or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › News Forum › Latest Industry News › Forbes: Broadcast TV is on "Death Watch," Citing Apple TV, Chromecast and Aereo
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Forbes: Broadcast TV is on "Death Watch," Citing Apple TV, Chromecast and Aereo

post #1 of 65
Thread Starter 
Wall Street is looking at the broadcast TV industry, and Forbes thinks the prognosis is grim. In a recent article, the magazine declared a "death watch" for traditional TV, citing the increasing popularity of VOD (video on demand) services. Apple TV, Chromecast and Aereo are each highlighted and explained in layman's terms.


Quote:
"While both Apple TV and Chromecast allow for the streaming of TV and other digital content, it is Aereo that has or at least should have the major broadcast TV networks – Walt Disney's ABC, CBS, Comcast’s NBC, and News Corp's Fox — concerned if not worried." source: Forbes

The Forbes article is an investor-oriented analysis of a market segment, not a tech article. It discusses the market trend, and it concludes with what to invest in, to profit from the growing popularity of VOD in the living room.
Quote:
"Streaming services from not only Netflix NFLX -0.58% and Apple AAPL +1.57%, but also from the aforementioned Comcast and Verizon Communications (check their iPad apps) and HBO as well as others is fueling not only the time shifting consumption of content we have come to rely on in this post Tivo world, but also fostering place-shifting as well." source: Forbes

Increasing popularity of VOD in the living room will be a boon for the electronic parts suppliers involved in the manufacture of "critical components," such as CPUs and Wi-Fi chips.
Quote:
"Whenever I see so many companies looking to compete in one market, I tend to step back and look at the food chain or ecosystem for those players that offer critical solutions vs. commodity components and serve many of the would be players." source: Forbes

Is it time to bid farewell to broadcast TV? I gave it up years ago—I rarely even bother to watch the Super Bowl.

Follow AVS Forum on Twitter
Edited by imagic - 7/29/13 at 3:12pm
post #2 of 65
If your not a sports fan, it would be far easier to cut the cord. On line sports are SO expensive, it's far cheaper just to get sat/cable to watch your local teams.

Also, online streaming video quality does not compare to cable or sat, especially when you get to the 50"+ screens.

Also, I doubt our internet infrastructure could handle a large population shift to watching their "TV" online, YouTube is bad enough apparently. But video in general is a bandwidth hog.

Just like those that forecast the demise of the video disc (BD, etc.), that day if far far in the future and will likely simply be replaced by another physical media rather just being replaced by some online service.
post #3 of 65
No way. I don't think it will ever go away. ESPECIALLY for sports, though now that I think about it I could imagine sports being more frequently a PPV (pay per view) service. But people want to see things live. I would expect that sports and news will keep broadcast TV alive at least for another decade though I would not invest in a broadcast company at this point.

I doubt broadcast TV will be what it is/was, though I don't expect the entertainment industry to lose a lot of jobs; it will just be reorganized.
post #4 of 65
I buy all the television I watch on DVD or BluRay. I simply don't know how people can sit through 15 minutes of commercials every hour. It feels like slavery.
post #5 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by dochollerin View Post

I buy all the television I watch on DVD or BluRay. I simply don't know how people can sit through 15 minutes of commercials every hour. It feels like slavery.

I feel the same way. The notion of a show airing at a set time/day of the week and sitting down to watch it at that time and be interrupted by 4-5 minute long commercial breaks is a completely outdated and foreign concept to me at this point.
post #6 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightfly85 View Post

Also, online streaming video quality does not compare to cable or sat, especially when you get to the 50"+ screens.

I would have to disagree with you.

The best PQ on my 64" Samsung F8500, other than Blu-ray, is streaming from the Roku box, not through cable.

I am working on eventually canceling cable.



m
Edited by JimShaw - 7/31/13 at 7:50am
post #7 of 65
You don't have to watch anything at a specific time and you don't have to watch commercials. Just DVR it.
post #8 of 65
The dvr is the greatest thing that has happened to tv since hdtv.
post #9 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kascnef82 View Post

The dvr is the greatest thing that has happened to tv since hdtv.

I agree except the DVR was first and is still better than HDTV! Was that statement sacrilegious? Just remember where you get the broadband connections to stream your programming. Something tells me if to many people cut the cable cord then your broadband connection cost will go up to replace the revenue.
post #10 of 65
Broadcast TV will still have the LIVE programming compared to internet subscription-based programming. Programs are gradually being offered over their respecting website instead of a local channel, but you have to still endure 30-second commercials or even pay for a membership to stream it.

To cancel on cable is hard for some (like me) if you watch lots of sports. So figuring out what you need to satisfy your entertainment needs if you cancel on Broadcast TV, is complicated rather than having everything unified from the cable/satellite company.
post #11 of 65
I cut my cable tv (again) just last month. We barely watch it. 50% or more of our watching is VOD (Netflix and Amazon Prime through the PS3) and the remainder is Blu-Ray and DVD. Broadcast TV is so 20th century. VOD is the future.
post #12 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimShaw View Post

I would have disagree with you.

The best PQ on my 64" Samsung F8500, other than Blu-ray, is streaming from the Roku box, not through cable.

I am working on eventually canceling cable.



m

Depends upon your provider - typically cable has the best chance of providing untouched 1080i - but rarely do. Dish used to be better than DTV, etc. Nothing beats OTA, if you can get it quality-wise, everything else is compressed to varying degrees along with resolution reduction.
post #13 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kascnef82 View Post

The dvr is the greatest thing that has happened to tv since hdtv.

The DVR is the greatest thing to happen to TV.

Period.
post #14 of 65
I will definitely be getting rid of cable as soon as possible.

the problem, is that in my market, the only reliable internet providers are the cable providers. and they don't seem oblivious to this fact. they maintain strict caps on bandwidth or use aggressive throttling to make streaming not practical. that is unless you pay for their premium online services that generally cost far more than it does to bundle cable in with your package.

the day I can get unlimited high speed internet for less than the price of cable, I will.

i'm not totally convinced on the VOD system. i'm the type of person that won't use the service if it's pay per use kind of system. even with my cell phone, I use like 10-20mins a month, but I maintain a monthly plan because I don't like to worry about how I use the service. it'll drive me nuts if i'm sitting at home with 20mins to kill, and start second guessing if I really want to pay to watch a tv show. am I really going to pay attention to it? should I wait til later? maybe I should just pop in a movie I've already seen instead? etc...

so for me, I still think something like Netflix, where it's unlimited use and a monthly fee will be in my future. I just need the supporting infrastructure to allow it. reliable, high speed, cheap internet.
post #15 of 65
The only reason I don't like the DVR is because recording a program doesn't support the production. I like my money finding its way to the people making great stuff.
post #16 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeadEd View Post

The DVR is the greatest thing to happen to TV.

Period.

Since I'm old enough to remember...
I'd say the remote control is the greatest thing to happen to TV (DVR 2nd).
post #17 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by dochollerin View Post

The only reason I don't like the DVR is because recording a program doesn't support the production. I like my money finding its way to the people making great stuff.
DVR recordings are counted, just like live viewing. Don't you ever see the bragging some shows do because of the large percentage of it's viewers watching the show a few days later on the dvr? If no money was being made, they sure wouldn't be touting it.
post #18 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_bull View Post

Since I'm old enough to remember...
I'd say the remote control is the greatest thing to happen to TV (DVR 2nd).

I too feel that the dvr is the greatest thing to ever happen in tv. The remote is good, but it has made equipment manufacturers cheap. There is no way to control a modern device from the device itself. Lose the remote and you lose the devices functions until you can get a replacement remote.
post #19 of 65
Require Cable to give me my Internet, and Streaming Services, (Just not regular TV) but, until more monies are put into Newer, Faster and Bigger support architecture, the North American Internet system will still be rated far lower than some 3rd World Countries. Norway - 26 times Faster, Japan - 16 times Faster, some 3rd World Countries up to 8 times Faster then our NA systems! (And they want to now cram 4K delivery into this already overcrowded system?!) It's great you have a Fibre Optic connection, but that's just down to the local switching system, where it now has to connect into the already bogged down bigger system! As the Interrnet gets Slower, we'll go back to watching our Satellite Systems.
post #20 of 65
I read a lot about cutting the cord and I can't relate as I've never paid for cable. Sometimes a coax cable in my house has offered up programming on its own I guess and I have seen some of that.... Not lately though.

My wife likes lots of TV shows but only ever watches them when they are available in a commercial free form usually DVDs or internet streaming.

(I've never owned a pvr either... I remember having the ability to record with a VCR but that was long, long ago. I got rid of my VCR before 2000.)

All things considered though,... I think Internet steaming is quickly changing everything and who knows what the results will be.

I was talking to a friend who spends over $100 a month for cable,.. I think that's more then I spend on blu rays
Edited by Brian Hampton - 7/31/13 at 7:40am
post #21 of 65
I cut the cord awhile back. Having home theater pc's on all my televisions makes watching TV fantastic. I also have a home network attach storage which streams all my movies, music, & tv shows throughout my house. Local over the air tv is very high quality. I am saving myself $190 a month in the process.
post #22 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightfly85 View Post

If your not a sports fan, it would be far easier to cut the cord. On line sports are SO expensive, it's far cheaper just to get sat/cable to watch your local teams.

Also, online streaming video quality does not compare to cable or sat, especially when you get to the 50"+ screens.

Also, I doubt our internet infrastructure could handle a large population shift to watching their "TV" online, YouTube is bad enough apparently. But video in general is a bandwidth hog.

Just like those that forecast the demise of the video disc (BD, etc.), that day if far far in the future and will likely simply be replaced by another physical media rather just being replaced by some online service.

+1 Sports is what keeps me from ditching cable (news a little bit for my wife). We watch about 30min of news each morning as we are getting ready for work and I watch a TON of sports. VOD for sports or news just doesn't make any sense and I doubt a PPV model for most sporting events would make sense. The only thing I can think of that might work would require a hybrid approach. Say we don't use cable TV anymore and everything is pumped in through our broadband connection. What is to keep content providers from having a wider selection of VOD for your regular TV shows and movies but have live streaming options for live events? Perhaps this would help us move to a more a la cart style of TV content where we actually get to choose exactly what channels we pay for instead of needing the super deluxe diamond nationwide HD premium package with 500 channels I don't watch just so I can get the 10 channels that I really want.
post #23 of 65
Ditching network TV so you can stream network TV programs online? Does anyone else see the problem with this? Like those who bemoan movie theaters in favor of watching movies at home, the argument seems to miss the fact that the preference for secondary market consumption might make those who produce that very content for the primary market stop (limit, alter, etc.) producing the content all together.
Edited by repete66211 - 7/31/13 at 9:30am
post #24 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeadEd View Post

No way. I don't think it will ever go away. ESPECIALLY for sports, though now that I think about it I could imagine sports being more frequently a PPV (pay per view) service. But people want to see things live. I would expect that sports and news will keep broadcast TV alive at least for another decade though I would not invest in a broadcast company at this point.

I doubt broadcast TV will be what it is/was, though I don't expect the entertainment industry to lose a lot of jobs; it will just be reorganized.
I love the NFL, but I would never pay $50+ to watch any game, even the Superbowl. I would just goto a bar to watch. Personally the NFL would be dead if it went to Pay per view.
post #25 of 65
You might not have noticed, but a lot of programs are embedding advertisements into the program. The Glades is a prime example of it with the Kia cars they tout.
post #26 of 65
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by repete66211 View Post

Ditching network TV so you can stream network TV programs online? Does anyone else see the problem with this? Like those who bemoan movie theaters in favor of watching movies at home, the argument seems to miss the fact that the preference for secondary market consumption might make those who produce that very content for the primary market stop (limit, alter, etc.) producing the content all together.

Broadcast networks long ago lost any sort of exclusivity in the TV-show making business, news business, live concert broadcast business, you name it. First it was the premium cable channels, then Netflix stepped-up the game. The article is not discussing cable, just OTA broadcasting; which is already a dead medium to me.
post #27 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post

Broadcast networks long ago lost any sort of exclusivity in the TV-show making business, news business, live concert broadcast business, you name it. First it was the premium cable channels, then Netflix stepped-up the game. The article is not discussing cable, just OTA broadcasting; which is already a dead medium to me.
I'm not implying that networks have any sort of exclusivity (though I would contend their products are consumed FAR more than anything Netflix has produced). My point is this: What percent of streamed programs are first-run and what percent were produced for another market (i.e. network programming)? I don't mean to imply that if more people watch Modern Family (for example) on Hulu rather than OTA/cable then the program will no longer be produced, but that the dynamic of program production will change as more and more people treat streaming as their primary source. Or rather, what will happen to network programming when ALL of their content is consumed via streaming?
Edited by repete66211 - 7/31/13 at 12:13pm
post #28 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by dochollerin View Post

I buy all the television I watch on DVD or BluRay. I simply don't know how people can sit through 15 minutes of commercials every hour. It feels like slavery.

Not just endless commercials breaks but constant overlays of other information hyping other shows, products, news, twitter comments, and so forth.
post #29 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

You might not have noticed, but a lot of programs are embedding advertisements into the program. The Glades is a prime example of it with the Kia cars they tout.

Product placement has long since gone from being subtle to being very blatant, both with TV shows and in movies. Occasionally it seems as if the product placement was the primary purpose of the show :-)
post #30 of 65
That are better sources of investment advice then Forbes.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Latest Industry News
AVS › AVS Forum › News Forum › Latest Industry News › Forbes: Broadcast TV is on "Death Watch," Citing Apple TV, Chromecast and Aereo