Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
You really don't get it ...
Of course cinema is a different experience. That is *why* it has survived.
The ability to switch on a TV and quickly settle down to watch something after a day at work, with the absolute bare minimum of effort, is a different experience to deliberately choosing from a menu of box sets, or setting up preferences for download or whatever, and is one of the key reasons why linear TV will also survive.
|
I do understand what you are saying, Chris, but generally the end result is that you are watching rubbish - or at least programmes that you don't have a particular interest in.
Of course there will always be those who will continue to take this approach, but my guess is that the majority of people will want to select the programme they want to watch when they switch on the TV.
If the majority of people are not as laid back as you in this area, sooner or later there will be an advertising revenue problem as fewer and fewer people make use of linear channels. It's the economics of it all which will drive change.
---------- Post added at 11:09 ---------- Previous post was at 11:08 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
No, you really don't. As Spiderplant has pointed out, it doesn't matter how few seconds it takes to choose from a menu; the fact is, it takes longer, and requires more active thought, than simply switching on and channel hopping. It is the requirement for active participation that makes VOD a different prospect, and which ensures there will be room for both VOD and linear broadcast TV in the future. They fulfil two different needs.
|
But surely channel hopping is a very inefficient way of finding the programme you want. I wouldn't recommend that at all. Whenever I have channel hopped I have been profoundly disappointed. Even if I find a programme I wouldn't mind watching, it tends to be just finishing by the time I find it!
---------- Post added at 11:18 ---------- Previous post was at 11:09 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
Some of the key advantages linear broadcast enjoys are:
- Ability to show live events (as identified in the article you found)
- Ability to connect with a passive audience
- Easy access to a mass audience for advertisers
- Ability to offer a version of the cinema's social experience - "water cooler" TV that is viewed simultaneously in sufficient numbers that it can be a discussion point the following day, thus enhancing the broadcaster's brand and the potential reach of their product.
|
Live events can also be shown as they happen on video on demand. Just as you can start a recording on the TIVO and then watch the recording while it is being recorded. So that isn't actually an issue at all.
Your third point is the issue. Currently, linear TV provides a mass audience. But if the trend continues and more and more viewers steer away from linear channels, there will no longer be the mass audience that is keeping them alive.
This isn't about your personal preferences sadly, Chris, it's simple economics.