Telly is becoming moving wallpaper for constantly online Brits Wiggin's gigantic annual media survey is out and, as ever, the results are full of intriguing figures covering everything from fondleslabs to filth. This year's responses to the Digital Entertainment Survey [PDF] will leave TV executives, streaming services and pirates feeling anxious - while book publishers and social …
Some part of me is always paying attention. I can spot an imminent adbreak without thinking about it and often find I have the remote in my hand to hit FF without realising why. I wub my PVRs.
Although I'd love the Sky box more if they gave me 'jump 30 seconds' like the Humax but I don't think that's likely :)
I'm not sure it's the fault of manufacturers that the tablet market is without variety. Tablets continue to have phantom use cases. Really the only universally recognised use is as a status symbol - and Apple own this space. It would take something pretty bloody special to deprogram all the fanbois and shepherd them in another direction. Not a very alluring market to tech biz peeps with their heads screwed on.
> Some broadcaster suits will take [40% of people being online while watching TV] as a call to make TV more interactive, while others will see the need to make shows more engaging so people put the damn notebook tablet phone down, and watch.
It could go the other way. That TV producers will assume that if people aren't actually watching, they can reduce the "quality" of the programming. I suppose the direction it will take will be determined by whichever option lets them make the most hours of filler content for the least amount of money.
...the way TV was a national pastime like it was when we had but 4 channels to watch.
You went to school the next day and everyone would be talking about watching the same thing.
I can still remember the buzz next day at school after Jaws was shown on TV for the first time or the discussions after an episode of Blackadder first aired.
Golden age of television.
"Tech has stolen that away from us."
I think it's the other way round. Many of us have been driven to tech by the inane reality shite and other bollocks programming that has become the norm.
My missus likes to watch all that crap, and rather than the hassle of trying to think of excuses to leave the room, I just grab the Vita or laptop. Problem solved!
I must say if the choice was internet or TV I would choose Internet.
Oh and FFS please drop the "You were lucky!" sketch bollocks. It was funny the first time Feldman/Chapman/Cleese et al did it but it hasn't been funny since.
It's as funny now as bloody Delboy falling through the bar.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ew0qiozLtpU
You had a roof and newspapers? Bloody luxury. We had to hold up us 'muddy stick wi' our freezing cold hands from our hole in t'middle o' road. Well it wasn't really OUR hole, we rented it from t'council for two week's wages a week. And t'muddy stick was borrowed from us posh neighbour what had an empty fish & chip wrapper recycling business.
Is not "interactive" crap that you can tweet along to.
It's decent, well-made, well-scripted drama; interesting, exciting and well-presented documentary (about things of actual interest rather than Channel 4 freak shows); actual in-depth current affairs rather than soundbytes and shouting; and so on. Proper telly - like what we used to have before it was diluted with channels full of nothing.
Interestingly the Americans at least find the budgets for decent drama, even if their first-run viewing figures are less than the typical episode of Corrie in the UK...
Aged over 55 (don't ask...) There are only two TV progs that I watch at the time they are broadcast on a regular basis. Everything else is PVR'd. FreeView or FreeSat for me. No Sky or Virgin(god forbid) because well... I'm a cheapskate.
In reality I do have other things to do with my life than to let it be controlled by what is on TV and at what time.
I've just returned from a 2 week business trip to the US. I didn't even turn on the TV in the Hotel. I really don't want to watch Adverts with programme breaks. Instead I took a 100Gb or so of 'stuff' from my PVR and watched that instead.
The broadcasters should really start to understand that the days of the Nuclear family gathered around the TV for an evenings viewing are long gone.
Anon because I have enough problems with Virging trying to get me to sign up for their crap service thank you.
Agreed: I PVR the majority of my TV watching now, partly because it frees me from having to remember to be in front of the box at a fixed time (and stop what I'm doing), and also it gives the wonderful trick of zipping through the ad breaks 8-)
It's not so much the ads that annoy me nowadays as the repeated trailers for other shows, often the SAME ONES EVERY BREAK (C5 I'm looking at YOU)! If anything I they make me more likely to AVOID the trailed programme than watch it, simply because it's annoyed me so much :-\
Is this why I manage 90 minutes a day of only a few decent programmes.
Computer & TV - one or other not both.
BGT = headphones on and on PC
Anything scenic or interesting, slob out on settee with feet up.
Will be unpopular here but I am enjoying the latest hairy biker series, some nice camera work.
Not really - it could be that people define "porn" in different ways. There is no accepted definition of "porn", and so the question is meaningless. Pictures/videos of adults alone without clothes on is probably not going to be "porn" in the minds of most people. Pictures/videos of adults manipulating genitalia might be more likely to be so classed, but not by much. Other activities (e.g. bondage, watersports) probably has a greater number of people, even those who enjoy it, who would class it as porn. So, assuming that a lot of people who look at vanilla nudes don't think that they are watching porn, the figure might be quite low, though there will still be a large error.
Bullies are not always tough and cyber bullies do not know who they are picking on. So they pick on a range of people including IT experts and well mannered tough nuts and it is likely IT people will pass on the information to the tough nut.
I think it was the that the troll concerned actually finished his picking on people for good. Because unbelievably he had managed to find a woman and she was told in no uncertain terms what he had done.
> Overall there's a reluctance to pay for subscription services. A third of the survey group subscribe to internet entertainment packages, and of that group, 19 per cent belong to free schemes. Just 45 per cent of this group pay over a tenner.
> Perhaps the compelling service just hasn't been invented yet
Or perhaps people have tried it and been stung?
I subscribed to Spotify for about a year, and then one day they removed 80% of the tracks from one of my favourite albums, I unsubscribed a month later. I know it's not "their" fault, it's the music business and their licencing terms, but I'm not going to pay Spotify, and indirectly the record industry, to keep doing this kind of crap.
I'm glad we have the BBC in the UK; they have a charter they have to stick to, and no shareholders to insist on making more shovelview that will rake in the ad revenue. While Sky/Virgin/ITV/etc. "make" more and more reality (i.e. cheap) shows, the BBC continue to make/fund/broadcast great, enjoyable, GRIPPING shows.
Not to mention their kids TV... along with Disney they are the only channels/programmes my kids will watch (and both happen to be ad-free = happy Daddy!)!
"Some broadcaster suits will take this as a call to make TV more interactive"
What a huge pile 'o steaming manure!
Of course, only since Web2.0reah have people "communicated" with each other as to story lines and plots of their favourite programs!!
Oi! The phone has been around for far longer. These services, like Facebook, are trying to serve up old school ways to interact, as new! Their not.
....but social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter DO give people (ie teens) the ability to reach far more people all at once, to not be overshouted so they can't talk or get a word in edgeways, and thus to be heard.
The problem with live social interaction through verbal means is that people often either don't hear, choose not to hear, or shout down other people. With the written word people still end up reading what those typing have to say...and what has been seen cannot be unseen...
There is a problem with any reasoning which blames the price of 3D TVs for limited adoption. You see, the technical requirements to produce 3D are actually quite straightforward.
Any TV capable of a refresh of 200Hz or greater can technically display a decent-quality 3D picture. The only extra component required is the IR transmitter to sync the glasses to the refresh (it's an inexpensive LED). The actual work is all done in software.
Any TV manufacturer charging a hefty premium for 3D functionality really is just ripping people off. I recently bought a Samsung TV. I was not at all bothered about 3D, but as it happens it was just an added bonus in a TV that met all of my requirements and came comfortably within budget.
I haven't actually watched a 3D film yet at home or otherwise, but it is quite cool for some games.
I disagree because "Any TV capable of a refresh of 200Hz or greater..." is not a cheap TV by any means. Another way of looking at it is that you have to buy a higher priced TV to get a 3D capable one.
OK, so it's not "adding 3D" that's making the TV more expensive but to somebody on a budget a TV capable of 3D is still too expensive.
Virtual Reality SOAPrograms which take one into the Future being Thereby Presented as ProgramMING Constructions to Follow for Remote Virtual Control of Reality, would be a BBC TV Game Changer.
The Corporation has singularly failed to inspire and aspire to greater things ..... and must then be control for lesser things, as deemed by greater things and other more especialised forces in SMARTR IntelAIgent Networks.
And yes, in those bawdy networks is the answer to all of the questions you never asked yourself but do need to know, in order to seed and grow ...... Propagate Species and Mutant Power and Control Strains for Overwhelming Defence against All Known and Unknown Predatorship Culling Species with Austerity Drives to Early Grave Roads.
Show Man how the Future is made and they will build it, with IT and Media in Full and Transparent Support, with Future ProgramMING displaying Live Leading Progress being made to all, by virtue of the true strength of novel edutaining content in active script performances, rendered in leading story lines/absolutely fabulous fabless tales.
Change the Script Change the Picture ....... Show us Something that Challenges One to Choose Positive Self Defining Action rather than Accept Lethargy and Embrace Sloth. We know you can do IT, BBC.
Indeed, one would even be caused to consider that it is duty bound an action by writ of Royal Charter and Agreement.
Never watch "live" TV as the moronic ads make want to stick a boot through the flipping screen as all the ads are so far removed from reality as to make you wonder what planet these ad types think the rest of us mortals live on? "Oh you need this supersonic-automatic-hydromatic device to make your skin and hair, like a speeding javelin through city streets paved with the juiciest, tenderist meat patties we've ever made that just clean like no other and it kills 99% of bugs stone dead!".
TV torrents with the ad's stripped out, that's the way forward. You get to choose what you like and you usually get the video files in a format that can be played on any device you choose and not the 2 devices the TV company execs have deemed worthy, ie usually Apple!
The TV is for the love of my life to catch up on her US shows ( via torrents ) if she can't be bothered to copy them to her tablet/laptop, the kids to enjoy BBC Newsround and any stuff they like ( preferably via torrents too, so I know they're not getting brainwashed via shitty adverts on TV channels ) and finally me to play Skyrim/Fallout on my 360.
...this is NOT the way forward...unless you pay for it.
I fully believe that supporting shows through purchase should be the way forward. Adverts just annoy most of us. However, those who download shows with no recourse to the creators/producers of the show are effectively stealing it.
I'm so much more in favour of people being able to go buy box sets with USB keys inside with the shows on, each encoded with a personal ID for registration.
This will make me the enemy of 'freetards' everywhere, but at least then sensible laws could be put in place so that if someone's registered files go out to the world then there's a way to track it back. This doesn't mean that if your family watch the show the law comes down on you - just that if it ends up shown on torrent sites across the world then the law can ask the owner if they can get assistance to find where the mistake was made, close the leak, and track down those who steal the show for resale.
Personally, I'd pay a good, healthy sum for high-quality, minimal-cost-to-upgrade, non-advert-filled shows that I can watch at whim without 'subscribing' to a service with 1 good show for every 30 crap ones.
Seems the girls favour the fruity devices more than the boys, the Xbox 360 is doing well, Google+ is more popular than I had imagined and rumours of the death of email are exaggerated.
Interestingly, whilst price is the main barrier to tablet adoption, other more practical reasons include 'prefer to use a laptop' (2nd) and 'have no use for a tablet' (4th)
Oh and 36% of persons gamble online, who knew?
Well I for one don't watch much live TV anymore.
Why? As others have said its bloody awful! With the endless amounts of soaps, reality tv, and awful talent shows on these days I'd much rather do something else or go online instead.
These days I may watch top gear (if I can find an episode that I haven't already seen!), family guy and american dad on bbc3 and maybe the odd unexpected gem such as a film or maybe a re-run of classic red dwarf on Dave.
As a bloke TV turns me off big time these days, feels like its all drivel meant to appeal to women.
Oh and don't get me started on the awful adverts!
I agree.
If you are a bloke with slightly above average intelligence and beyond, little interest in celebrities cooking or home improvement, likes a slightly challenging/edgy documentary/comedy or drama then you are shit out of luck usually.
Why is it that the TV companies feel compelled to just produce safe cheap TV for the folks with a double digit IQ?
Why have so many succumbed to the habit of repeating something that was shown earlier in the same show. Cheap padding is what it is as it adds NOTHING to the program and has many people yawning and changing channels or picking up their phone/pad and looking for something more interesting to do, like designing wallpaper, or that card game you have played to death for the last 15 years.
It is one of my pet hates and I have started to avoid most shows that do this.
Your audience was watching and they haven't forgotten what they saw in the last 30 minutes, so why repeat it? Is it dumbing down to the level of goldfish, or just lazy producers/editors who can't be bothered to actually produce a 45 minute show, so produce a 30 minute show with 15 minutes of repeats/padding.
As for reality TV, soaps, et al, the TV companies produce what people watch.
It's not their fault that their audience IQ is so low, or that the same audience is more susceptible to the advertising that funds their programmes.
Yeah as well as any of those "Return to.." versions of Supersize/Grand Designs etc.
There you are, intrigued to see whats happened in the year or two since you saw them and then the show just repeats 95% of the original show you saw the year previous and then does a two minute montage of what's going on now/since.
In this post, Graham agrees with Big Boomer saying "Yes, you have a point there."
Yes, you have a point there.
Coming up, Graham also thinks that many "documentaries" that last for an hour, could be shown in 30 minutes if they cut out all the padding.
Many "documentaries" that last for an hour, could be shown in 30 minutes if they cut out all the padding.
Wow! Can I get a job in TV?
"Many "documentaries" that last for an hour, could be shown in 30 minutes if they cut out all the padding."
You've found some very informative documentaries! My last foray into watching TV ended when I realised that after watching the intro to a documentary, you could skip past all the "These are probable theories" BS, and find all the actual info in the last two minutes before the closing credits!
It's about time that it was recognised that tv/DVDs etc are used as 'background noise' by a lot of people while they do something else.
I, and a number of my friends, half watch, mostly listen to, things while painting, or playing games. It does tend to be things that we already know though, ie blackadder is a good one.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
