4 ms·

My experience is only anecdotal, of course, but I don't have a television (and I haven't for some seven or eight years). I don't watch cable or local TV, and I

by zyxley 13y ago

My experience is only anecdotal, of course, but I don't have a television (and I haven't for some seven or eight years). I don't watch cable or local TV, and I don't have furniture or equipment arranged for "ten-foot" watching, so I have no reason to purchase something that's inferior to the not-quite-4K monitors I already have. (If I want to watch or play something on the other side of the room, I pull out a laptop.) It would take a truly absurd deal (a) to tempt me through the hassle of going out and buying a TV and supporting equipment, and (b) to overcome my instinctual distaste at the thought of rearranging all my stuff to have furniture positioned for actually watching one. On the other hand, if a cable company were to offer an Aereo-alike with assorted live television available over the web, I would probably pay for it even if it cost more than a cable bundle because it would be fundamentally more useful to me than screwing around with specialized hardware.

stephengillie 13y ago
On one hand, there's a social aspect to viewing an event simultaneously, and moderately large HDTVs of that resolution will soon be affordable. HDTV is basically just what monitors get called when cable and antenna demodulators are built in, especially larger than 32". They use the same HDMI plugs as many monitors, which is DVI in another shape (plus some extras).
- bunderbunder 13y ago
  To many of us who don't own a TV, that doesn't ring true. We find sitting in a dim room to be an inherently a-social activity, therefore count the creation of a temptation to engage in activities that minimize interaction with each other among the disadvantages of having such an appliance in one's home. Which isn't to say that I have anything against video entertainment. But to me it's personal entertainment, the same as reading a book or playing playing Candy Crush on a phone. So I don't really draw a huge distinction between a room full of people staring at a 40" screen on the wall and a room full of people staring at 4" screens in their hands.
  - orbitur 13y ago
    Is that "room full of people staring at 4" screens" focused on the same event, such as a football game? Because, otherwise, the purpose of having all those people in the same is defeated. The point is a shared experience, not just having bodies in the room.
  - vitd 13y ago
    How do you feel about going to the symphony or other theatrical events? It's pretty much the same - several people in a dark room not talking. But many people enjoy sharing the experience together because they can look at each other and laugh, smile, or cry at the same moments, and then discuss it afterwards. It's very social both during and after the performance, and is very similar to watching TV together.
    - bunderbunder 13y ago
      Pretty similarly, actually. I enjoy those kinds of events, and am happy to share them with others, but I still consider them to be much more solitary activities than things like sharing conversations, meals, playing games together, etc. And so I place less value on them as ways of interacting with my loved ones. The upshot being, Comcast has a serious uphill battle in wanting to convince me to spend a whole lot of money and rearrange my house all for the sake of (to my tastes) reducing the level of satisfaction I get from my family & social life. Not that there's anything wrong with having different feelings from mine about the subject. But the feelings of people who already have and like their TVs are maybe not so pertinent to the question of how to win the business of those of us who don't currently have or want one.
sliverstorm 13y ago
Personally, I find the ten-foot viewing experience vastly superior to a computer monitor, and totally worth arranging my furniture a particular way. I can lounge as I watch, I don't have to hold my head a particular way, I can share the couch with someone else, and it also feels more natural to my eyes. That's not to say that I would never watch a movie on a computer monitor (I have, plenty of times) but I prefer ten-foot.
- wpietri 13y ago
  Yeah. I'm the same way. I hate having a whole room arranged as if for worshiping a video altar. My compromise is a projector on a white wall. Then my room isn't dominated by a giant TV. The A/V gear is all tucked away in a closet, and my speakers are small ones white ones that sit up close to the ceiling. I feed it from a media server. I like this better. When I'm in a hotel room, I feel like the TV almost demands watching. It's almost menacing to me these days compared with an unobtrusive setup.
  - sliverstorm 13y ago
    I understand your sentiment; what I have done is set up a separate media room. Of course this requires an extra room, but the TV cannot demand I watch it. I am only in that room, when I am meaning to watch some TV.
jfb 13y ago
My Panasonic plasma is in many ways a superior technology than my Thunderbolt displays, particularly when watching TV or movie content. Different use cases, different technologies.

by zyxley 13y ago

stephengillie 13y ago

On one hand, there's a social aspect to viewing an event simultaneously, and moderately large HDTVs of that resolution will soon be affordable. HDTV is basically just what monitors get called when cable and antenna demodulators are built in, especially larger than 32". They use the same HDMI plugs as many monitors, which is DVI in another shape (plus some extras).

bunderbunder 13y ago
To many of us who don't own a TV, that doesn't ring true. We find sitting in a dim room to be an inherently a-social activity, therefore count the creation of a temptation to engage in activities that minimize interaction with each other among the disadvantages of having such an appliance in one's home. Which isn't to say that I have anything against video entertainment. But to me it's personal entertainment, the same as reading a book or playing playing Candy Crush on a phone. So I don't really draw a huge distinction between a room full of people staring at a 40" screen on the wall and a room full of people staring at 4" screens in their hands.
- orbitur 13y ago
  Is that "room full of people staring at 4" screens" focused on the same event, such as a football game? Because, otherwise, the purpose of having all those people in the same is defeated. The point is a shared experience, not just having bodies in the room.
- vitd 13y ago
  How do you feel about going to the symphony or other theatrical events? It's pretty much the same - several people in a dark room not talking. But many people enjoy sharing the experience together because they can look at each other and laugh, smile, or cry at the same moments, and then discuss it afterwards. It's very social both during and after the performance, and is very similar to watching TV together.
  - bunderbunder 13y ago
    Pretty similarly, actually. I enjoy those kinds of events, and am happy to share them with others, but I still consider them to be much more solitary activities than things like sharing conversations, meals, playing games together, etc. And so I place less value on them as ways of interacting with my loved ones. The upshot being, Comcast has a serious uphill battle in wanting to convince me to spend a whole lot of money and rearrange my house all for the sake of (to my tastes) reducing the level of satisfaction I get from my family & social life. Not that there's anything wrong with having different feelings from mine about the subject. But the feelings of people who already have and like their TVs are maybe not so pertinent to the question of how to win the business of those of us who don't currently have or want one.

sliverstorm 13y ago

Personally, I find the ten-foot viewing experience vastly superior to a computer monitor, and totally worth arranging my furniture a particular way. I can lounge as I watch, I don't have to hold my head a particular way, I can share the couch with someone else, and it also feels more natural to my eyes. That's not to say that I would never watch a movie on a computer monitor (I have, plenty of times) but I prefer ten-foot.

wpietri 13y ago
Yeah. I'm the same way. I hate having a whole room arranged as if for worshiping a video altar. My compromise is a projector on a white wall. Then my room isn't dominated by a giant TV. The A/V gear is all tucked away in a closet, and my speakers are small ones white ones that sit up close to the ceiling. I feed it from a media server. I like this better. When I'm in a hotel room, I feel like the TV almost demands watching. It's almost menacing to me these days compared with an unobtrusive setup.
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  I understand your sentiment; what I have done is set up a separate media room. Of course this requires an extra room, but the TV cannot demand I watch it. I am only in that room, when I am meaning to watch some TV.

jfb 13y ago

My Panasonic plasma is in many ways a superior technology than my Thunderbolt displays, particularly when watching TV or movie content. Different use cases, different technologies.