There can be only one (unless there are two)
Aldo and I had a nice little back-and-forth last week regarding the synthesis of Internet and television.
I’m in the “soon it will all be a single appliance” camp.
I savor the vision of being able to watch a ball game on the big screen, with maybe 60 percent of the screenspace showing the action. The rest will feature sub-screens I’ve customized (a la Windows) that are ticking off stats, following other programs, and letting me chat with buds coast to coast who are—bless their tortured souls—Bears or White Sox fans like me.
El Jefe? He’s not as convinced. When we want to watch TV, we’ll watch TV. When we want to surf around (even if we’re enjoying videos, vlogs, etc.), then we’ll get in front of our computer. We quickly agreed that it will likely come down to the type of programming you select at a given time.
For sports, that visual multi-tasking power sounds awesome. For a movie, I’ll probably prefer to enjoy it without interactive distraction; when I want to watch Highlander, I’m watching Highlander.
It’s like reading a book. Sure, there’s incalculable content online, but sometimes we want nothing more than a roaring fire, a cup of coffee, and a few hundred pages to turn.
Still, there’s no denying that change is afoot. Motivated types are already grappling with the technological challenges of uniting the tube and the ‘net.
So what do you all think? Will broadcast television and narrowcast computer video stay on their respective sides of the aisle, or is this union inevitable?
Del.icio.us, 
Digg, 
Technorati, 
Furl, 
Reddit,
Spurl
RSS
Chris A. said,
on March 1st, 2007 at 9:37 am
While IPTV (Internet Protocol Television) is making your prediction possible, Jay, I don’t think the application will fly. My current *media room* set up is a windowless 70’s-styled basement with a TV in one corner and my desktop computer about 10 feet further down that wall. I would choose to experience your scenario by sitting at my computer and moving my eyes between both screens (but not watching White Sox).
I like Web content (in this case, words) closer to my eyes than video content. Certainly video content on a 32, 50, or 65 inch screen. Further that, no matter how wide the screens get, do you think sports fans will really forgo all 102 diagonal inches so they can allot space for other windows? I mean a monitor limited to 88 inches just would not cut it when the White Sox wave the pennant, eh?
DThomas said,
on March 1st, 2007 at 11:41 am
As much as things change, they all tend to remain the same…don’t fight it…it’s already begun. We are our proverbial Dad!! None of us ever imagined the internet or even 65″ plasma TV’s when we were kids (unless you’re 20 right now!). Yet, here we are. As AT&T and other media giants spend millions on the development of IPTV, it’s gonna be some “little guy” that makes everyone want one.
Your Great Grandfather: “Went to the game last night…great time!”
Your Grandfather: “Go to the game?” Are you kidding me? I’d rather listen to it on the radio…”
Your Father: “Radio? Are you kidding me? I gotta TV…I can watch it from my Lazy Boy.”
You: “Dad…you need a 65″ HDTV Plasma mounted on your wall with slo-mo, rewind, pause…woo hoo…get with it old man!”
Your son: “Hey old man…I just had this IPTV chip implanted in my head. I’m watching a replay of the ‘96 NBA Finals. That guy “Jordan” was pretty good.”
Just as video killed the radio star…IPTV will kill network broadcast TV and be the next revolution in media.
Chris A. said,
on March 1st, 2007 at 1:07 pm
Love that timeline, even if it labels me the dad!
My ears perked at your last sentence. IPTV certainly has the ability to alter the TV viewing experience as Jay predicts, but one huge difference between IPTV and the Internet (for the time being anyway) is that the Internet is still public. It’s no one company’s network.
IPTV is essentially the cable TV delivery model with some web-based features built in, but as far as I know they’re currently not building in access to the public Internet via IPTV. Your provider is using Internet protocol to feed you the channels and features they choose. So, for example, if you get IPTV from AT&T, and they choose not to carry the super-niched channel that you now enjoy on the free Internet then you don’t get that channel. Period. To further the example. Bliptv.com may one day become a full-fledged *TV* channel, available to IPTV and cable operators. If you’re a Bliptv fan but your provider doesn’t serve that channel, then you still have to go to your desktop, open your browser, and visit bliptv.com. You can get it via the public Internet, but not via your IPTV.
The functions our TV will perform with IPTV will certainly be more than what they do now, but wouldn’t it be nice if Jay could mix the public Internet with his television so he could put any content he wants next to his White Sox, not the content his provider, well, provides?
Alan Eisenberg said,
on March 1st, 2007 at 3:57 pm
How soon until we just implant those puppies in our head and have a switch in that virtual world a la The Matrix!
For now, I’d be happy to just get one bill that consolodates my cable, phone, internet, cell, power,coffee….well the list just keeps going and going. I do agree that change is coming soon. I’m just looking forward to some good old fashioned competition in the market.
Aldo Bello said,
on March 1st, 2007 at 6:50 pm
Television is an inherently passive entertainment medium. And it’s a mature medium.
The internet is a seeking, interactive medium. And it’s a developing medium.
The fact that we can now watch TV on the Web has only transformed the way that TV content is distributed, it has not fundamentally altered the way that TV-like content is produced. At least not yet.
Once new, web-minded producers start experimenting with the form and produce radically NEW content for the NEW medium of the internet, then the experience for the viewer/user will be profundly different. And that’s what I believe we’re talking about…the creation of a new form. We’re not just talking about being able to see TV content on a different platform, a la music being able to be heard on the radio, your iPod, computer or SIRIUS (although that’s happening too).
The new medium will demand that the new content be searchable, interactive, shareable and partially, user-generated. And all of this will occur primarily on your computer, not on your TV screen.
On your TV, you’ll still watch TV-style content.
In the near future, and on your computer screen, you’ll be watching a new form of programming.
DThomas said,
on March 2nd, 2007 at 1:16 pm
You got that right, AB! Once the infrastructure is in place and the user is in place, then the innovation will leapfrog beyond our current predictions and hopes. Content, bells & whistles, ease-of-use, customizable views and useage, portability, accessibility, affordability will be the drivers of that vision. As far as separating TV-style content from computer-centric content…I see the day where there is no difference. Just as music, TV, movies are portable from our computers to an iPod…there’s no reason why we can’t have one “medium” that combines the “media”. Hold my hand and dream with me…I’m on a roll…. Just as my head can listen, speak, think, see and smell (in one “unit”), our entire media/communication life (active or passive) can be “housed” in one place yet experienced through myriad “channels” (phone, iPod, TV screen, computer screen, said computer chip) all for the low low price of $29.95. I’m thinking we could call it the iCabeza or maybe “Hal”. Whatya think?
Jay Ferrari said,
on March 7th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
Interesting hypothetical Joost enhancement here:
http://www.ironicsans.com/2007/03/idea_joosts_missing_feature.html