Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Code Project
  1. Home
  2. The Lounge
  3. And while we're on TV...

And while we're on TV...

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved The Lounge
sysadminquestion
7 Posts 5 Posters 0 Views 1 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • M Offline
    M Offline
    Mike Ellison
    wrote on last edited by
    #1

    How many more years until the current model of network-distribution of TV content is dead? It looks like the writing is on the wall for everything to move toward on-demand distribution. It seems like just a matter of time. So how many years do you think network TV has? Or do you think it will survive an internet-driven on-demand model?

    M P 2 Replies Last reply
    0
    • M Mike Ellison

      How many more years until the current model of network-distribution of TV content is dead? It looks like the writing is on the wall for everything to move toward on-demand distribution. It seems like just a matter of time. So how many years do you think network TV has? Or do you think it will survive an internet-driven on-demand model?

      M Offline
      M Offline
      Member 96
      wrote on last edited by
      #2

      In the perfect world on demand tv should be here now. We should be able to watch any show we want direct from the show producer to the consumer the instant it leaves the editing room. There is no place for the networks any more in the equation, they've slowly given up over the years on all the advantages they had like their news departments, topical local programming etc etc. They remain now as nothing more than a vehicle to convey advertising.


      "The pursuit of excellence is less profitable than the pursuit of bigness, but it can be more satisfying." - David Ogilvy

      O 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • M Member 96

        In the perfect world on demand tv should be here now. We should be able to watch any show we want direct from the show producer to the consumer the instant it leaves the editing room. There is no place for the networks any more in the equation, they've slowly given up over the years on all the advantages they had like their news departments, topical local programming etc etc. They remain now as nothing more than a vehicle to convey advertising.


        "The pursuit of excellence is less profitable than the pursuit of bigness, but it can be more satisfying." - David Ogilvy

        O Offline
        O Offline
        Oakman
        wrote on last edited by
        #3

        On Demand doesn't work for satellite TV, afaik. That accounts for 12.5% of the market and it is growing

        Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

        M 1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • O Oakman

          On Demand doesn't work for satellite TV, afaik. That accounts for 12.5% of the market and it is growing

          Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

          M Offline
          M Offline
          Member 96
          wrote on last edited by
          #4

          I think they're testing it out. They already have broadband internet access so it seems possible. I have a dish but I'd switch in a heartbeat if I could get all HD on demand content from cable.


          "The pursuit of excellence is less profitable than the pursuit of bigness, but it can be more satisfying." - David Ogilvy

          L 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • M Member 96

            I think they're testing it out. They already have broadband internet access so it seems possible. I have a dish but I'd switch in a heartbeat if I could get all HD on demand content from cable.


            "The pursuit of excellence is less profitable than the pursuit of bigness, but it can be more satisfying." - David Ogilvy

            L Offline
            L Offline
            Lost User
            wrote on last edited by
            #5

            The server requirements for video on demand are horrendous so who pays?

            Visit http://www.notreadytogiveup.com/[^] and do something special today.

            M 1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • L Lost User

              The server requirements for video on demand are horrendous so who pays?

              Visit http://www.notreadytogiveup.com/[^] and do something special today.

              M Offline
              M Offline
              Member 96
              wrote on last edited by
              #6

              Horrendous? In what way? Servers and bandwidth are dirt cheap to a big conglomerate and if each producer streams themselves it's all decentralized anyway so I don't see an issue that can't be overcome with a little thought and money. Of course the consumer and advertisers pay in the end as always.


              "The pursuit of excellence is less profitable than the pursuit of bigness, but it can be more satisfying." - David Ogilvy

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • M Mike Ellison

                How many more years until the current model of network-distribution of TV content is dead? It looks like the writing is on the wall for everything to move toward on-demand distribution. It seems like just a matter of time. So how many years do you think network TV has? Or do you think it will survive an internet-driven on-demand model?

                P Offline
                P Offline
                Paul Watson
                wrote on last edited by
                #7

                There is always going to be a market for channels. Channels will become a lot more flexible (mixable, time-shiftable, personalised and social) but people still will want to sit down and relax with whatever is on. I've got 100 channels and most days I wish I had less as I spend too much time cycling through them hoping to "choose" what I want. Someday you just don't know what you want to watch. Channels have the editorial benefit. We have the greatest on-demand system yet, the world wide web, and yet a lot of it is channeled and edited. But I agree that on-demand is going to continue to grow. The main, and simplest, improvement will be the death of the video-store and hopefully simultaneous releases to cinema and home.

                regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa

                Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote:

                At least he achieved immortality for a few years.

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                Reply
                • Reply as topic
                Log in to reply
                • Oldest to Newest
                • Newest to Oldest
                • Most Votes


                • Login

                • Don't have an account? Register

                • Login or register to search.
                • First post
                  Last post
                0
                • Categories
                • Recent
                • Tags
                • Popular
                • World
                • Users
                • Groups