3 Reasons why Home Technology Integration is about to Ignite

Thanks for sharing the article. I'm still 'old school' and can't bring myself to watching a program on a small device such as an iPhone or iPod, except on a plane and then I've only done that once. If it's a program I really care about I seem to have to watch it on my plasma TV at home. But, intergration and remote accessibility is here and convenient for many reasons.

I used to think "I've just got to watch this programme on the 52" in this room or the 50" in that room" too. Then I discovered I'd rather stream content than deal with discs and rubbish, and after that, I discovered I can watch anything, anywhere, on a smartphone. I now find myself watching the large TVs less and less, and in fact will only do so if invited to watch something with someone else in the house. Otherwise, phone all the way!

I recommend trying it. Very liberating. No boxes, no large panels, no fussing and pixel peeping, no "gurus" and "tech experts" at stores with this years miracle that is oh-so-better than last year's miracle, no corresponding "golden ear" sound "experts" either; no "integrators," no "systems" and well, basically, only CONTENT.

With minimalist streaming to a smartphone or similar device, CONTENT is king.

As it should be.

Bye, videophiles...

For similar reasons, I never go to a theater to see a newly released movie because I'd rather wait and see it at my convenience in the comfort of my own home. But, I still can't give up watching certain things on my plasma TV and instead watch them on a very small handheld device. I'm spoiled with the larger screen and better sound. Let's face it, some shows and movies are simply more enjoyed on a home theater system. But, I understand how some have gotten used to the convenience factor of portable viewing.

Hey, now we can have the same thing happen to the video world that has happened to the music world, i.e. a complete destruction of quality because no one gives a crap what it actually looks like if it's on a tiny screen (the video equivalent of an MP3.) And of course the associated destruction of the business due to piracy.

Not sure I see this as a particularly positive thing. Who is going to spend huge bucks making incredible looking movies if 90% of the people who see it will see it on a tiny screen?

^^^^^ +1

My impression was that music production has not halted despite the advent of MP3 files, regardless of the status of the IP associated with those files. I thus find it unlikely film production will halt. As to quality, there is enough low quality material already produced to keep people amazed for years to come, and the same can be said of high quality material; what a small screen brings into question is the quality of the content itself.

In terms of content, minimalist viewing is purist viewing. In fact, minimalist -- purist! -- viewing may be the salvation of modern cinema (though if adopted widely and with as much zeal as I have adopted it, it will no doubt create a population bottleneck for the "integrator" industry).

Well, there's more and more mediocre music being made every day, by people in their bedrooms. But good quality studios are dropping like flies because fewer and fewer people are going to bother to pay to use a good studio just to put out music that A) will be downloaded way more than actually purchased and B) probably listened to on a pair of ear buds.

So, if the point is the quantity of music being made, then it's better than it ever was. If the point is the quality of music being made, then it's not good at all.

And with the movie industry it's far worse, because high quality costs a lot more for movies than it does for music. So if the same double negative whammy hits the movie industry to the degree it's hit the music industry, it'll probably be a lot worse in terms of the quality being produced. The movie industry does have the advantage of having more than one revenue stream per movie made. But the purchase of movies for home viewing is a big part of it, often the only part that bumps them over into profitability.

The initial point of contact between film and audience is generally the cinema.

Although I know better than to attend cinemas, many people still do so, and most films do not go direct-to-disc. This means films will still have to be produced with adequate video and audio quality to satisfy theatre projection/viewing requirements already in effect (the same requirements that many home "videophiles" try to emulate or at least admire when they speak of that "matte" or "film" look, etc., and talk about those "theatre-like" dynamics in the sound).

So, as long as the film industry clings to the cinema audiences, I find it unlikely that video and audio quality will drop -- it won't stand up to public viewing. This means those that insist, for whatever reasons, to still go to a cinema or still hoard discs in their home can probably continue to do so indefinitely.

Did anyone go to the OPs website? Looks like it hasnt been updated in 10 years. Its a riot.

I'm the complete polar opposite. I think you've throw the baby out with the bathwater. I love watching movies on my home theater's 10' wide screen. Color calibrated, high c/r, carefully tweaked gamma, tri-amped surround with an 8 woofer IB subwoofer... it is stunning and just transports me into the movie (as long as it's a good movie). Can you do that on a 4" screen? It's a completely different activity. But then again, I don't use roller-skates because cars are too complicated either.

Sorry I don't follow this statement.

As to the rest, don't get me wrong -- I took a quick count and I have (roughly, I think...) eight amplifiers (including one valve amp), nine pairs of speakers, a half dozen TV sets (including two larger than 50" diam.), and lots of other boxes that do lots of different things. I've not discarded any of that stuff...

However, watching anything I want and listening to whatever I like while in the back yard, or while using public transport, or in a lobby somewhere etc., or simply on the couch while someone uses the boxes above to watch something else, is in fact liberating and refreshing in a way, and I think it's a sign of things to come -- or at the very least of things that ought to come.

Cars are like 10' home theaters, roller-skates are like 4" smartphones... when it comes to watching movies anyway.

Yes, it's definitely something you can do, but it also diminishes the significance of the film itself, and of whatever else you're doing. If you're going to be outside, why not enjoy being outside? If you're going to spend time in the living room with your family, spend time with your family.

And if "CONTENT is king," why are you treating the content so badly by watching it in poor viewing conditions, surrounded by distractions, and on a tiny screen?

Part of the enjoyment of the film is in the viewing experience itself. There's a significant difference between looking forward to watching a movie on a nice big screen (perhaps even with family or friends) versus hunching over a phone watching 5-minute pieces of a movie to fill gaps in your day.

That's not to say there's anything wrong with it, of course. If it makes you happy, it's great that the experience is possible. I definitely spend far more time listening to songs through an mp3 player than at a concert or even on CD, and I'm all too familiar with the relief of having multimedia at hand during a long commute. But to say that it's the way things should be and that heading into isolationism and losing concern for things like picture quality is a good thing seems ludicrous.

Significance to whom? To you? Or to me? How is the significance quantified, and by whom?

Just got through a great episode of a favourite old series streamed onto an old phone that is no longer used as a phone -- only as a media device. Loving every minute.

Bye,
SD

I tend to get significance measured by an impartial moderator from a respected accounting firm utilizing one of those giant audience applause meters with clapping hands attached to the top, but any method you prefer is fine.

As I said, I see nothing wrong with it. I'm just against the statement that it's the way things should be, that a small screen and some ear buds are somehow ideal. In a choice between staring ahead in a train for an hour or watching "The Office," sure, it's a great novelty. But to hope for a future where that's the preferred way of viewing?

But yes, anything to make a commute more comfortable or somehow otherwise make your day more enjoyable gets a thumbs up in my book. I guess this is where "different strokes for different folks" prevails and we just appreciate that all of the options are available.