PG - Were/Are you talking about the death of the big screen here -- or just the network/broadcast/cable distribution?
Because I think I still see a place for the lean back screen. Effectively you have 3 screens in your life of decreasing importance.
First is the personal one. It's 3-4 inches and is in your pocket where-ever you go. Occasionally you might even speak into it and use it as a "Phone".
Second is the creative screen. This is the bigger screen at your desk where you do work. Not everyone needs one - but for serious work a larger screen plus relevant input devices are important. (This is the lean-forward screen)
Third is the lean-back/consumption screen. This is for consumption and specifically -- consumption sharing. It will likely have a number of 'computers' attached to it: maybe an xbox and appletv. This is for group entertainment (kinect/wii games, etc) and for in-person social media sharing (watchign a movie with your partner)
// I see tablets falling between 2 and 3. It's the replacement of the clipboard and a partially social consumption device.
While the third screen there is much less important than the first two (especially #1), I feel it still has a place.
TV and the way it works didn't lose. I live in beijing for extended periods of time with nothing more than an internet connection and I can't wait to get home to watch TV, Movies, Sports...
The way TV works is far better than the internet was, which is why the internet has adapted more to the TV model then the other way.
1.) Produced content is better than un-produced content -> This holds true on the internet. Hackers News itself is successful because it is produced. Even though the community produces the content it is still produced. I can also find a million @pg - "I focus on the content" comments.
2.) Scheduled release of content -> One of the good things about being 12 hours ahead in beijing is that I wake up and all the content is ready for me to consume in the morning the rest of the day, provides little new content allow me to focus easier on my daily task then be interrupted by this tweet or news article. Sure you want to watch what you want when you want but we knew then 30 years ago when the VHS recorders came up.
3.) Large screens are better than small -> This is definitely true, watching content on little screens isn't that enjoyable, neither is watch horrible quality videos on youtube. Online content catchs up in terms of quality people will watch it on large screen TVs.
4.) 500 channels and nothing on -> I browse about 10 websites out of the Millions on the internet, compare this to TV where I watch 20 channels out of the 500 that is on my TV.
Seems like TV and the way it works is being "Copied and Localized" to the internet.
I don't have a TV at home because it's a total time sink. When I want something to watch I find it on Internet and it's much easier to look things on Internet.
Last year it looked obvious that we were heading to streaming of on-demand digital video as the primary means of delivery. Although that may still be where we are heading, I see dark clouds in our future.
The "TV vs. On-Demand" comparison (if that was what Mr. Graham was referring) is less an issue now. I propose that what few saw then as a problem, is a looming one now. In other words, it's not so much "TV vs. Streaming/On-demand/digital/or whatever." It's that the old players, "TV", are now positioning (and are by far in the lead) to control the digital streaming of video from the internet.
Huge, deep pocket, long established trades, corporations, and/or markets are not supposed to gain control of emerging trades and markets. That is for new business to handle, and by which new business come into their own. (by advantage of being more lean, fast, knowledgeable about new tech/markets, better in-tune, etc) So that eventually the greatest of those new business's themselves become dinosaurs and are so replaced. This way business, knowledge, and technology progress.
Not to say that a "dinosaur" could not have this effect. Just less likely, and the likelihood I suspect will mathematically decay over time. (as the corporation becomes larger and less agile)
This happens every time: new technology disrupts existing players, which in turn try to use their money / influence to do something about it. Then skilled people fight back with newer innovations.
News at 11.
For example, do you know how easy it is to bypass China's firewall?
(1) setup free usage tier AWS account
(2) start a new instance with one of the official Ubuntu images
(3) ssh -D 2000 ubuntu@<instance-ip>
(4) enjoy personal US-based SOCKS5 proxy ;)
The only problem with DRM is that you're prohibited by law to reverse engineer it, which means totally-legit software can be baned if not following certain guidelines (like security by obscurity) ... otherwise I'm all for DRM because it's fundamentally flawed and it's keeping them busy (like a dog chasing its tail).
Netflix is responsible for about 1/5 of peak internet traffic in the US, and it's growing much faster than TV viewership. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out how that equation ends up.
I think in the long run, the Internet lost. All the idiots that were content watching TV have migrated here. So much for the cool cyberspace future we were all dreaming about 20 years ago.
If you define Internet as "place only accessible to me and my snotty Intellectual compadres" then yes, it's lost. I'll go even further: it never actually existed.
I don't even want that Internet of yours, where only your vision of cyberspace future is a valid one. I much prefer the current, egalitarian Internet, that everyone can put to use without the need to ask your permission or acceptance.
Some tweet inane thoughts and some contribute to the biggest, multi-lingual, freely licensed encyclopedia in the world.
Some use it to spread government propaganda and some expose uncomfortable government secrets on a scale that has never been done before.
Some express their annoyance with number of idiots in general populace and some spend hours writing useful software and making it available for free, with source.
The Internet is a messenger, not the message. That Internet is doing quite well, my friend, and it's only getting started.
I think we'll find that this "idiocy" is not a feature of the human condition, but a consequence of the disempowering, elite-owned, few-to-many, aimed-at-the-median, passive-yet-catchy, culturally homogenizing nature of TV. What we're seeing now worldwide is a gradual shaking out of the TV mindset, with the youngest generations the least poisoned.
In other words, don't despair of your cool future yet.
"Copyright owners tend to focus on the aspect they see of piracy, which is the lost revenue. They therefore think what drives users to do it is the desire to get something for free. But iTunes shows that people will pay for stuff online, if you make it easy. A significant component of piracy is simply that it offers a better user experience."
I find this even truer than when I first read this article.
In the past month (since buying my iPhone), I've bought many, many applications+games for the iPhone, and yesterday I discovered the magic of buying ebooks from Amazon for the Kindle app.
On the other hand, I can't buy music/tv shows online (I'm in Israel, Apple doesn't have the licensing deals here), which means I have to either give up on the music or go buy it at the store. Or listen to it on YouTube. Guess what happens most often?
Some examples of the ways TV-style content is changing in the face of the internet:
http://vodo.net/pioneerone - Pioneer One is a sci-fi TV series much like traditional series, except that it's directly supported by viewer donations, and distributed via BitTorrent.
http://www.famicomdojo.tv/ - Famicom Dojo explores the features and history of old Japanese videogame consoles, a good example of "long-tail" content becoming viable.
http://www.youtube.com/show/autotunethenews - Catchy remixes of news and commentary shows on legacy TV. This is what happens when random people can edit and retransmit, instead of just consuming shows.
Why was piracy a more predictable force than social applications? I would have assumed the opposite. I'd have thought it was predictable because it mimicked natural behavior. On the other hand, had I been born in time, I would have never guessed the concept of "stealing" music or movies would become acceptable on any level, let alone normal.
Why was piracy a more predictable force than social applications?
People have been copying stuff online for years ("Don't copy that floppy"). However very few people thought "grandmas and 14 year old girls" would be getting online to chat and hangout.
TV stations are oligopoly. They have a business model that works, it works very well (i.e. makes them heaps of money). As long as it continues to make them heaps of money, they don't feel the need to change to meet consumer's demand. In this case consumers want low price (that's a given) and ability to watch programming at their schedule.
Tweeting how much you like "Lost" or liking "Gray's anatomy" episode on Facebook doesn't change the economics, it just delivers more views for their existing business model.
Piracy, on the other hand, delivers what consumers want (ability to watch any premium content on demand, at any time) for a very attractive price ($0). That cuts into network's revenue and that is the only reason they are even contemplating on-line distribution.
They do it very, very begrudgingly, because change is hard and on-line distribution is harder to monetize i.e. they haven't figured out how to make as many heaps of money as with their current business model.
The only reason they do it is that if they ignore this new expectation of their customers, the customers will self serve via piracy, in which case they'll loose even more.
BTW: people don't think of downloading music or movies as stealing (even if you put it in quotes). It is illegal but so is making a mix tape for a loved one or copying an Arnold's hit "Commando" on VHS tape from a neighbor. People have always engaged in some form of copyright infringement. The only thing different today than in 1985 is the scale of those acts which ballooned to a point of causing major drop in sales. The act of downloading a song today is, however, the same as act of a teenager in 1980 copying an album on a tape from a friend. The "stealing" of music of movies has always been a normal and accepted part of life (well, at least as long as there was an technology to do the copying).
Borrowing is timeless, as old as human civilization. Borrowing books, music, movies, etc. Translate borrowing to computers and the internet and you naturally get "piracy". Thus, borrowing, a fundamentally important foundational aspect of media consumption throughout history, has become indistinguishable from stealing in general terms.
Some people are so invested in outmoded business models that they are in denial of this phenomenon and wish more than anything that through some legal or technological trickery it can be made to go away. Others have been more pragmatic and chosen to accept it and to figure out how to live with it.
Computers beat the TV like the automobile beat horse drawn wagon. Computers just delivered superior service at a much lower price.
I am unhappy that forced advertisements are encroaching on my Internet. It is only a matter of time until the Internet turns back into one way television, where the big players produce, and the little rabbits pay a large fee to consume.
This might offend some people, but I'd argue that something like Reddit (and even HN, at times) is a modern person's version of a TV -- endless streams of interesting/useful information that can be consumed to no end. Admittedly, some sources (like HN) provide a higher signal-to-noise ratio in most cases, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be cautious about the amount we read.
Within the scope of HN, an honest question: how many AMAs or interesting heart-warming or funny stories have you read in the last month? How much do you know about VC funding, term sheets, pitches, A/B testing, SEO, HTML5, frameworks, functional programming, etc? And then, how many finished products have you built that have at least a few customers?
I'd argue that something like Reddit (and even HN, at times) is a modern person's version of a TV -- endless streams of interesting/useful information that can be consumed to no end
Good point. One great advantage of Internet vs. TV is that reddit/HN is 2 way and user generated and there are much less central authorities than TV.
Because I think I still see a place for the lean back screen. Effectively you have 3 screens in your life of decreasing importance.
First is the personal one. It's 3-4 inches and is in your pocket where-ever you go. Occasionally you might even speak into it and use it as a "Phone".
Second is the creative screen. This is the bigger screen at your desk where you do work. Not everyone needs one - but for serious work a larger screen plus relevant input devices are important. (This is the lean-forward screen)
Third is the lean-back/consumption screen. This is for consumption and specifically -- consumption sharing. It will likely have a number of 'computers' attached to it: maybe an xbox and appletv. This is for group entertainment (kinect/wii games, etc) and for in-person social media sharing (watchign a movie with your partner)
// I see tablets falling between 2 and 3. It's the replacement of the clipboard and a partially social consumption device.
While the third screen there is much less important than the first two (especially #1), I feel it still has a place.