4 ms·

I wonder why they left out the elephant in the room: web video not from netflix, amazon or Hulu. There are thousands of YouTube, Facebook, Twitch and other type

I wonder why they left out the elephant in the room: web video not from netflix, amazon or Hulu. There are thousands of YouTube, Facebook, Twitch and other types of channels replacing regular tv shows. What most don't realize is that TV is dead. It was replaced, not by netflix, but by YouTube and the rest of the online video portals. Even Snapchat aims to take away from the video content cake with its stories. Let me say it again: TV is dead. Entertainment has changed. People want a 2 way relationship with entertainers. They want to like, snap and follow. As technology makers we should take action and build escuche for that. Hell, musica.ly showed that there is a segment of the population who will pay attention to their peers in short self made music videos (this is the new mtv, btw).

tyfon 10y ago
I have not had a cable type connection with regular tv channels since 2012 or such. Why accept a forced programming on you at specific times when you can chose what you want to watch whenever you want. Even my 70+ father is making youtube videos about everything photos and watching/commenting similar channels of his own.
mtberatwork 10y ago
> People want a 2 way relationship with entertainers. They want to like, snap and follow. As technology makers we should take action and build escuche for that. I don't think your average viewer really cares that much about social media interaction when it comes down to it. No one is not going to watch Stranger Things on Netflix because they couldn't snapchat with the show's creators. People just want to easily access content on their own time (on-demand, on their devices) and without a lot of intrusive interruptions (ads). Netflix, Youtube, etc are successful because they achieve both of these, not because they are creating "2-way relationships with entertainers".
- pryelluw 10y ago
  My post about is content created on the web in the form of text (which could easily be video if HN allowed embedded video responses). You replied to it. Two way relationship created. :) Note: I'm not being snarky, sarcastic or rude. Just proving a point in a friendly way. :)
mark_l_watson 10y ago
I agree with you that YouTube provides connectivity with performers/producers. I also think being able to watch network TV without commercials and on demand (Hulu Prime) is great, I am actually starting to watch a few network shows again. The thing is, there is so much great material that one could waste too much time. I have written about 20 books and when people ask how I can write so much, for 30 years my joke has been that I write because of the low quality of TV, so what else to do in the evening? I am glad that YouTube and tons of great stuff were not available 25 years ago because I probably wouldn't have spent so much time writing. Now that I am in my 60s, I am glad for the entertainment.
VLM 10y ago
"People want a" In summary, aspiration scales very well. In more detail: You're very close to correct. People want to pretend or aspire that they could get into a twitter conversation with their favorite actor or whoever. Less than 1 in a hundred thousand viewers do, of course. Its similar to my grandparents generation sending physical postal fan mail to pretend they could have, I donno, one of the Beetles maybe, as a penpal, but nobody actually had a relationship like that. They just want to feel cozy that they could, if they want. Fanmail in 1960s IS twitter in 2010s. In that way I'm not seeing any problem with simulating that on enormously larger scale legacy TV. TV has cratered such that popular show in my parents generation meant 1 in 3 americans watched an episode of MASH, now legendary ratings mean roughly 1 in 30 Americans watch Survivor and all of them can feel cozy that they could have a personal relationship, well, as personal as twitter gets anyway, with Jeff Probst if they wanted, although statistically rounding down to zero none of them want to actually tweet him. Yes its easier in theory to talk to a guy with 1e3 viewers than a guy with 1e7 viewers, but since people are cozy because of the feeling they could if they wanted to, they never actually do it on a statistical basis. Maybe rephrased its infinitely more important that Lady Gaga respond to "a" fan's tweet, so all her fans can feel they're that one lucky fan, than to have Lady Gaga respond to a fixed fraction of her total fanbase. How about phrasing it like "The now mandatory use of social media for a famous person scales to a very small fixed constant number regardless of the number of fans".
- pryelluw 10y ago
  Social media gives normal non-famous people like me to have their own little "TV channels" and share / produce content for their network of followers. That's where the power and money is. Advertisers are taking notice of these smaller channels and paying good money to be featured because it allows them to target niches with laser precision. Btw, follow me on twitter and snapchat @pryelluw. :)
golergka 10y ago
Great point. Personally, I find myself enjoying 10-minute youtube videos from Lindybiege and Nerdwriter much more than traditional 2-hour documentaries, for once. It's just better content, regardless of the delivery method. But it could never been created in the age of TV networks; they didn't have any incentive to save viewers time and put out interesting stuff in small chunks.
bbatha 10y ago
You can see the influence of YouTube most on channels that used to show cheap, often educational content. There's a reason discovery, food network, and the history channel are dominated by reality T.V. these days. Why watch watch my favorite chef for half an hour each week when I can just look up the exact recipe on YouTube? Why wade through all the WWII documentaries on the history channel when I can watch good content about any period of history whenever I want on YouTube?
- pault 10y ago
  I think it's because reality TV is dirt cheap to produce compared to quality documentaries, not because of anything youtube has done.
  - pryelluw 10y ago
    It is cheap and allows for anyone to do it.

tyfon 10y ago

I have not had a cable type connection with regular tv channels since 2012 or such. Why accept a forced programming on you at specific times when you can chose what you want to watch whenever you want. Even my 70+ father is making youtube videos about everything photos and watching/commenting similar channels of his own.

mtberatwork 10y ago

> People want a 2 way relationship with entertainers. They want to like, snap and follow. As technology makers we should take action and build escuche for that. I don't think your average viewer really cares that much about social media interaction when it comes down to it. No one is not going to watch Stranger Things on Netflix because they couldn't snapchat with the show's creators. People just want to easily access content on their own time (on-demand, on their devices) and without a lot of intrusive interruptions (ads). Netflix, Youtube, etc are successful because they achieve both of these, not because they are creating "2-way relationships with entertainers".

pryelluw 10y ago
My post about is content created on the web in the form of text (which could easily be video if HN allowed embedded video responses). You replied to it. Two way relationship created. :) Note: I'm not being snarky, sarcastic or rude. Just proving a point in a friendly way. :)

mark_l_watson 10y ago

I agree with you that YouTube provides connectivity with performers/producers. I also think being able to watch network TV without commercials and on demand (Hulu Prime) is great, I am actually starting to watch a few network shows again. The thing is, there is so much great material that one could waste too much time. I have written about 20 books and when people ask how I can write so much, for 30 years my joke has been that I write because of the low quality of TV, so what else to do in the evening? I am glad that YouTube and tons of great stuff were not available 25 years ago because I probably wouldn't have spent so much time writing. Now that I am in my 60s, I am glad for the entertainment.

VLM 10y ago

"People want a" In summary, aspiration scales very well. In more detail: You're very close to correct. People want to pretend or aspire that they could get into a twitter conversation with their favorite actor or whoever. Less than 1 in a hundred thousand viewers do, of course. Its similar to my grandparents generation sending physical postal fan mail to pretend they could have, I donno, one of the Beetles maybe, as a penpal, but nobody actually had a relationship like that. They just want to feel cozy that they could, if they want. Fanmail in 1960s IS twitter in 2010s. In that way I'm not seeing any problem with simulating that on enormously larger scale legacy TV. TV has cratered such that popular show in my parents generation meant 1 in 3 americans watched an episode of MASH, now legendary ratings mean roughly 1 in 30 Americans watch Survivor and all of them can feel cozy that they could have a personal relationship, well, as personal as twitter gets anyway, with Jeff Probst if they wanted, although statistically rounding down to zero none of them want to actually tweet him. Yes its easier in theory to talk to a guy with 1e3 viewers than a guy with 1e7 viewers, but since people are cozy because of the feeling they could if they wanted to, they never actually do it on a statistical basis. Maybe rephrased its infinitely more important that Lady Gaga respond to "a" fan's tweet, so all her fans can feel they're that one lucky fan, than to have Lady Gaga respond to a fixed fraction of her total fanbase. How about phrasing it like "The now mandatory use of social media for a famous person scales to a very small fixed constant number regardless of the number of fans".

pryelluw 10y ago
Social media gives normal non-famous people like me to have their own little "TV channels" and share / produce content for their network of followers. That's where the power and money is. Advertisers are taking notice of these smaller channels and paying good money to be featured because it allows them to target niches with laser precision. Btw, follow me on twitter and snapchat @pryelluw. :)

golergka 10y ago

Great point. Personally, I find myself enjoying 10-minute youtube videos from Lindybiege and Nerdwriter much more than traditional 2-hour documentaries, for once. It's just better content, regardless of the delivery method. But it could never been created in the age of TV networks; they didn't have any incentive to save viewers time and put out interesting stuff in small chunks.

bbatha 10y ago

You can see the influence of YouTube most on channels that used to show cheap, often educational content. There's a reason discovery, food network, and the history channel are dominated by reality T.V. these days. Why watch watch my favorite chef for half an hour each week when I can just look up the exact recipe on YouTube? Why wade through all the WWII documentaries on the history channel when I can watch good content about any period of history whenever I want on YouTube?

pault 10y ago
I think it's because reality TV is dirt cheap to produce compared to quality documentaries, not because of anything youtube has done.
- pryelluw 10y ago
  It is cheap and allows for anyone to do it.