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 - Page 2

post #31 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post

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.


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.
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.
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
Just as streaming and VOD will kill off bluray and optical disk. It will consume broadcast tv.

Cablecutter and ATV3 lover
post #32 of 65
Commercials aren't always bad. While FFing through a bunch of commercials last night a Burger King commercial caught my eye as I whizzed past it. I went back and saw their 2 for $5 special. 2 Whoppers later I was back to FFing through commercials again.
post #33 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by darenwh View Post

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.
For some people it already has, there are stories floating around the internet of people who want to drop their high speed internet because it's $50.00 and they don't have cable or dropped it. Some of them then try to get their internet from their phones and some peoples phone bills are well...
post #34 of 65
I see a lot of posters talking about commercials, Here is the fact about commercials, we are living in a corporate world, when they see TV opportunities drying out they will have to find another medium to flush their crap such as VOD. they will bid high prices for commercial slots and VOD provider will not pass out to make more profit, Offcourse VOD providers such as netflix will have to offer two plans premium with low commercials and basic with tons of it, Just remember what youtube use to be and now.
post #35 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightfly85 View Post

Depends upon your provider
Of course it does but people make decisions based on their own assessments not some "theoretical best" that may not apply to them.
post #36 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by repete66211 View Post

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?
Nothing will happen other then content providers raising the price for companies like Netflix for streaming rights. It's really advertisers that should worry, since the networks could just go to paid subscription, or ala carte with internet streaming providers.
post #37 of 65
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by andy sullivan View Post

Commercials aren't always bad. While FFing through a bunch of commercials last night a Burger King commercial caught my eye as I whizzed past it. I went back and saw their 2 for $5 special. 2 Whoppers later I was back to FFing through commercials again.

Commercials are designed to work on you at 10X speed. Advertisers know that you have to actually watch the screen as you FF through the ads, plenty of opportunity to flash some graphics at you.
post #38 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post

Commercials are designed to work on you at 10X speed. Advertisers know that you have to actually watch the screen as you FF through the ads, plenty of opportunity to flash some graphics at you.

This is why I love the remotes on both my Tivo Premiere and Dish 722K. 30 sec skip! 6 - 8 presses and back to the show.
post #39 of 65
I don't see Broadcast TV going anywhere think about how many disabled,elderly and people on a fixed income that this is they're only form of entertainment,news and in some cases educational (think PBS).
I will admit if it were not for the Science, History ,SyFy and NG I could cut the cable easily since most of the shows our family watches are on local which my OTA delivers better picture quality than any provider I have had.
But if you want Internet you will be tied to some form of cable and I agree if the majority drops the providers TV service they will make it up on broadband.
post #40 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by p5browne View Post

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.

I have friends that lived in Malaysia, they tell me the internet is almost unusable out there. I would consider Malaysia to be a very connected country. So, they might be faster than us, but they we don't have the population they do to keep up with.
post #41 of 65
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.

I was thinking the same thing. Aereo will spell the death of broadcast TV by streaming broadcast TV? Sounds like someone didn't really think that out.

In reality it's cable who should be worried. I watch broadcast in HD with an antennae, and stream Netflix and Amazon. I haven't paid for cable in 6 years and have NO plan on changing that. Once HBO and others decide to offer streaming subscriptions that aren't shackled to a cable package, the cable/satellite TV model will collapse over night. Broadcast TV is not going anywhere.
post #42 of 65
They're always predicting the death of something:

Mainframes
PCs
Windows
Vinyl Records
CDs
DVDs
3D Movies/TV
Newspapers

None have come to pass so far.

We may lose weaker broadcast nets, but the remaining ones or one will be stronger.

Forbes print magazine will probably go before broadcast TV does.
post #43 of 65
"product placements on TV shows such as Glades..."

I wouldn't have a problem with this practice just so long as there were fewer commercials to make up for it.
In actual life, I do use and talk about certain products, so I don't feel seeing a can of Coke or bag of Doritos in plain site is that much of an distraction from the storyline.
However, the pop ups for other shows on the network, THAT'S something I can do without!
Those ads do draw you away from what's going on, especially when the animations seem to jump out of the actors clothes or butts during the show due to unfortunate placement!
post #44 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by oztech View Post

I don't see Broadcast TV going anywhere think about how many disabled,elderly and people on a fixed income that this is they're only form of entertainment,news and in some cases educational (think PBS).
I will admit if it were not for the Science, History ,SyFy and NG I could cut the cable easily since most of the shows our family watches are on local which my OTA delivers better picture quality than any provider I have had.
But if you want Internet you will be tied to some form of cable and I agree if the majority drops the providers TV service they will make it up on broadband.

This is a good point, but in addition I'd like to add that there are so many uneducated, or simply ignorant people out there. They just have no idea how to download, view streamed media, etc. so to just turn their televisions on and click away is all that they feel comfortable with.

Part of it's generational, but I work with a lot of younger recent college grads and even they seem clueless as to new technologies.

However, as someone else pointed out, over the air digital is just as good quality for major network viewing, so I think the more appropriate demise is for traditional cable networks. As Bruce Springsteen pointed out, "57 Channels and Nothing on."
post #45 of 65
I use my Apple TV to play netflix and YouTube videos. I also have been buying movies and tv shows through the movie section of the iTunes Store and streaming them through home share to my apple tvs in my house. I dropped my cable tv about six months ago and have not looked back.
post #46 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by SauceXX View Post

I was thinking the same thing. Aereo will spell the death of broadcast TV by streaming broadcast TV? Sounds like someone didn't really think that out.

In reality it's cable who should be worried. I watch broadcast in HD with an antennae, and stream Netflix and Amazon. I haven't paid for cable in 6 years and have NO plan on changing that. Once HBO and others decide to offer streaming subscriptions that aren't shackled to a cable package, the cable/satellite TV model will collapse over night. Broadcast TV is not going anywhere.
Ding! Ding! Ding!

The one thing the author of the article seems to have completely missed is that without broadcast TV, there is no Aereo. Where are they going to get their channels from if they can't just pluck them off the air for free?

...and if you think any cable network (many owned by the same companies that own the broadcast networks who are suing Aereo) will do business with them, you're living a fantasy. If OTA goes away, so does Aereo.

Even if the cable networks did strike deals with Aereo, it would end up being more of the same: a batch of channels sold in a bundle that can't be bought seperately that Aereo has to charge customers a bunch of money to get. That's what we have now with cable.

Honestly, the thing that will kill OTA TV is wireless phone companies as they push harder and harder to aquire the TV spectrum to sell back to us for inflated prices. Eventually, the OTA channels will give in when the money is too good to refuse.

"Serving the underserved" only goes so far when there's enough zeros follwing a dollar amount.
post #47 of 65
Satelite and cable could have a limited future: Here's why

High bandwidth unlimited Internet usage data plans could allow for ANYONE to create cable content over the internet and stream those service to you for a VERY discounted price compared to Sat or Cable.

The internet doesn't need Expensive satellite's or cable to work. ( at least it doesn't require their maintenance 24/7)

Also the Internet is not Regulated by the CRTC (here in Canada) that means that if I receive U,S only content on my Internet TV, my service provider won't have to abide by any content laws! (with some small exceptions)

I've been subscribed to a European cable network that works by broadcasting over the internet> its a tiny set top box the size of a pack of cards> I plug it into my modem and get 200+ channels of content from Europe and North America!!... .. the Picture quality is Stunning, and the content is always being updated according to DEMAND!!! Also there's limited repeated channels that you would normally see on satelite.

What this basically means is anyone can create their own cable network and broadcast it cheaply over the internet ...they can get licenses from FOX / Disney / HBO for cheap and sell it to people that don't want the OWN or other unsatisfiying programs on TV.

The issue is availability of Fibre optic networks> without them installed then it does dilute the possibility of creating such a network to broadcast through.

But the more Fiber optic networks are installed, then the capacity to create more competition through variety via the internet increases, and thus bring reduced rates for content.
Edited by theatredaz - 9/26/13 at 1:16pm
post #48 of 65
I really enjoy college football. With my current provider I receive about 15 games each Saturday in the Fall from 10 different networks. I love the NFL. I have Sunday Ticket so I see every game (for a pretty steep charge of course). Most years I love MLB ( I am an Angel fan...I know, pathetic). My provider gives me up to 5 games a night with my current channel package. I love cable channel offerings like Jusified, Breaking Bad, Longmire, American Horror Story, and
Life Below Zero, among non broadcast offerings. I know most of these entertainments can be received by buying or streaming them using tools like Roku or Apple tv or Chrome. However, I still feel the savings versus the hassle of fixing my own problems with reception and things like picture quality (including an antenna for ota broadcasts) as opposed to yelling at the provider to "get it fixed" makes the switch less appealing. I think others may feel the same way. Btw, I have three Rokus that are great (I have discovered I love Scandinavian movies and tv programs I have found on NetflIx) and I use Windows Media Center on my computer with an outdoor antenna to record programs on broadcast substations (some of these "subs" show excellent prints of old westerns and Noir crime movies ( yep, I'm an old guy) so I have the tools to cut the cord, just not the will). It's obvious change is coming but maybe not as quick as some experts believe.
post #49 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by glpearman View Post

I really enjoy college football. With my current provider I receive about 15 games each Saturday in the Fall from 10 different networks. I love the NFL. I have Sunday Ticket so I see every game (for a pretty steep charge of course). Most years I love MLB ( I am an Angel fan...I know, pathetic). My provider gives me up to 5 games a night with my current channel package. I love cable channel offerings like Jusified, Breaking Bad, Longmire, American Horror Story, and
Life Below Zero, among non broadcast offerings. I know most of these entertainments can be received by buying or streaming them using tools like Roku or Apple tv or Chrome. However, I still feel the savings versus the hassle of fixing my own problems with reception and things like picture quality (including an antenna for ota broadcasts) as opposed to yelling at the provider to "get it fixed" makes the switch less appealing. I think others may feel the same way. Btw, I have three Rokus that are great (I have discovered I love Scandinavian movies and tv programs I have found on NetflIx) and I use Windows Media Center on my computer with an outdoor antenna to record programs on broadcast substations (some of these "subs" show excellent prints of old westerns and Noir crime movies ( yep, I'm an old guy) so I have the tools to cut the cord, just not the will). It's obvious change is coming but maybe not as quick as some experts believe.

i don't know. It sounds to me that sports is the only thing keeping you and probably many more. What happens when Apple TV or the Chrome Box starts getting the sports ticket features where you can watch all the sports? =)
post #50 of 65
"Only sports" is a difference maker for me. There are already alternatives offered to streaming customers for MLB and college football. However, none are attractive enough to make me switch (and the cost is not insignificant). The other major problem for me is service. Buffering problems, picture quality problems, audio problems, all make you deal with various providers ( Netflix, Amazon, Vudu) who usually refer you back to the producer of your "box" (Roku, Google, Apple). Let's not forget the loss of signal for ota broadcasts due to weather, time of day, various geographic obstructions, etc. There is a reason people turned to "pay tv" (cable) in the first place. Am I saying cord cutters will regret the decision, heck no!! I do feel the change over to steamer boxes and antennas is not without problems though the switch away from cable is inevitable (I use Netflix, Amazon Prime, and Vudu as often as my satellite provider's offerings). However, I do not believe it will put pay providers or broadcasters on "death watch" any time soon. BTW, I watched World War Z on vudu in HDX...OUTSTANDING PICTURE AND SOUND!!! Optical discs IMO are on death watch now!
post #51 of 65
These article are written to just get hits on websites.

Sure there is some of the younger generation that downloads and stream everything, but I highly doubt that those who have cut the cord are getting all the content they desire through legal means.

Remember why Napster got big so quickly.... easy piracy. Its the younger generation that has little disposable income that look for illegal free ways to get access to the content they want.

Few major sporting events are aired live on the internet. I agree people do more time shifting with episodic television, but most of the people I know don't stream much beyond Netflix and its usually not their main entertainment source.

Plus the fewer people that pay for services will eventually catch up with the both the television and movie industry. You can't make money without a paying public. In reality, big business is screwing the future for everyone. They don't want to pay living wages so people do things illegally to save money hence the businesses cut more, more people cut goods and services... it a vicious cycle this race to the bottom.

Look at all the consolidation that has happen at the studios and television. Disney, Fox and Time Warner are the media giants and only time will tell if all three can last. Look at how many major franchises Disney has under their banner... Disney studios owns Pixar, Marvel and now Lucasfilm. In television they own ABC and the major sports channels under the ESPN banner including ESPN 8, the Ocho.
post #52 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daisy81 View Post

i don't know. It sounds to me that sports is the only thing keeping you and probably many more. What happens when Apple TV or the Chrome Box starts getting the sports ticket features where you can watch all the sports? =)

Here's the big issue with sports. The leagues and the providers know that is what is helping keep the traditional revenue model alive. NFL could have broken the Sunday Ticket exclusive agreement with DirecTV, but DirecTV also knows it is what helps them sell subscriptions so when the time came for a new agreement the NFL kept the exclusive agreement with DirecTV because DirecTV ponied up the big money.

The NFL and other leagues and even some individual teams don't want the traditional model to go away because it is easy money for them. Some sports teams have even created their own TV network so they could force a cable provider to buy rights so the local fan base can see games. I highly doubt many of the teams would want to get in the subscription business of selling directly to individual fans because in reality most fans won't pay ridiculous amounts of money because most fans are casual fans.

Now, the NFL probably could maintain or possibly make more if they opened up by getting more subscriptions but no provider is going to pony up big money if its a nonexclusive agreement.

The other major league have allowed their TV packages to be sold to more than one provider, but we all know the NFL dominants the sports broadcasting landscape. Heck, basically you have 24hr NFL coverage all year. The Pre-season... The Regular Season... The Post Season... The Draft Season... The Post Draft Season... The Training Camp Season... I can't think of another sport that gets so much coverage even when games aren't being played.

Also I highly doubt Apple, Netflix or some other cable companies are going to go after an exclusive NFL Sunday Ticket contract. I know people pirate those NFL Sunday Ticket feeds and if you look hard enough you can usually find one for your team on the internet on gameday. The people that claim cutting the cord is easy either don't watch much in the way of live events or they are using questionable methods to get access to the content they want.
Edited by Toknowshita - 9/27/13 at 2:00pm
post #53 of 65
fff
Edited by theatredaz - 9/27/13 at 4:52pm
post #54 of 65
* what if an Internet TV culture is established with High speed internet?

What would this mean to Direct TV and even Bell?

It would mean the eventual emergence of competition through Internet cable providers. Thus reducing the need for Satelite cable providers to stream their content.
post #55 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by theatredaz View Post

* what if an Internet TV culture is established with High speed internet?

What would this mean to Direct TV and even Bell?

It would mean the eventual emergence of competition through Internet cable providers. Thus reducing the need for Satelite cable providers to stream their content.
Would it really mean that?

Remember that the media companies are the ones that control the price of the product, not the cable and satellite companies.The price they charge to cable and satellite companies is roughly the same with roughly the same increases. The cable and satellite companies then charge roughly the same markup to allow for other expenses and profit.

Further, if they aren't going to let cable and satellite companies unbundle their channels, why would they allow the likes of Google or anyone else do it.

In other words, the net result is yet another service with the exact same pricing structure. Think about it: has the existance of FIOS and UVerse created a provider with lower pricing and more channel buying options for viewers?

Honestly, all that's happened is greater media consolitdation and more competitors in the MSO business for "exclusive" content - which has done nothing but drive prices higher.
post #56 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

Would it really?

In other words, the net result is yet another service with the exact same pricing structure..

Not really but it can happen.

Here's the scenario, the phenomenom of increased broadcast competition hasn't diluted the price of broadcast shows because they're using the same medium to broadcast it (Satellites) Shaw has the same pricing as bell, but only IMO because it STILL requires expensive satellites to get to us...Satellites are the only means to send MASSIVE amounts of data to our living rooms, NFL, HBO all require that YOU BUY IN BULK... to get their product...so broadcasters that have the satellites to broadcast in bulk quantities can afford to buy in bulk and distribute it, and the little guys like apple tv and netflix stay on the sidelines until they can overcome the medium transport bug.

* Where thing's might change is if anyone has the medium and capabilities to send 200-500 channel broadcasts over the internet with out the requirement for expensive satellites and also be able to get it to every single living room > Google can easily do this but they can't ...simply because installing fiber optic networks is really expensive! it could also be the fact that Google isn't in the politics of cable broadcasting in the first place> arn't they busy investing in some type of new Research Health care / Lab program on the Horizon?
Edited by theatredaz - 9/27/13 at 5:25pm
post #57 of 65
If Forbes says Broadcast TV is dead then it's going to around for a long time, the clown rag magazine seems to pride itself on being wrong. The 'expert' is not even writing about OTA but networks instead and of course cannot be bothered to what percentage are using OTA which last time I read was going up not down. But if some want to pay through the nose for crummy pq instead of free great pq let the punishment fit the crime.
post #58 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by theatredaz View Post

Not really but it can happen.

Here's the scenario, the phenomenom of increased broadcast competition hasn't diluted the price of broadcast shows because they're using the same medium to broadcast it (Satellites) Shaw has the same pricing as bell, but only IMO because it STILL requires expensive satlites to get to us...Satellites are the only means to send MASSIVE amount of data to our living rooms, NFL, HBO all require that YOU BUY IN BULK< to get their product...so broadcasters that have the satellites to broadcast in bulk quantities can afford to buy in bulk and distribute it, and the little guys like apple tv and netflix stay on the sidelines untill they can overcome the medium transport bug.

* Where thing's might change is if anyone can shoot 200-500 channels over the internet with limited maintenance costs> Google can easily do this but they can't ...simply because installing fiber optic networks is really expensive! it could also be the fact that Google isn't in the politics of cable broadcasting in the first place> arn't they busy investing in some type of new Research Health care / Lab program on the Horizon?
I don't buy it.

The bulk of the expenses for MSOs is the programming. That won't change with a new method of delivery.

The expenses of equipment buildouts are amortized over decades and has little difference whether it's internet routers, switches and fiber lines or video routers, switches and fiber lines. Replace either one for satellites and uplink centers.

There's a massive misconception that internet data has little or no cost. The fact is, data usage is constantly increasing and pushing the limits of the hardware, while linear channels have long periods where the increases level off following those times where expansion is required. After the initial cable buildup in the 80's , SD growth leveled off. Then came HD and we're seeing that level off with more channels changing identities than starting up from scratch.

Internet streamin, on the other hand is a constantly moving target with every source of video exponentially increasing the amount of data squeezing through the system. For the foreseeable future, internet buildouts are going to have to take place in a lot of places before a full on streaming service is practical for a widespread customer base.

Best case, maybe an MSO that has kept up with IP speeds may save 10-15% over the infrastructure costs of a regular MSO. Great, so if they pass that cost along to the customer, your bill will go from $90-$100 down to maybe $75 -$80.

That's sure to rip the entire industry to shreads as massive numbers of people defect for that massive savings.
post #59 of 65
Quote:
The bulk of the expenses for MSOs is the programming. That won't change with a new method of delivery.

That would change quickly if lets say NFL and direct Tv's conglomeration was disrupted by multiple new broadcasters entering the Cable scene> so...we would see 2-3 maybe even 4 new cable providers entering the Market, they would want to get NFL's product line...NFL says ok but you pay the same price as Direct TV does...fine...But ...the market that was once invlolved with only one provider decides that cable company 2 or 3 is to their liking- for what ever reasons, when they leave Direct TV...Direct TV's bottom line leaves as well...direct TV goes back to NFL and say's our bottom line quotas are not being met, even if they don't procur that information to the NFL , their abilities to carry that product at the requested licensing costs could prove unaffordable due to a decreased demand for it.


Quote:
Internet streamin, on the other hand is a constantly moving target with every source of video exponentially increasing the amount of data squeezing through the system. For the foreseeable future, internet buildouts are going to have to take place in a lot of places before a full on streaming service is practical for a widespread customer base.

I agree , an infrastructure needs to be put into place before changes can make an effect on the market.

HD Video streaming is becoming increasingly easier to implement , in part because of better compression techniques, satellites and set top box's need expensive hardware to implement this, Netflix or apple TV use software to create the effect.
Edited by theatredaz - 9/28/13 at 11:31am
post #60 of 65
Once HD streaming is reliable, then why have cable companies? The content providers can sell directly to the consumer and bypass the middleman. You can store the stuff on a home server and watch it where and when you want. You can pick what you want to buy or more importantly, what not the buy, the ultimate in ala carte. The content provider, whether it is CBS or any sports net can keep all the money. The NFL would love it. They get to control the announcers, how the games are produced and presented and get to keep all the advertizing revenue and all the subscription fees. That will dwarf what they earn now from CBS, NBC, Fox and directv combined. That is the future of television distribution and it is no more than 10 years away.
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