Comments on: Why TV everywhere will kill what’s best about TV

By: Sven Koerbitz

Sven Koerbitz — Sat, 02 Mar 2013 17:42:40 +0000

“However, I am happy to have escaped escapist television.” Very well said.

By: Joe

Joe — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 18:07:08 +0000

This analysis is a layer “not deep enough” — what would be more interesting would be to compare the passive TV personality disorder vs. today’s always-on Facebook/mobile app personality disorder.

By: Ron Larson

Ron Larson — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 16:48:51 +0000

I agree. I call it my “media diet”. Just like eating too much junk food, we can also fall into the trap of consuming too much junk TV.

We have to give careful thought and planning to what we put into our mouths if we want to be healthy. Why not do the same with what goes into our mind?

This is the same dilemma we faced when food production was industrialized. A lot of cheap, quick, unhealthy choices are now available to us.

My diet consisted of cutting cable. Limiting my TV to 4 or 5 carefully selected programs that I get either from Hulu, Netflix, or rent on DVD. I do not watch any program “live” because I can no longer stand all of the the ads. I no longer watch any TV news since it has all devolved into a giant wasteland of either partisan politics, or corporate shills, or just plain old fear mongering.

I’ve also added more variety to my media diet, such as audio version of classic books that I’ve always intended to read. No more junk radio of crap music, ads, and stupid morning DJ’s on my commute.

I’d like to add that there is nothing wrong with reality TV, and other junk programming. It serves a need. Just like like anything else, it needs to be consumed in moderation and as part of a larger, healthy media diet plan.

By: Mark Cuban

Mark Cuban — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 03:36:13 +0000

First you have to understand the definition of TV = “The best alternative to boredom”.

You are right that people wont work to watch tv, but tv everywhere isnt going to force people to do anything. Nor will all the alternatives. IN fact, just the opposite.

TV is becoming a social activity that takes little effort or thought. Vegetate in front of the tube with your mobile device on your lap while you tweet/txt/email/post wherever. Now you are part of the conversation without disturbing the blanket keeping your feet warm.

To be part of the conversation you have to be watching what your friends/followers/you follows are watching at the same time.

Which is exactly why you see an explosion in Live TV and bigger dollar dramas. More to talk about online.

By the time you watch it online/on netflix/hulu/amazon/etc, you have already missed it.

I have yet to see a tweet saying anything to the effect of “Who else is watching …. on netflix right now”. its a solitary activity that serves a great purpose, but its not TV

By: Tom Cunniff

Tom Cunniff — Mon, 21 Jan 2013 23:42:14 +0000

GigaOm readers like us get geeked over anything to do with more tech. But for most people, the world is a pretty damned exhausting place. A lot of people who fall asleep in front of the TV don’t do it because they’re bored. They do it because they are bone-tired.

The closer we get to screwing with the stuff at the core of what makes TV work — lean-back, relax, and let yourself be entertained — the more carefully we should tread.

It’s easy to criticize TV for being mindless entertainment. But sometimes that’s exactly what people crave most: escape. Success will come to the companies and people who make it *easier* to be entertained, not harder.

By: Jim Taylor

Jim Taylor — Mon, 21 Jan 2013 23:39:29 +0000

TV Everywhere doesn’t kill escapism, it just kills the old, unwieldy, impersonal mechanism of escaping: turn on TV, see what’s on, if not interesting then change channel, repeat. In the future we’ll have “curated escapism”: instead of TV networks picking shows, social networks will pick shows. Or your own custom network will pick shows based on what you watch.

To Jeremy’s point you still have to pick a starting point from thousands of potential starting points, but that’s not a big deal.

By: malgaff

malgaff — Mon, 21 Jan 2013 03:52:02 +0000

Ditto.

By: William Pitcher

William Pitcher — Mon, 21 Jan 2013 01:51:46 +0000

I am a cordcutter, and I have certainly felt the paradox of choice. However, I am happy to have escaped escapist television. What I watch now is much more uplifting to my life. When you eat junk food all the time, pretty soon your body doesn’t feel that great. I believe the same is true for television. Eating well and watching great television might be more work than consuming junk, but it’s definitely worth it.

By: Carrie Carlson

Carrie Carlson — Mon, 21 Jan 2013 00:32:08 +0000

Funny that you used a novel as an alternative to the confusion of modern TV watching, Jeremy.
TV is now more like reading text of any kind. Do I read a library book, a book I own, the newspaper, a magazine, or something from the infinity of the Internet? As a bookworm I have been used to making my own reading for entertainment choices since I learned to read. Maybe this is why I took to the new media choices like a fish to water. Watch what I want, when I want? Yes, please!

By: Eric_G

Eric_G — Sun, 20 Jan 2013 23:35:07 +0000

I’ve been a time shifter since the Tivo Series 2. Once I began to actively avoid live TV that was pretty much the end of my passive viewing and channel surfing. If I don’t see anything I want to watch, the TV gets turned off and I find something else to do.

As for place shifting, I’m all for it. There’s no logical reason why a numbers based business like television should attempt to restrict viewers, and yet, we see it all the time. You Tube blocking mobile viewers (who actually might be watching on an HDMI TV in a hotel). Comcast’s streaming TV app doesn’t work if you have an external monitor connected to your phone or tablet. Really? You only want me to watch your show a certain way and at a certain time? Well, then maybe I don’t need to watch it at all, thanks. It’s not all that good anyway.