Will Hulu and Apple kill old-style TV?

Between Hulu and Apple, are the days of over-the-air and cable TV numbered?

By sjvn  3 comments

My wife has been asking me for some time now to dump cable in favor of Internet-based TV. Even though I've been using media extenders like the Apple TV to watch my own server-based video library and Internet-based TV for years, I've been reluctant to make the move. Why? Because, even now it's a pain sometimes to get the setup to work right and some of the shows I want to watch weren't available in formats I could easily watch on my television. Things are changing now fast.

First, technically speaking, it's getting much easier to set up connections between the Internet and your TV. In my own case, the Sony BDP-S570 Blu-ray Disc Player, which also includes Internet streaming support for Amazon Video on Demand, Netflix, and many other Internet video services, has made watching movies off the Internet dead simple. For my BBC TV fix -- I've been a big Doctor Who fan since Jon Pertwee played the Doctor -- I usually rely on my Apple TV to stream videos from my servers.

But what's been missing from all this is a cheap and easy way to watch the current TV shows that I like such as Burn Notice, Community, and House. Yes, of course, I could watch these and other shows on one of my computers. But, when I want to watch television, I don't want to be watching it on a laptop or in my office. I'd much rather be watching it on a big-screen HDTV with my wife and friends.

That's why I found the news that Hulu was going to start an 'all-you-can-watch' TV service very, very interesting. Once this service is rolled out, I'll be able to watch almost all shows I like, when I want to watch them, even if I've forgotten to TiVo them. And, I'll be able to do this with my existing hardware-Sony DVD and TV support will be coming later in the year-for $9.99 a month. With my cable service I have to pay $89.99 a month, which includes such 'winners' as Jewelry Television, GSN (game shows), and the Home Shopping Network.

Hmmm ... I don't think this is going to be a really tough decision.

In addition, Apple, which could have owned the Internet television business if Jobs hadn't been so clueless, seems to be getting ready to take it seriously. According to a report in the New York Times, Apple seems to be getting ready to re-invent its approach to television. They'd better. If they don't, Hulu and Google with Google TV may shut them out.

But, one thing people haven't been talking about, is who's really going to be shut out by these developments: cable companies and OTA (over-the-air) TV channels. As these technologies go mainstream, these businesses are going to be in a world of hurt. It will take years. After all, not everyone has the broadband you need to make Internet TV viable, but the day is coming when their current business models are going to fail.

After that, the television networks will end up in trouble. Think about it. In the music business, people now 'buy' singles rather than albums. In the future, more than ever, people will watch television series, not television networks.

It's going to be interesting to see how this all plays out. But, in the meantime, I'm just going to be glad to pay for and watch only the shows I want to see while ignoring the rest.

3 comments

    Anonymous 1 year ago
    Youtube and p2p torrenting has beaten Apple and Hulu to the punch.
    Anonymous 1 year ago
    No, not quality of the shows-- quality of the broadcast. I haven't tried Hulu plus or one of the boxes with it baked in. But I have used the Hulu viewer on my desktop: it's good; but not great. The audio and video aren't always synced and sometimes frames are missing.I think the quantity-- the number of shows-- is also good but not great. Not all networks, not all shows, and a limited episode count.Overall, I think you're right-- this is still in the early adopter phase: when it's complete, it's the end of local stations (except for some local programming) and probably the networks as well (yet another middle man removed).
    rickyf
    rickyf 1 year ago
    Depends on what you mean by "soon" whether or not I agree.Video and audio distribution is changing. Yet traditional video distribution channels are surviving better than they should. This is due to several reasons. A primary one is that new technologies are too difficult for most people to implement.Another reason is that video content on new distribution channels-Netflix, Amazon VOD, Hulu, iTunes Store, Roku...-is at best limited and somewhat haphazard. These distribution alternatives are an expensive addition to our existing cable/satellite bills, thereby retarding there rapid adoption.Traditional video businesses economics are under attack. Major TV and movie production costs are rising rapidly while viewership is eroding. Traditional OTA channels are in decline because they offer less and less reasons to watch. This creates a vicious spiral for them. Less viewers means less revenue. Less revenue means less new programming. Less programming means less viewers.Cable/satellite prices are rising because the content providers are charging them more. (See http://rhftech.com/blog/2010/04/is-your-cable-tv-bill-too-high/) They too suffer from a dearth of new programming. Luckily for them they have a relatively captive audience for the moment.It will be several years if ever, assuming bandwidth caps don't get in the way, before Netflix, et al. are the dominant distribution format, replacing cable/satellite and OTA.

      Add a comment

      Post a comment using one of these accounts
      Or join now
      At least 6 characters

      Note: Comment will appear soon after you have activated your account.
      Obscene/spam comments will be removed and accounts suspended.
      The information you submit is subject to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.

      ITworld LIVE

      Ask a question

      Ask a Question