Rambling thoughts on the future of "TV"

4539 Views 50 Replies 20 Participants Last post by atmuscarella, Jan 30, 2012

atmuscarella

Discussion Starter · Jan 25, 2012

I was watching a Cnet top 5 last night on my Premiere and it got me think about where people see TV and TVs going in the future. The top 5 was about "TV technologies we are going to want..". It was OLED, IPTV/Smart TVs, 4K, & 3D where the list.

The one that has the most to do with TiVo was IPTV/Smart TVs. They noted that in 2012 it would be impossible to buy anything but entry level TVs that were not Smart TVs. They also insinuated that this would ultimately be bad for connected devices like Roku.

It is clear that Google is trying to make Google TV the engine driving IPTV/Smart TVs and appears to have several major players on board.

So where do people think this "Smart TV" thing will be in 5 years? Will so many TVs have acceptable IPTV/Smart TV abilities that stand alone devices will be irrelevant? What does they say for TiVo? How important is it that TiVo compete with Google and get their software into more TVs?

Ultimately I understand we really don't want DVRs we want the ability to watch want we want to watch when we want to watch it (without adds if possible). IPTV/Smart TV can provide some of this ability how long before it can provide enough of it so people don't want/need a DVR? If you think we will not need DVRs any time soon does this indicate the importance of TiVo getting their software into TVs?

There is also a social component to watching TV that has varying importance depending on who you are. In my Office building people enjoy talking about their favourite shows which usually means the episode that aired the night before. I know many people watch TV the night it is broadcast just to be part of these groups. The question here is how import is the social part of watching TV and how does IPTV/Smart TV allow people to connect their viewing habits? I know Hulu is pushing using social media sites to let your friends know what you are watching. Does TiVo need to go their? I know they have surveyed about this.

So what are people's bottom line on how they think they will be consuming "TV" 5 years from now and what type of device(s) will you need to do it?

For myself I actually see little change - I expect to still be OTA using TiVos/DVRs with perhaps some increased streaming usage. I also don't see that I will be buying a OLED/4k/3D TV in that time period unless something unexpected happens to my Plasma TV.

Thanks,

See less See more

1 - 20 of 51 Posts

slowbiscuit

· #2 · Jan 25, 2012

You might not want a DVR in future, but I will. Streaming everything means they can force you to watch anything that comes with it, i.e. commercials. Not to mention that you will be subject to the whims of what and when they make something available, it's not going to be there anytime you want to watch it without a price.

3D will remain just a niche that few care about until we get true holographic TV.

2k, 4k, 1000k, who cares? It's not like we're going to see this on cable or OTA anytime soon, and bandwidth caps/fees will keep people from streaming a ton of these huge vids anyway.

mr.unnatural

· #3 · Jan 25, 2012

I already watch what I want when I want, all with a DVR and my unRAID server with over 20TB of storage. I've seen internet TV and the quality is dismal at best. I don't care about 3D or any of the other bells and whistles. I just want a TV that gives me a quality picture. I'll keep using a DVR to record the shows I want and I'll always have shows available for viewing. When I run out of TV shows I watch movies stored on my server.

I've seen 3D demonstrated in the stores and I thinks it's pretty cool, at least for the first five minutes or so. However, the idea of being tethered to my TV holds no interest for me. 3D in any format is just a gimmick that gets old pretty quick. The library of 3D movies is pitifully small and not enough to make we want to take the plunge anytime soon. 3D versions are mostly available only for purchase. I rent every movie I watch and have no interest in staring a library of physical discs, not to mention the expense of buying every 3D movie that comes out.

I realize that most consumers are of the mindset that they want everything now, hence the popularity of streaming and VOD. It's really sad that this is happening because quality suffers. Most people don't even care as long as they get to watch their favorite reality show on demand on their iPhone or other portable device. Personally, I don't see the attraction of squinting to watch a tiny screen with mediocre audio when I can enjoy it in a home theater environment the way it was meant to be seen.

See less See more

atmuscarella

Discussion Starter · #4 · Jan 25, 2012

Interesting,

I understand this top 5 List was just about TV tech but myself and those who have responded so far expect to continue using DVRs and see the significant enhancements a DVR provides to the "TV" viewing experience.

I understand the media's hype about OLED, IPTV/Smart TV, 4K, & 3D but it seems like if they were going to actually talk about something that significantly improves a users over all "TV" experience they would also talk about DVRs.

So while it may not be sexy to talk about DVRs any more I am guessing people would have their viewing experience improved more, at a much lower cost, by a good DVR than any of the tech being talked about.

On the 3D issue I have to give Cnet's Brian Cooley some credit he has been pretty negative about 3D the way it is currently being done. He seems to say that 3D tech will not be useful until we don't need glasses and it works from pretty much any viewing angle.

lillevig

· #5 · Jan 25, 2012

I pretty much agree with the sentiment stated here that Smart TV won't be the death of DVRs - at least until the TV incorporates a DVR. I'm not interested in NetFlix or HuluPlus myself and only look for online content if I want to download a movie (Amazon has been my VOD choice) or if we miss a cable show and I want to see if we can get it from the network website. In the case of network website shows, I just bring the show up on my wireless laptop and string a 25 foot HDMI cable to my not-so-smart TV.

shwru980r

· #6 · Jan 25, 2012

I think if a DVR is integrated into a TV, then they should leave the storage as an external peripheral device.

Joe01880

· #7 · Jan 25, 2012

atmuscarella said:
I was watching a Cnet top 5 last night on my Premiere and it got me think about where people see TV and TVs going in the future. The top 5 was about "TV technologies we are going to want..". It was OLED, IPTV/Smart TVs, 4K, & 3D where the list.

The one that has the most to do with TiVo was IPTV/Smart TVs. They noted that in 2012 it would be impossible to buy anything but entry level TVs that were not Smart TVs. They also insinuated that this would ultimately be bad for connected devices like Roku.

Smart TV's are bad for things like Roku, why buy Roku if the same things are available in your Smart TV, and your Blu-ray player, and your H/T reciever/ and or TiVo. Reduncacy seems to be the theme if anything.

atmuscarella said:
Ultimately I understand we really don't want DVRs we want the ability to watch want we want to watch when we want to watch it (without adds if possible).

In my case there's no "if possible" I dont want ads at all and DVR's (TiVo) allow me that luxury so i dont want to see them go anywhere. Given what i see from watching shows online, the little i do it. IPTV is going to to bring forced commercials that i cant get rid of along with reduced picture quality. So i am not crazy about the idea of IPTV at all.

atmuscarella said:
There is also a social component... Does TiVo need to go their? I know they have surveyed about this.

Again, redundancy, on your TV, on your Blu-ray player, on your Smart phone,on your laptop, maybe next gen H/T recievers, everyplace. I dont see it as needed in a TiVo but with the likes of Verizon offering such connectivity i can see it coming.

Bob_Newhart

· #8 · Jan 26, 2012

4D would be cool if the price was right.

lillevig

· #9 · Jan 26, 2012

Bob_Newhart said:
4D would be cool if the price was right.

Smell-a-vision?

rasmasyean

· #10 · Jan 26, 2012

The reality is that most ppl care about content...and not 1080p, 3D, massive screens, etc. that much for most of their video entertainment. The success of Youtube says it all. "Surround sound" is even more synonomous with hard core gamers than couch potatoes.

That said, "Smart TVs" will give ppl flexiblility of lifestyle, and also most importantly, various "APPs" will emerge to tie you into services and get you to purchase this and that for $0.99+. As computers get dirt cheap, integrated "DVRs" will be just an APP among Facebook, Youtube, Netflix, iTunes, Pandora, OnLive gaming and whatever else that doesn't exist yet. Your probably even going to see Windows Media Center TV's as M$FT has been suiting up to conquer the media business.

And don't be surprised when AT&T offers some subsidized/free TV with some sort of relevant 2 year service plan. If you think LED TV's are light, OLED TV's wil weight next to nothing and you can carry it out of the store in a shopping bag. Want the latest and greatest, trade it in for the HTC Titan 3D TV and they'll "recycle" yours to your grandma who doesn't need built-in 50TB of flash storage...in the bathroom.

All this is just part of the "ubiquitous computing" future that has been nerfed by "The Great Recession" to a certain extent. Now that we're out of it and China is going to mass produce eveeything we ever need for pennies, expect to see past luxuries become widespread. It will almost be like...the cellular telephone in your old Mercedes. lol

See less See more

lrhorer

· #11 · Jan 26, 2012

mr.unnatural said:
I already watch what I want when I want, all with a DVR and my unRAID server with over 20TB of storage.

Agreed.

mr.unnatural said:
I've seen internet TV and the quality is dismal at best.

Again, agreed, and what's worse, the selection is fairly poor. IF those improve, then I will perhaps change my tune, but until then...

mr.unnatural said:
I don't care about 3D or any of the other bells and whistles.

Some bells and whistles are rather nice, but many others just tinkle and whirr. The recent spate are pretty lame.

mr.unnatural said:
I've seen 3D demonstrated in the stores and I thinks it's pretty cool, at least for the first five minutes or so. However, the idea of being tethered to my TV holds no interest for me. 3D in any format is just a gimmick that gets old pretty quick.

In the vast majority of cases it adds very little to the video. There are some exceptions, but in the main it offers little other than additional expense and a considerable hassle. That's not a good long term marketing strategy.

mr.unnatural said:
Personally, I don't see the attraction of squinting to watch a tiny screen with mediocre audio when I can enjoy it in a home theater environment the way it was meant to be seen.

:up:

lrhorer

· #12 · Jan 26, 2012

rasmasyean said:
The reality is that most ppl care about content...and not 1080p, 3D, massive screens, etc.

No, the reality is most people don't care about any of those things. If they did the Nielsen ratings wouldn't put any of the networks anywhere near the top of the charts. All most people want is something familiar and mindless to mesmerize them for the evening.

daveak

· #13 · Jan 26, 2012

I like to equate streaming on-demand media to mp3s. Lower quality and or lower up front costs that appeal to the majority who are OK with stretched video formatting on the Wide Screen TVs. Ohh the horror of it all. Netflix (and others) streaming 720 content, sometimes even with surround on the right devices - replacing lossless audio and well made Blu-ray releases. Streamed content controlled by the provider is likely the future. Cost usually beats quality in CE. Think back to VHS vs Beta and a few other examples since then. We are doomed to AV mediocrity.

Joe01880

· #14 · Jan 26, 2012

as for OLED TV, having not seen it..yet and being somewhat of a videophile at heart if not in wallet. I am sure i will love the PQ but a TV that thin is sure to pay the price of current technology. Audio quality. There is just no room in something that thin to have anything near acceptable sound quality. Im sure there will be sound bars and subwoofer packages available which will only serve to drive up the cost still not replacing a decent H/T surround system. Which will cost harry home owner even more money they probably dont want to spend creating a very small market for OLED.
Years down the road when OLED becomes more affordable adding a sound system may not be as painful. By then who knows what will have stepped in to make it obsolete.

aadam101

· #15 · Jan 26, 2012

To me, 3D TV's are just about the stupidest idea I have ever heard. I would NEVER own one. I HATE going to 3D movies and wearing those stupid glasses. Most "3D" movies have a couple of 3D scenes and that's it. It's a marketing gimmick and I'm not falling for it.

Joe01880

· #16 · Jan 26, 2012

aadam101 said:
To me, 3D TV's are just about the stupidest idea I have ever heard. I would NEVER own one. I HATE going to 3D movies and wearing those stupid glasses. Most "3D" movies have a couple of 3D scenes and that's it. It's a marketing gimmick and I'm not falling for it.

I would disagree, owning a 3D TV the problem with it there is not enough 3D content available. Many movies have lots of 3D effect, some dont. Star Wars will be interesting to watch in 3D, Phantom Menice is due to be released soon. Tron, Pirates and Thor were all great in 3D, so was Transformers. I even liked Avatar 3D too.

As for the glasses, they dont bother me to wear over my perscription glasses at that. The move is trending away from the glasses anyway. Last year at the CES Sony said they were 5 years out from having an offering that doesnt use glasses, having a prototype on display. This year Toshiba (screw Toshiba, i took the red pill first) had them out to see and claimed to have them on the market 1st quarter 2012, although the reviews of them were not great so far, we shall see. But to each their own.

rasmasyean

· #17 · Jan 26, 2012

Joe01880 said:
as for OLED TV, having not seen it..yet and being somewhat of a videophile at heart if not in wallet. I am sure i will love the PQ but a TV that thin is sure to pay the price of current technology. Audio quality. There is just no room in something that thin to have anything near acceptable sound quality. Im sure there will be sound bars and subwoofer packages available which will only serve to drive up the cost still not replacing a decent H/T surround system. Which will cost harry home owner even more money they probably dont want to spend creating a very small market for OLED.
Years down the road when OLED becomes more affordable adding a sound system may not be as painful. By then who knows what will have stepped in to make it obsolete.

I don't think the majority of the population will ever go for "H/T surround systems". They've been arround forever and barely anyone I know has one. I once bought one for someone and they only connected 3 front speakers for the past 5 years. You can buy decent plug in stereo speakers for like $20 and that's more than good enough for most viewers.

Anyways, future "3D TVs" involve some sort of restricted angle viewing for each person. There's a camera that detects the eyes of each viewer, and depending on the Hz and other factors, it will give 2 x N persons images/frame viewable only by the eyes that are are the specific angles. I guess this means that quite possibly, a side viewer will see a black screen...or it would be really dim off angle.

rasmasyean

· #18 · Jan 26, 2012

lrhorer said:
No, the reality is most people don't care about any of those things. If they did the Nielsen ratings wouldn't put any of the networks anywhere near the top of the charts. All most people want is something familiar and mindless to mesmerize them for the evening.

That's what "content" means.

takeshi

· #19 · Jan 26, 2012

The problem I have with Smart TV's is the same problem I have with any integrated appliances. For me, TV's have a much longer lifespan than the Smart TV functionality which is likely to get very outdated. Sure, they can update the software but you're stuck with whatever hardware is built in to the TV. My Viera is already unbearably slow at running apps. I can't imagine what it will be like in a few years -- especially if app development for Smart TV's really takes off.

mr.unnatural

· #20 · Jan 26, 2012

When I step into a TV showroom these days all I see are big screen flat panel TVs. Gone are the days of 25" CRT sets. These are now being replaced in droves by 36-42" HDTVs. The trend is to get rid of your defunct 4:3 TV and go with larger flat screens. The cost of a new 42" LCD TV is now at or below the cost of a 27" CRT set that sold 15-20 years ago. Adjusting for inflation, current sets are actually cheaper than ever. With HDTV and 16:9 sets, the picture is also better than ever. Throw in an inexpensive surround sound system (i.e., HTIB) and now anyone can have the full home theater experience for about $1000 or less.

3D, smart TV, and all of the other new features are just gimmicks being added in an effort to sell more TVs. 3D sets are reported to provide even better 2D performance so there's no reason to completely ignore them when looking for a new TV, even if you never intend to watch anything in 3D. To me, a TV should be nothing more than a display device. Unless it has a cablecard slot, the inclusion of a digital cable tuner is a waste of money and only adds to the cost. A new HDTV should only come with an ATSC tuner and multiple HDMI inputs with maybe a single set of composite or component inputs. Most people use an external tuner from a cable box, satellite receiver, or DVR so adding a digital cable tuner makes no real sense, IMHO.

The vast majority of Smart TV extras are already available via external media players and other consumer electronic devices. Some people may like the idea of having these features integrated into their TV sets, but I'd prefer to keep them separate and decide for myself whether or not I even want them. Why pay extra for something I'd rarely, if ever, use? Media players routinely sell for less then $50 and up.

I'd disagree with the statement that surround sound is used mostly by gamers. While it probably adds more to the gaming experience, surround sound was originally developed for the audio industry (i.e. quadraphonic stereo via CD-4, SQ, QS, or Dynaquad, among several other formats), long before video games were ever developed, and later revitalized for home theater. The gaming community just realized it was a better way to play games so the developers started encoding surround sound into their programs.

See less See more

1 - 20 of 51 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.