2 ms·

I already have. Most of what I want to watch is available on Hulu, Netflix, or CBS' (crappy, admittedly) website. For the one other show I watch, I subscribe on

I already have. Most of what I want to watch is available on Hulu, Netflix, or CBS' (crappy, admittedly) website. For the one other show I watch, I subscribe on Amazon. I haven't watched over-the-air or over-the-cable TV in almost two years now. Why subsidize the 95% of TV I don't watch with a cable subscription? I'd much rather directly fund the shows I'm truly interested in via Amazon's subscription (or Hulu's ads). The article notes that expected subscription-droppers are to double over the next year. If that stays steady at doubling, in eight years cable and broadcast will be dead. In all likelihood, however, that rate is only going to perform as an S-curve (there will always be holdouts to new technology - just look at the transition from analog to digital airwaves).

warfangle 17y ago
I want to update my last sentence. The rate of adoption (not the adoption percentage) is not going to perform as an S-curve. Once the adoption rate peaks, it will quickly drop to zero. In other words: Adoption rate is likely going to increase, either linearly or exponentially (we humans are terrible at seeing exponential rate change at the beginning) until the actual adoption percentage approaches its asymptote. This asymptote represents the technologically and financially marginalized portion of society. Adoption rate will likely be extremely slow on that end. Adoption rate increase will likely look like an S-curve with a very sharp drop-off at the point where the actual percentage of persons adopting TVoIP technology approaches 85-90% of the population - unless an extremely inexpensive TVoIP solution (Google-funded?) is adopted.