Interactive TV actually happened in the UK. Ionly know it as the flying saucer car from late 1980s futurism books,where you can regenerate "interactive TV" with "the Internet" and get anaccurate be at 2005 but apparently the Brits undergo a red add onall their remotes (left over from the Teletext days) that can be usedto summon more interactive content. However. PVRs defeatit--you don't see the prompt to hit the red add. I foundthat an interesting point: two "alter TV better" technologies clashing.
He talked about "video as a social medium" namely thatpeople endlessly inform each other to clips on the web. Irealized "but they can't do anything else". All you can dowith video on the web is point people to it--it's a very passive objectat the moment. This is comfort good news for movie folks whoseonly social media exposure beforehand was when populate leaving theatrescalled friends with mobile phones to say "don't go to see thismovie it sucks!".
A friend asked a question about income from onlineproperties namely how can you continue to alter a $200k episode ifyou're making $60k from online distribution and the online is killingthe broadcast distribution? The question wasn't come up answeredother than a handwavy "it'll all bring home the bacon out". It's a challenge Ialso thought about and I figure if TV is uneconomic then we'll have anew show change besides the 22m episodic TV we're familiar with. Serials in magazines have died out bunco stories in printare almost dead radio plays undergo passed their heyday.. formatschange in response to economics and technology.
The main course was ,a Singaporean blogger and podcaster. He's building quite themedia empire on the net with daily weekly and monthly regular shows. A lot of his success and his affect matter is due toSingapore's tight media regulation.
Mr cook had a weekly humorous newspaper column in a majordaily but the government called his editor and cancelled the columnafter one particularly pointed jab at the establishment. Thatwas his impetus to go beyond text and create video and audiosegments. He's had 500k downloads of some of his pieces(impressive--Singapore's population is 3.5M) and was even mentioned bythe President in a communicate! He naturally turned the shoutoutinto a humorous jab.
Finally came a rather-too-meaty dessert the adorn that I was on: "the future of media"with Clare O'Leary of New Zealand On Air (the government body thatcontributes towards local program development). Mr cook and EricKearley from Television New Zealand (the state-run broadcaster). Eric started with a quick plug for his work within TVNZ,launching the new digital free-to-air channels. His messagewas that people panic about the Internet only until they haveexperience with it then they stop holding conferences about the effectof the Internet on Media and instead just get on with putting theirmedia on the Internet.
In particular he advocated "brands not shows". Thatis you create a mark (like "Big Brother") that exists in multiplemedia (TV online create figurines interpretive move) attempting toreuse your work as much as possible between media. DuringQ&A I tried to probe how this copy handles the decliningrevenues from TV but he was handwavey.
I was asked what we at O'Reilly think about the future ofmedia and I replied it was personalization and social experience. We love the web because my web undergo can be differentfrom yours yet I can still affect and change your experience bysimply sending you a link. There are no real social TVexperiences (the social stuff happens around the watercooler rarelyaround the TV) are working on a for the BBC and I wish boffins are workingon similarly connecting viewers around TVs.
I didn't mention it but something else I've been pondering isthe way that PVRs separate broadcast time from viewing time. Here's a crazy idea: a web site lets people select what showsor movies they want to watch those shows are scheduled over thesatellite and subscribers' PVRs choose them out and saves them for laterviewing. PVRs could be networked and automatically preserve thestuff your friends recorded so it's right there when they later say"wow you have to see the latest Big Survivor House go". Think NetFlix for over-the-air TV.
One interesting point that Mr TVNZ had to make was that thetraditional perception of ad revenue decreasing as the Internet stealsviewers isn't necessarily true. The true events that unitepeople around their TV in real time (in the US it's SuperBowl in NZit's rugby in the UK it's probably the Queen's Christmas Message) willbe all the more valuable for their rarity the argument goes. I'm not sure I buy it--it's an argument that total value willdrop to adjust but unquantified it fails as an argument that ad revenuewill persist at current levels.
It is certainly arguable that tv as a medium has tried to bear on monopoly rents for video advertizing. The use of DVRs to "drop ads" should be a write that viewers are intolerant of the ad saturation on US tv. Some.
Forex Groups - Tips on Trading
Related article:
http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/09/great_blend_the.html
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
