle or mindset. As for timeshifting, the tried-and-true VCR works very well for that. Watching TV is, to them, a passive, programmed activity. It’s a form of escapism and there’s a comfort in the fact that they can engage in it effortlessly.

Having said all of that, I do suspect that the rate of change may be somewhat faster than we’ve outlined in the End of TV reports. In Canada in particular, we’re behind the curve on PVR adoption due to the only-recent introduction of PVRs by our cable and satellite providers as opposed to the well-established U.S. Tivo presence. However, even if everyone trades their VCR for a PVR, this really doesn’t change the dynamics of the industry signficanlty. Increased uptake by consumers of video on demand (VOD), for example, would have a much greater impact.

The impending shutdown of analogue signals will be a catalyst for change as many of the massive passives will need to upgrade their TV equipment. By that time, VOD will be much more robust and network PVRs will be standard cable/satellite offerings. This may be the catalyst that changes things most and accelerates the rate of change.

Similarly, with the forthcoming introduction of Wireless Local Number Portability (WLNP) in Canada, we will see significant initial churn, leading to a lot of handset replacement. At this time, many more users will end up with video-capable handsets and this may lead to accelerated growth in the mobile video area.

Alan Sawyer
IBM Global Business Services (Canada)

]]> Comments on: The Future of Television? http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/ OPEN creative communities Thu, 15 Jul 2010 03:40:08 -0700 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Patrick Dinnen http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/comment-page-1/#comment-72 Patrick Dinnen Thu, 20 Apr 2006 20:20:38 +0000 http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/#comment-72 Alan Thanks for your response to my comments. I have to admit that I'm a strong (and likely wrong) ideologue on some of these questions, assuming that massive passives are only passive because of obstacles to being more actively engaged and not because they like things the way they are. I'm not sure about the comparison of VCRs and PVRs. They do have similar basic functions, but the differences seem to me to be greater than the similarities. In our household at least, it seems that the PVR is actually used for qualityshifting (TM) more than timeshifting, that is we tend to PVR shows that we would never otherwise have tried, and if they turn out to be good then we hit 'record season' and as easy as that we no longer have to watch prime time crud just because that's what's on. I think that the combination of convenience and capacity of a PVR as opposed to VCR opens up lots of options. I guess what I'm (hopefully) arguing for is the impending death of prime time. That widespread use of PVRs et al will mean that good shows get made and seen and bad ones can't make money just because they're in that 7pm-10pm slot. Don't even get me started on my techno-utopian hopes for what this will do to the TV advertising landscape. Alan
Thanks for your response to my comments. I have to admit that I’m a strong (and likely wrong) ideologue on some of these questions, assuming that massive passives are only passive because of obstacles to being more actively engaged and not because they like things the way they are.

I’m not sure about the comparison of VCRs and PVRs. They do have similar basic functions, but the differences seem to me to be greater than the similarities. In our household at least, it seems that the PVR is actually used for qualityshifting (TM) more than timeshifting, that is we tend to PVR shows that we would never otherwise have tried, and if they turn out to be good then we hit ‘record season’ and as easy as that we no longer have to watch prime time crud just because that’s what’s on. I think that the combination of convenience and capacity of a PVR as opposed to VCR opens up lots of options.

I guess what I’m (hopefully) arguing for is the impending death of prime time. That widespread use of PVRs et al will mean that good shows get made and seen and bad ones can’t make money just because they’re in that 7pm-10pm slot.

Don’t even get me started on my techno-utopian hopes for what this will do to the TV advertising landscape.

]]> By: Alan Sawyer http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/comment-page-1/#comment-71 Alan Sawyer Thu, 20 Apr 2006 16:24:23 +0000 http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/#comment-71 I'd love to see all of that come together, although I would want to use my existing HDMI-capable TV set as the monitor. I do that today, with HDMI feeds from my PVR and my DVD player, as well as a converted DVI->HDMI feed from a PC (an IBM, of course!) running Windows MCE. Unfortunately, my TV has only one HDMI input so I use a 4-way Gefen HDMI switch. Doing so limits me to a single digital output to the TV so I can’t divide up the screen real estate into multiple windows (e.g. viewing PVR playback + PC simultaneously). It’s better than nothing but not what I’m really looking for. Also, I'm still, obviously, highly dependent on my cable company -- for the cable feed to my PVR, the PVR itself and the analog feed to one of my Windows MCE. I do have a second MCE using an ATI HDTV card to pick up over the air ATSC signals, but I don't have a mast antenna so it's pretty flaky. It would be great to see broadband delivery of HD content! Windows MCE is a novelty, but certainly isn’t the media hub many of us are looking for. Apple is certainly a prime candidate to introduce such a 'disruptive' technology – and I hope they do it soon! I’d love to see all of that come together, although I would want to use my existing HDMI-capable TV set as the monitor. I do that today, with HDMI feeds from my PVR and my DVD player, as well as a converted DVI->HDMI feed from a PC (an IBM, of course!) running Windows MCE. Unfortunately, my TV has only one HDMI input so I use a 4-way Gefen HDMI switch. Doing so limits me to a single digital output to the TV so I can’t divide up the screen real estate into multiple windows (e.g. viewing PVR playback + PC simultaneously). It’s better than nothing but not what I’m really looking for.

Also, I’m still, obviously, highly dependent on my cable company — for the cable feed to my PVR, the PVR itself and the analog feed to one of my Windows MCE. I do have a second MCE using an ATI HDTV card to pick up over the air ATSC signals, but I don’t have a mast antenna so it’s pretty flaky. It would be great to see broadband delivery of HD content!

Windows MCE is a novelty, but certainly isn’t the media hub many of us are looking for. Apple is certainly a prime candidate to introduce such a ‘disruptive’ technology – and I hope they do it soon!

]]> By: Mark Kuznicki http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/comment-page-1/#comment-70 Mark Kuznicki Thu, 20 Apr 2006 15:50:47 +0000 http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/#comment-70 Alan, thanks for joining the conversation! What I am waiting for is for Apple to combine a true media-centre pc/application embedded into a living room sized flat-screen HD monitor/HDMI hub, together with <a href="http://www.itiva.com/thecompany.html" rel="nofollow">quantum streaming technology</a> to distribute HD video content on demand over standard broadband IP networks. A familiar remote-driven 10 feet user experience together with a stable virus-free OS, open networks and open standards for media consumption and high definition video and sound quality in a single living room appliance will be the tipping point, and the ingredients are there. I don't think we should expect Microsoft and partners to deliver this package - this is Apple's area of competitive advantage, and just such a device is probably sitting on a test bench as I write this. Alan, thanks for joining the conversation! What I am waiting for is for Apple to combine a true media-centre pc/application embedded into a living room sized flat-screen HD monitor/HDMI hub, together with quantum streaming technology to distribute HD video content on demand over standard broadband IP networks. A familiar remote-driven 10 feet user experience together with a stable virus-free OS, open networks and open standards for media consumption and high definition video and sound quality in a single living room appliance will be the tipping point, and the ingredients are there. I don’t think we should expect Microsoft and partners to deliver this package – this is Apple’s area of competitive advantage, and just such a device is probably sitting on a test bench as I write this.

]]> By: Alan Sawyer http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/comment-page-1/#comment-69 Alan Sawyer Thu, 20 Apr 2006 13:45:22 +0000 http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/#comment-69 Oops.... looking back now I see that I really should have addressed my comments to Patrick. Oops…. looking back now I see that I really should have addressed my comments to Patrick.

]]> By: Alan Sawyer http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/comment-page-1/#comment-68 Alan Sawyer Thu, 20 Apr 2006 13:43:46 +0000 http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/#comment-68 Mark, I think you touch on some interesting points. There is a viral quality to technology adoption that can influence and accelerate change, especially within the home where one early adopter can mentor the rest of the household in the adoption of a new techology. I had an experience similar to yours when I brought a PVR into the home -- my wife's viewing habits changed quickly. And she now uses my MP3 player all the time :-o Cost is a factor, as you point out, but it is only one of many barriers to technology adoption. Many of the 'massive passives' have lots of money to spend on technology but either are fearful of it or don't understand the benefits of it. If it were offered to them free, many still wouldn't be interested due to fear or lack of knowledge. As well, for many, I think, the need (or even the desire) to placeshift just isn't there. It's just not part of their lifestyle or mindset. As for timeshifting, the tried-and-true VCR works very well for that. Watching TV is, to them, a passive, programmed activity. It's a form of escapism and there's a comfort in the fact that they can engage in it effortlessly. Having said all of that, I do suspect that the rate of change may be somewhat faster than we've outlined in the End of TV reports. In Canada in particular, we're behind the curve on PVR adoption due to the only-recent introduction of PVRs by our cable and satellite providers as opposed to the well-established U.S. Tivo presence. However, even if everyone trades their VCR for a PVR, this really doesn't change the dynamics of the industry signficanlty. Increased uptake by consumers of video on demand (VOD), for example, would have a much greater impact. The impending shutdown of analogue signals will be a catalyst for change as many of the massive passives will need to upgrade their TV equipment. By that time, VOD will be much more robust and network PVRs will be standard cable/satellite offerings. This may be the catalyst that changes things most and accelerates the rate of change. Similarly, with the forthcoming introduction of Wireless Local Number Portability (WLNP) in Canada, we will see significant initial churn, leading to a lot of handset replacement. At this time, many more users will end up with video-capable handsets and this may lead to accelerated growth in the mobile video area. Alan Sawyer IBM Global Business Services (Canada) Mark,

I think you touch on some interesting points.

There is a viral quality to technology adoption that can influence and accelerate change, especially within the home where one early adopter can mentor the rest of the household in the adoption of a new techology. I had an experience similar to yours when I brought a PVR into the home — my wife’s viewing habits changed quickly. And she now uses my MP3 player all the time :-o

Cost is a factor, as you point out, but it is only one of many barriers to technology adoption. Many of the ‘massive passives’ have lots of money to spend on technology but either are fearful of it or don’t understand the benefits of it. If it were offered to them free, many still wouldn’t be interested due to fear or lack of knowledge.

As well, for many, I think, the need (or even the desire) to placeshift just isn’t there. It’s just not part of their lifestyle or mindset. As for timeshifting, the tried-and-true VCR works very well for that. Watching TV is, to them, a passive, programmed activity. It’s a form of escapism and there’s a comfort in the fact that they can engage in it effortlessly.

Having said all of that, I do suspect that the rate of change may be somewhat faster than we’ve outlined in the End of TV reports. In Canada in particular, we’re behind the curve on PVR adoption due to the only-recent introduction of PVRs by our cable and satellite providers as opposed to the well-established U.S. Tivo presence. However, even if everyone trades their VCR for a PVR, this really doesn’t change the dynamics of the industry signficanlty. Increased uptake by consumers of video on demand (VOD), for example, would have a much greater impact.

The impending shutdown of analogue signals will be a catalyst for change as many of the massive passives will need to upgrade their TV equipment. By that time, VOD will be much more robust and network PVRs will be standard cable/satellite offerings. This may be the catalyst that changes things most and accelerates the rate of change.

Similarly, with the forthcoming introduction of Wireless Local Number Portability (WLNP) in Canada, we will see significant initial churn, leading to a lot of handset replacement. At this time, many more users will end up with video-capable handsets and this may lead to accelerated growth in the mobile video area.

Alan Sawyer
IBM Global Business Services (Canada)

]]> By: meta data weblog » Blog Archive » The Future of Television? http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/comment-page-1/#comment-52 meta data weblog » Blog Archive » The Future of Television? Fri, 07 Apr 2006 19:43:51 +0000 http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/#comment-52 [...] Posted From: Mark Kuznicki in Remarkk! : http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/ Tom Purves provides more iSummit perspective here. The sky isn’t falling just yet and there is time to adjust, thanks to the massive passives: [...] [...] Posted From: Mark Kuznicki in Remarkk! : http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/ Tom Purves provides more iSummit perspective here. The sky isn’t falling just yet and there is time to adjust, thanks to the massive passives: [...]

]]> By: Patrick Dinnen http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/comment-page-1/#comment-52 meta data weblog » Blog Archive » The Future of Television? Fri, 07 Apr 2006 19:43:51 +0000 http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/#comment-52 [...] Posted From: Mark Kuznicki in Remarkk! : http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/ Tom Purves provides more iSummit perspective here. The sky isn’t falling just yet and there is time to adjust, thanks to the massive passives: [...] [...] Posted From: Mark Kuznicki in Remarkk! : http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/ Tom Purves provides more iSummit perspective here. The sky isn’t falling just yet and there is time to adjust, thanks to the massive passives: [...]

]]> Comments on: The Future of Television? http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/ OPEN creative communities Thu, 15 Jul 2010 03:40:08 -0700 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Patrick Dinnen http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/comment-page-1/#comment-72 Patrick Dinnen Thu, 20 Apr 2006 20:20:38 +0000 http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/#comment-72 Alan Thanks for your response to my comments. I have to admit that I'm a strong (and likely wrong) ideologue on some of these questions, assuming that massive passives are only passive because of obstacles to being more actively engaged and not because they like things the way they are. I'm not sure about the comparison of VCRs and PVRs. They do have similar basic functions, but the differences seem to me to be greater than the similarities. In our household at least, it seems that the PVR is actually used for qualityshifting (TM) more than timeshifting, that is we tend to PVR shows that we would never otherwise have tried, and if they turn out to be good then we hit 'record season' and as easy as that we no longer have to watch prime time crud just because that's what's on. I think that the combination of convenience and capacity of a PVR as opposed to VCR opens up lots of options. I guess what I'm (hopefully) arguing for is the impending death of prime time. That widespread use of PVRs et al will mean that good shows get made and seen and bad ones can't make money just because they're in that 7pm-10pm slot. Don't even get me started on my techno-utopian hopes for what this will do to the TV advertising landscape. Alan
Thanks for your response to my comments. I have to admit that I’m a strong (and likely wrong) ideologue on some of these questions, assuming that massive passives are only passive because of obstacles to being more actively engaged and not because they like things the way they are.

I’m not sure about the comparison of VCRs and PVRs. They do have similar basic functions, but the differences seem to me to be greater than the similarities. In our household at least, it seems that the PVR is actually used for qualityshifting (TM) more than timeshifting, that is we tend to PVR shows that we would never otherwise have tried, and if they turn out to be good then we hit ‘record season’ and as easy as that we no longer have to watch prime time crud just because that’s what’s on. I think that the combination of convenience and capacity of a PVR as opposed to VCR opens up lots of options.

I guess what I’m (hopefully) arguing for is the impending death of prime time. That widespread use of PVRs et al will mean that good shows get made and seen and bad ones can’t make money just because they’re in that 7pm-10pm slot.

Don’t even get me started on my techno-utopian hopes for what this will do to the TV advertising landscape.

]]> By: Alan Sawyer http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/comment-page-1/#comment-71 Alan Sawyer Thu, 20 Apr 2006 16:24:23 +0000 http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/#comment-71 I'd love to see all of that come together, although I would want to use my existing HDMI-capable TV set as the monitor. I do that today, with HDMI feeds from my PVR and my DVD player, as well as a converted DVI->HDMI feed from a PC (an IBM, of course!) running Windows MCE. Unfortunately, my TV has only one HDMI input so I use a 4-way Gefen HDMI switch. Doing so limits me to a single digital output to the TV so I can’t divide up the screen real estate into multiple windows (e.g. viewing PVR playback + PC simultaneously). It’s better than nothing but not what I’m really looking for. Also, I'm still, obviously, highly dependent on my cable company -- for the cable feed to my PVR, the PVR itself and the analog feed to one of my Windows MCE. I do have a second MCE using an ATI HDTV card to pick up over the air ATSC signals, but I don't have a mast antenna so it's pretty flaky. It would be great to see broadband delivery of HD content! Windows MCE is a novelty, but certainly isn’t the media hub many of us are looking for. Apple is certainly a prime candidate to introduce such a 'disruptive' technology – and I hope they do it soon! I’d love to see all of that come together, although I would want to use my existing HDMI-capable TV set as the monitor. I do that today, with HDMI feeds from my PVR and my DVD player, as well as a converted DVI->HDMI feed from a PC (an IBM, of course!) running Windows MCE. Unfortunately, my TV has only one HDMI input so I use a 4-way Gefen HDMI switch. Doing so limits me to a single digital output to the TV so I can’t divide up the screen real estate into multiple windows (e.g. viewing PVR playback + PC simultaneously). It’s better than nothing but not what I’m really looking for.

Also, I’m still, obviously, highly dependent on my cable company — for the cable feed to my PVR, the PVR itself and the analog feed to one of my Windows MCE. I do have a second MCE using an ATI HDTV card to pick up over the air ATSC signals, but I don’t have a mast antenna so it’s pretty flaky. It would be great to see broadband delivery of HD content!

Windows MCE is a novelty, but certainly isn’t the media hub many of us are looking for. Apple is certainly a prime candidate to introduce such a ‘disruptive’ technology – and I hope they do it soon!

]]> By: Mark Kuznicki http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/comment-page-1/#comment-70 Mark Kuznicki Thu, 20 Apr 2006 15:50:47 +0000 http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/#comment-70 Alan, thanks for joining the conversation! What I am waiting for is for Apple to combine a true media-centre pc/application embedded into a living room sized flat-screen HD monitor/HDMI hub, together with <a href="http://www.itiva.com/thecompany.html" rel="nofollow">quantum streaming technology</a> to distribute HD video content on demand over standard broadband IP networks. A familiar remote-driven 10 feet user experience together with a stable virus-free OS, open networks and open standards for media consumption and high definition video and sound quality in a single living room appliance will be the tipping point, and the ingredients are there. I don't think we should expect Microsoft and partners to deliver this package - this is Apple's area of competitive advantage, and just such a device is probably sitting on a test bench as I write this. Alan, thanks for joining the conversation! What I am waiting for is for Apple to combine a true media-centre pc/application embedded into a living room sized flat-screen HD monitor/HDMI hub, together with quantum streaming technology to distribute HD video content on demand over standard broadband IP networks. A familiar remote-driven 10 feet user experience together with a stable virus-free OS, open networks and open standards for media consumption and high definition video and sound quality in a single living room appliance will be the tipping point, and the ingredients are there. I don’t think we should expect Microsoft and partners to deliver this package – this is Apple’s area of competitive advantage, and just such a device is probably sitting on a test bench as I write this.

]]> By: Alan Sawyer http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/comment-page-1/#comment-69 Alan Sawyer Thu, 20 Apr 2006 13:45:22 +0000 http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/#comment-69 Oops.... looking back now I see that I really should have addressed my comments to Patrick. Oops…. looking back now I see that I really should have addressed my comments to Patrick.

]]> By: Alan Sawyer http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/comment-page-1/#comment-68 Alan Sawyer Thu, 20 Apr 2006 13:43:46 +0000 http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/#comment-68 Mark, I think you touch on some interesting points. There is a viral quality to technology adoption that can influence and accelerate change, especially within the home where one early adopter can mentor the rest of the household in the adoption of a new techology. I had an experience similar to yours when I brought a PVR into the home -- my wife's viewing habits changed quickly. And she now uses my MP3 player all the time :-o Cost is a factor, as you point out, but it is only one of many barriers to technology adoption. Many of the 'massive passives' have lots of money to spend on technology but either are fearful of it or don't understand the benefits of it. If it were offered to them free, many still wouldn't be interested due to fear or lack of knowledge. As well, for many, I think, the need (or even the desire) to placeshift just isn't there. It's just not part of their lifestyle or mindset. As for timeshifting, the tried-and-true VCR works very well for that. Watching TV is, to them, a passive, programmed activity. It's a form of escapism and there's a comfort in the fact that they can engage in it effortlessly. Having said all of that, I do suspect that the rate of change may be somewhat faster than we've outlined in the End of TV reports. In Canada in particular, we're behind the curve on PVR adoption due to the only-recent introduction of PVRs by our cable and satellite providers as opposed to the well-established U.S. Tivo presence. However, even if everyone trades their VCR for a PVR, this really doesn't change the dynamics of the industry signficanlty. Increased uptake by consumers of video on demand (VOD), for example, would have a much greater impact. The impending shutdown of analogue signals will be a catalyst for change as many of the massive passives will need to upgrade their TV equipment. By that time, VOD will be much more robust and network PVRs will be standard cable/satellite offerings. This may be the catalyst that changes things most and accelerates the rate of change. Similarly, with the forthcoming introduction of Wireless Local Number Portability (WLNP) in Canada, we will see significant initial churn, leading to a lot of handset replacement. At this time, many more users will end up with video-capable handsets and this may lead to accelerated growth in the mobile video area. Alan Sawyer IBM Global Business Services (Canada) Mark,

I think you touch on some interesting points.

There is a viral quality to technology adoption that can influence and accelerate change, especially within the home where one early adopter can mentor the rest of the household in the adoption of a new techology. I had an experience similar to yours when I brought a PVR into the home — my wife’s viewing habits changed quickly. And she now uses my MP3 player all the time :-o

Cost is a factor, as you point out, but it is only one of many barriers to technology adoption. Many of the ‘massive passives’ have lots of money to spend on technology but either are fearful of it or don’t understand the benefits of it. If it were offered to them free, many still wouldn’t be interested due to fear or lack of knowledge.

As well, for many, I think, the need (or even the desire) to placeshift just isn’t there. It’s just not part of their lifestyle or mindset. As for timeshifting, the tried-and-true VCR works very well for that. Watching TV is, to them, a passive, programmed activity. It’s a form of escapism and there’s a comfort in the fact that they can engage in it effortlessly.

Having said all of that, I do suspect that the rate of change may be somewhat faster than we’ve outlined in the End of TV reports. In Canada in particular, we’re behind the curve on PVR adoption due to the only-recent introduction of PVRs by our cable and satellite providers as opposed to the well-established U.S. Tivo presence. However, even if everyone trades their VCR for a PVR, this really doesn’t change the dynamics of the industry signficanlty. Increased uptake by consumers of video on demand (VOD), for example, would have a much greater impact.

The impending shutdown of analogue signals will be a catalyst for change as many of the massive passives will need to upgrade their TV equipment. By that time, VOD will be much more robust and network PVRs will be standard cable/satellite offerings. This may be the catalyst that changes things most and accelerates the rate of change.

Similarly, with the forthcoming introduction of Wireless Local Number Portability (WLNP) in Canada, we will see significant initial churn, leading to a lot of handset replacement. At this time, many more users will end up with video-capable handsets and this may lead to accelerated growth in the mobile video area.

Alan Sawyer
IBM Global Business Services (Canada)

]]> By: meta data weblog » Blog Archive » The Future of Television? http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/comment-page-1/#comment-52 meta data weblog » Blog Archive » The Future of Television? Fri, 07 Apr 2006 19:43:51 +0000 http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/#comment-52 [...] Posted From: Mark Kuznicki in Remarkk! : http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/ Tom Purves provides more iSummit perspective here. The sky isn’t falling just yet and there is time to adjust, thanks to the massive passives: [...] [...] Posted From: Mark Kuznicki in Remarkk! : http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/ Tom Purves provides more iSummit perspective here. The sky isn’t falling just yet and there is time to adjust, thanks to the massive passives: [...]

]]> By: Patrick Dinnen http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/comment-page-1/#comment-45 Patrick Dinnen Tue, 04 Apr 2006 15:26:08 +0000 http://remarkk.com/2006/04/04/the-future-of-television/#comment-45 Mark That chart provides an interesting way of looking at things. I think the assumption that the bulk of the world falls into the 'massive passive' category is correct, if a little depressing. I tend to agree with your assessment that the shift to the 'massive involved' (not quite so catchy) may not take as long as the 7-years predicted by IBM. Anecdote: My girlfriend watches plenty of TV and I'm a Kool Kid who hardly ever watches. But once I installed a PVR with timeshifting and ad-skipping capability not just my habits but also Aimee's shifted quite quickly. I guess the speed of the shift depends on lots of things, with the ease and experience being a very important factors. Cost is relevant too, if Tivo units started selling for $200 it wouldn't be long before the once passive massive were smashing those dinosaur mass-audience business models with the best of them. We can only hope. Mark
That chart provides an interesting way of looking at things. I think the assumption that the bulk of the world falls into the ‘massive passive’ category is correct, if a little depressing.

I tend to agree with your assessment that the shift to the ‘massive involved’ (not quite so catchy) may not take as long as the 7-years predicted by IBM.
Anecdote: My girlfriend watches plenty of TV and I’m a Kool Kid who hardly ever watches. But once I installed a PVR with timeshifting and ad-skipping capability not just my habits but also Aimee’s shifted quite quickly.

I guess the speed of the shift depends on lots of things, with the ease and experience being a very important factors. Cost is relevant too, if Tivo units started selling for $200 it wouldn’t be long before the once passive massive were smashing those dinosaur mass-audience business models with the best of them. We can only hope.

]]>