Points:
TV is approaching its “iPod moment” (Dr. Vint Cerf) - but: MP3-type players are too small to show TV properly
 - but: handheld screens are much closer to the eyes than TV
- but: a small screen is better than no screen
- but: iPods are not suitable for video
 - because: you can't walk or jog and watch a video at the same time
 - but: you can watch iPod video when you don't have to walk; e.g. on the bus
- because: TV is on the verge of a new revolution, facing a challenge similar to that faced by the music industry with the launch of MP3 players
 - because: the development and influence of the internet is radically altering the TV industry
 - because: internet allows TV programme to mix different information together
- because: as Vint Cerf suggested, "imagine if you could pause a TV programme and use your mouse to click on different items on the screen and find out more about them."
- but: pausing and clicking would annoy other people watching with you
- because: in Japan people can already download an hour's worth of video in 16 seconds
- but: people living in rural areas often cannot get broadband, and so cannot watch internet TV
- because: the popularity of websites such as YouTube has encouraged many in the TV industry to try and use the internet more profitably
- but: YouTube is only profitable because it advertises on other people's content
- but: it is impossible to prove that TV is on the verge of a new revolution until the revolution happens
- because: TV is going to be almost like the iPod, where anyone connected to the internet can download content to look at later
- but: increase in video on the web will eventually bring down the internet
- because: millions of people downloading at the same time using services such as iPlayer could overwhelm the network
- but: we are far from exhausting the capacity of the internet
- because: internet technology is developing rapidly and will keep on developing in a much faster pace
- because: experts had predicted 20 yrs ago that the net would collapse when people started using it en masse, but in the intervening 30 yrs it's increased a million over
- but: broadcast TV is irreplaceable
- because: we still need live television for may things, for examples, news, sporting events and emergencies
- but: live events can be broadcast on the internet
- because: there are increasing new services provided by TV companies employing internet technologies and features
- because: BBC has launched its iPlayer portal, allowing users to download their favourite shows free of charge and watch them back at any point throughout a 30-day period
- because: for example, digital video recorders such as Sky Plus and Freeview Playback allow viewers to instantly pause and record live television
- because: 85% of all video we watch is pre-recorded, so technically speaking it is feasible that we can simply set our system to download it all the time
- because: this new way of watching TV is more preferable than the traditional way offered by broadcast TV
- because: comparing to broadcast TV, internet TV allows more freedom for audiences
- because: with internet TV, audiences can download the programmes and watch them anytime later, while with broadcast TV, they are tied to the schedule of the TV companies
- but: video recorders have been available for a long time and have not changed broadcast TV
- but: limited effect: "The arrival of internet television has long been predicted, although it has succeeded in limited ways so far" (www.guardian.co.uk)
- but: the situation is now different, because youTube has shown how to do internet video
- but: some countries (e.g. the UK) already have interactive TV, but it is not popular
- but: irrelevant: iPods are not interactive, because they are not computers or game consoles
- because: Cerf only means that you can "download content to look at later" (www.guardian.co.uk)
- but: this is not a revolution, video recorders have been available for a long time that download content for later viewing
| 19 hits by logged in students since 30 Oct 2008
|