

The TV industry is where the newspaper industry was five years ago: In denial. - daviday
http://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-analysts-begin-to-realize-that-theres-no-way-to-save-television-2009-6

======
dusklight
FTA:

"The best content creators will do just fine. [...] The lousy content creators
will disappear. "

The problem with this is, that most people don't jump from nothing to "best"
in one go. The people who created all that lousy content, some of them learnt
from their experience and got better and started developing better content. If
fewer people are able to make a living creating bad content, fewer people are
going to be able to climb the learning curve to start creating good content.

~~~
debt
Nah. The creator of Arrested Development, Mitch Hurwitz, never wrote a crappy
television show from the start. He climbed the learning curve by going to
Georgetown, outside of the television industry. Writers shouldn't be paid to
make crap just to help them climb the learning curve.

------
vaksel
The reason newspapers died was because you got yesterday's news, and the web
just offered so much more.

TV and the web don't really compare yet. Not in quality, not in the viewing
experience(can't really watching anything with more than 1 person)

~~~
dmix
TV's "yesterdays news" is the fact I have to be sitting in front of my TV on
Thursday at 8:30pm to watch a favorite show instead of being able to watch it
when I feel like watching a TV show.

~~~
pixcavator
DVR

------
branden
I think this is spot on. Traditional broadcast video is headed toward a cliff
that is just barely out of sight to anyone who doesn't want to see it. It
brings to mind the larger point of Clay Shirky's article on newspapers
([http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2009/03/newspapers-and-
thinking...](http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2009/03/newspapers-and-thinking-the-
unthinkable/)): the internet is built to distribute information instantly and
ubiquitously. This is fundamentally disruptive to any business built on
distributing information of any kind. If that's how you make your money and
you treat the internet like it's just another distribution stream, you're in
for a short, rough ride.

------
frossie
_A few clever online aggregators--YouTube? Hulu? Cable companies? Netflix?--
will create nice video portals and build powerful new businesses. At these
portals, you'll be able to sign up to watch anything in the world on any
device you want. You'll be able choose among multiple subscription models
(monthly, a la carte)._

I would be quite positive about such a development. Unlike newspapers, I - and
millions like me - pay a significant monthly outlay for TV (Dish in my case)
for a lot of stuff I don't actually want (as opposed to my newspaper-reading
self, who spends a lot less money for stuff I do want).

For example I pay a significant amount of money to subscribe to a foreign
channel in which I only watch one program. I also subscribe to a motorsport
channel so I can watch one series. I would be very happy to go a la carte -
(eg. pay for programs I want to DVR). I probably would be okay with spending
similar amounts of money for more shows I want to watch.

Also, TV has various successful pay models already including subscription
(HBO) and PPV, which will probably translate a lot better onto the Internet
than the newspapers models did.

That said, I do agree with the author that there will be a rearrangement of
the landscape.

