Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Does anybody really know what time it is?
Does anybody really care?
Apologies to the group Chicago and another mea culpa to readers under 40 who have no idea what the amusing reference is.
I was thinking about technology today, because I was thinking about TV, because my co-author on Media Programming (Wadsworth, 2006) and I were discussing the next revision. But my thoughts were about portable media and handheld video and cell phones and such.
It occurred to me that everyone who has a cell phone (is that not everyone now?) knows exactly what time it is. Or if you are surfing the Internet, you also know what time it is. All computer browsers and cell phones are now synced to the atomic clock in Boulder, Colorado. Or so it seems.
To test this theory, I launched my computer's clock and the website http://www.time.gov/ while staring at my cell phone and all were reading the exact same time, to the second. So we now live in an age when no one can say, gee, sorry I'm late, my watch is running slow, or, gee, sorry I'm early, my watch is running fast.
Who needs a watch, anyway? This cell phone gives me the dead-on correct time. Close enough to program the time on my TiVo, which, whoops, calibrates itself off the Internet now.
I have told people that the downside of having two clocks is never knowing which one is correct. But now we know. It's the one on your computer screen, or the one on your cell phone.
Apologies to the group Chicago and another mea culpa to readers under 40 who have no idea what the amusing reference is.
I was thinking about technology today, because I was thinking about TV, because my co-author on Media Programming (Wadsworth, 2006) and I were discussing the next revision. But my thoughts were about portable media and handheld video and cell phones and such.
It occurred to me that everyone who has a cell phone (is that not everyone now?) knows exactly what time it is. Or if you are surfing the Internet, you also know what time it is. All computer browsers and cell phones are now synced to the atomic clock in Boulder, Colorado. Or so it seems.
To test this theory, I launched my computer's clock and the website http://www.time.gov/ while staring at my cell phone and all were reading the exact same time, to the second. So we now live in an age when no one can say, gee, sorry I'm late, my watch is running slow, or, gee, sorry I'm early, my watch is running fast.
Who needs a watch, anyway? This cell phone gives me the dead-on correct time. Close enough to program the time on my TiVo, which, whoops, calibrates itself off the Internet now.
I have told people that the downside of having two clocks is never knowing which one is correct. But now we know. It's the one on your computer screen, or the one on your cell phone.
Friday, January 19, 2007
Idol thoughts
American Idol is a program worthy of comment, if only because it attracts the rating/share of network shows from the distant past. With hundreds of channels, the prospect of water cooler conversations about a TV show has dimmed. But Idol has changed that.
Give credit to Fox for not overexposing this show, something ABC couldn't resist with Who Wants to be a Millionaire -- and perhaps NBC is flirting with an All-Celebrity version of Deal or No Deal (which is a sure sign of fading).
My chief complaint with Idol is not a particular judge, but the cruelty element. It's a singing contest, so why the parade of the mentally ill? Is there no limit to Simon's insults regarding personal appearance? My wife tells me that these contestants choose to make fools of themselves, but I'm not so sure that the selection of contestants escapes exploitation. I think the show would be just as successful with the same mix of normal-looking people singing horribly rather than the freak show of late.
But then that's just my opinion, and apparently no one is reading my blog anyway. Maybe I need to make it more of a train wreck to attract public attention.
Give credit to Fox for not overexposing this show, something ABC couldn't resist with Who Wants to be a Millionaire -- and perhaps NBC is flirting with an All-Celebrity version of Deal or No Deal (which is a sure sign of fading).
My chief complaint with Idol is not a particular judge, but the cruelty element. It's a singing contest, so why the parade of the mentally ill? Is there no limit to Simon's insults regarding personal appearance? My wife tells me that these contestants choose to make fools of themselves, but I'm not so sure that the selection of contestants escapes exploitation. I think the show would be just as successful with the same mix of normal-looking people singing horribly rather than the freak show of late.
But then that's just my opinion, and apparently no one is reading my blog anyway. Maybe I need to make it more of a train wreck to attract public attention.
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
iPhone
Leave it to Apple to design a cell phone that costs $500. I suspect their market research says enough people will pay that to have the coolest phone, even if they have to switch to Cingular to do it. Let's hope the Cisco-owned trademark for the iPhone name can be sorted out.
I want one.
I want one.
Monday, January 08, 2007
57,000 channels and nothing is on
The 500-channel universe was a big deal a decade ago, but today things got even more fragmented for viewers.
Sony has announced that its new BRAVIA sets (HDTV) will allow viewers to surf online videos without any need for a computer. OK, it's a small deal now and the naysayers will spill a lot of ink about how the threat is "years away" but broadcast/cable networks have much to fear when channel surfing includes YouTube and the like.
A few years ago I proposed an "anything else" button for remote controls. Instead of grazing through 57 (or 557) channels and cycling through again, the anything-else feature would remember where the tuner had been that day and, like a no-repeat oldies station, begin displaying webpages after the roster of TV channels was exhausted -- in order to produce fresh, untried options for short-attention-span viewing. The problem with my idea was that TV sets then didn't "do" the Internet without some fancy help.
Sony has changed that now. I didn't patent or copyright my "anything else" button idea (it appears in print somewhere, so maybe my biographer can find it even if my lawyer no longer cares), but I think it's a solid idea. And how long do you think it will take other set manufacturers to calculate the tiny cost and huge differentiating benefit of tapping into the WiFi network in viewers' homes?
Instead of broadcast versus cable/satellite versus VOD, it'll be one hairy free-for-all. Maybe someone will be clever enough to allow viewers to assign "channel numbers" to the various Internet feeds. If your tuner stops at 999, why not let channel 1000 be the F.U. guy from the Letterman show who appears on YouTube from time to time. The F.U. guy might resonate with the viewing zeitgeist, as we all get to talk back to our television sets in a way that Nicholas Johnson never dreamed.
Hey, what's on channel 1269 tonight?
Sony has announced that its new BRAVIA sets (HDTV) will allow viewers to surf online videos without any need for a computer. OK, it's a small deal now and the naysayers will spill a lot of ink about how the threat is "years away" but broadcast/cable networks have much to fear when channel surfing includes YouTube and the like.
A few years ago I proposed an "anything else" button for remote controls. Instead of grazing through 57 (or 557) channels and cycling through again, the anything-else feature would remember where the tuner had been that day and, like a no-repeat oldies station, begin displaying webpages after the roster of TV channels was exhausted -- in order to produce fresh, untried options for short-attention-span viewing. The problem with my idea was that TV sets then didn't "do" the Internet without some fancy help.
Sony has changed that now. I didn't patent or copyright my "anything else" button idea (it appears in print somewhere, so maybe my biographer can find it even if my lawyer no longer cares), but I think it's a solid idea. And how long do you think it will take other set manufacturers to calculate the tiny cost and huge differentiating benefit of tapping into the WiFi network in viewers' homes?
Instead of broadcast versus cable/satellite versus VOD, it'll be one hairy free-for-all. Maybe someone will be clever enough to allow viewers to assign "channel numbers" to the various Internet feeds. If your tuner stops at 999, why not let channel 1000 be the F.U. guy from the Letterman show who appears on YouTube from time to time. The F.U. guy might resonate with the viewing zeitgeist, as we all get to talk back to our television sets in a way that Nicholas Johnson never dreamed.
Hey, what's on channel 1269 tonight?
Labels: Sony YouTube TV broadcast
Sunday, January 07, 2007
Happy 2007
I resolved to post a lot more often. My colleague Susan Eastman is busy revising our TV program strategy textbook this year, so it's on my mind almost daily. Being editor of the Journal of Radio Studies is winding down with the handoff to the new editor later this year, and my duties as grad director are settling down as the program has marked its first semester.
TV programming has changed so much over the years. The audience has more control and the networks have more competition. Viewing is up but shares are down. The days of a single show captivating all viewers are nearly gone. Only shows like American Idol still draw huge ratings.
TiVo rules my household. We care when shows are scheduled but not very much. We watch more cable series like The Closer and Monk.
I read this week that TV is coming to automobiles, though I hope its less distracting than cell phones have been. I suspect that radio stations will need to think hard about delivering a streaming feed to stay relevant to folks stuck in traffic.
The portability of video media is about to catch everyone by surprise, especially if it can be delivered to cell phones as supported by advertising. Audio and still pictures have had their day. It's all about video now, and the watershed event was the execution of Saddam Hussein (or was it the uncensored release of Dick in a Box?)
My take is that change comes faster than the "change is incremental" crowd wants to admit. A lot of observers continue to rail about the slow change in habits. I argue that innovations are not as slow in coming than they think. 5 years ago I heard that TiVo was 10 years away. But it was only 5 years away. The portable video revolution is maybe 3 years away, tops.
That's my view.
TV programming has changed so much over the years. The audience has more control and the networks have more competition. Viewing is up but shares are down. The days of a single show captivating all viewers are nearly gone. Only shows like American Idol still draw huge ratings.
TiVo rules my household. We care when shows are scheduled but not very much. We watch more cable series like The Closer and Monk.
I read this week that TV is coming to automobiles, though I hope its less distracting than cell phones have been. I suspect that radio stations will need to think hard about delivering a streaming feed to stay relevant to folks stuck in traffic.
The portability of video media is about to catch everyone by surprise, especially if it can be delivered to cell phones as supported by advertising. Audio and still pictures have had their day. It's all about video now, and the watershed event was the execution of Saddam Hussein (or was it the uncensored release of Dick in a Box?)
My take is that change comes faster than the "change is incremental" crowd wants to admit. A lot of observers continue to rail about the slow change in habits. I argue that innovations are not as slow in coming than they think. 5 years ago I heard that TiVo was 10 years away. But it was only 5 years away. The portable video revolution is maybe 3 years away, tops.
That's my view.
Labels: TV
