Cory Pforzheimer with Yahoo demonstrates TV Widgets at CES in Las Vegas. (Jae C. Hong/AP)
Internet and TV: a marriage that never works
Column: Intel and Yahoo are the latest to try to merge the two media. Why past efforts have failed.
By Tom Regan | Columnist for The Christian Science Monitor/ January 13, 2009 edition
Every year, tech geeks look forward to the International Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Las Vegas the way many children anticipate Christmas morning.
But reports from this year’s show, which ended Sunday, indicated there was little under the tree to get excited about. As one report I heard said, no one is talking about 150-inch plasma TVs. The focus was much more on what people can realistically afford in today’s bad economy.
One idea that generated a lot of buzz was Web-enabled TV. Last August, Intel and Yahoo announced “The Widget Channel.” The feature will let you use “widgets” to access Internet services, such as stock quotes and news feeds, on your home television.
To do this, however, you must own an Internet-enabled TV. So at CES, Yahoo announced that it would work with TV manufacturers, such as Toshiba and Samsung, to build sets that can access the Widget Channel. The idea was also pushed by one of the Widget Channel’s partners, MySpace, which wants to move aggressively into the TV “space.”
Well, I’m sorry, but I’ll believe it when I see it. The idea of watching the Internet on TV is like cold fusion. People will tell you that it’s a great idea and will revolutionize society as we know it. But no one has been able to do it, regardless of how many times they’ve tried.
Industry experts keep saying that in the battle for the interactive future, the TV will come out on top. Yet desktop computers, laptops, and mobile devices seem to be consistently winning the battle for eyeballs.
This idea of putting the Internet on TV has been around for a while. I went back into the Monitor archives and found several articles about how the marriage of the TV and the Internet was inevitable.
For example, Monitor writer Laurent Belsie wrote in 1996 that “in the next few years, someone is going to marry the action of television with the data of the Internet in such a compelling way that consumers will flock to see it. A new medium will be born.”
The first idea was WebTV, a box that cost about $300, with a monthly subscription fee of $20. It was not intertwined with TV programming. It basically was a way to access the Web. In 1997, Microsoft bought it for about $450 million, and it went nowhere. Ultimately, its biggest market was seniors, who found it easier to read than a computer screen.
Attitude toward the Internet on the tube tempered a bit after that, but we were still hearing about “the revolution” in 2000. In another Monitor article, Harry Brunius wrote: “so far, attempts by the high-tech industry to make TV even more the center of American life – with games, online shopping, and e-mail – have been met with all the avid interest generally shown to cooking infomercials.
“That may be about to change. Later this month, America Online will launch AOLTV, its version of interactive television. With its online community of 22.5 million members and its pending merger with TimeWarner, AOL could become one of the first to bring the new era of digital television to a broad audience.”
Anyone out there who remembers AOLTV raise your hand … anyone? That’s what I thought.
So now we have The Widget Channel. The names change, but the tune remains the same. I don’t mean to rain on Yahoo and Intel’s parade, but here is why I don’t think it will work:
•The experience of watching TV as opposed to using a laptop computer or mobile device is different. I watch TV when I want to “veg out.” It’s a passive activity, while using a computer or cellphone is more interactive. And watching TV with a keyboard in your hand just won’t fly, in my opinion. I mean, we argue now about who gets to use the remote control. Imagine if that argument expands to an interactive TV keyboard.
•TV is a “one to many” medium. When a show is on the tube, the entire family can sit and watch. But when I’m online, whether checking e-mail or reading the news, I want to do it on my own.
But some aspects of the Internet-TV marriage can work. For example, downloading movies from Netflix to your TV is brilliant, because movies are a shared viewing experience. In this case, we’re using the Internet not as an interactive medium, but as a quicker delivery mechanism than the US mail.
I can also see a widget working when you want to vote someone off “Survivor” or for your favorite singer on “American Idol.” (Then again, who at home gets to decide how to vote if one of you likes David Archuleta and the other likes David Cook?)
But don’t be surprised if, in four or five years, we’re hearing about yet another breakthrough in the struggle to get us to move from the computer to the TV. And then we can also look for news on the latest breakthrough in cold fusion.
( More stories )
Comments
2. Annelies | 01.14.09
I think your assessment of function and audience is spot-on: TV is passive, and one-to-many. However, I suspect it will come down to what you want to do, with some kinds of interaction being easier on a big screen (like Wii). I personally no longer watch the television set, although I do watch TV shows. I watch them online, either on the network’s site, or on hulu.com. I do “computer” stuff at the desk, but turn the monitor around so I can sit on the couch to watch TV.
3. Ben | 01.15.09
I suspect that part of the problem some of these efforts didn’t work is not so much the TV’s weren’t ready, but that the Internet wasn’t ready. The Internet was made to be accessed by someone using a computer in front of a monitor with a keyboard and mouse (just like this website). Everything revolves around that. What would this brave new merger offer and how would it offer it that’s compelling enough that people would use it as much if not more than say the old way? Right now the technology is still immature to control our home environment* as well as what’s beyond it’s borders (The Internet).
*From appliances to that Media server you bought.
4. Harlan Leyside | 01.15.09
For me, it went the other way.
I gave up TV to go on-line “fulltime”.
TV is a drug, the most lethal, most seductive drug we’ve ever concocted.
Now, with vdieo streaming via broadabnd, the internet has offered us a pretty painless cure to this deadly addiction.
Try it, go on, just try to live without TV for a few days and you will begin to feel so much better.
As you say, the key difference is active vs passive.
Veg out or veg in.
I actually gave up TV nearly a year before I began to access streamed TV programmes via my laptop, but I was a serious addict in need of radical rescue (go to sleep to TV, dream TV, wake up to TV, only turn it off when I went out, come home, turn it on.. ); I had to go through a period of total withdrawal before i could tentatively dip my toe back in, so to speak.
I rediscovered music. Art. Radio. Got into blogging, reading, doing far more stuff.
Who really needs to veg out?
Better off sleeping.
I sleep a lot better.
5. Patrick W. MacKay | 01.15.09
The article is interesting but overlooks the widespread and longstanding use of the C-span network in the U. S. and around the world. And of course, BBC and other media around the world that are bringing TV into millions of homes that otherwise would not have such available. The writer is too centered on his own views and habits. Needs to take a larger focus worldwide.
6. Ric | 01.17.09
http://www.tvacaboparatodos.net
Tv via internet
Em menus de 1 minuto você estará assistindo Tv A Cabo de graça em seu pc
Saiba como ter banda larga e telefone de graça
Aprenda como desbloquear Sky, Net, Tva, Tecsat, Vision, Jerrold, Tocom
Aprenda como não pagar multas de transito
Limpe seu nome no spc e serasa sem pagar a sua divida
Aqui você encontra de tudo do cocô a bomba atômica
7. t.v. /computers | 01.20.09
um..look on the back of 90% of telivisions manufactured today….you see that little round part marked “S-Vidio”?Now,(real smart of folks not to notice this)look on the back of almost any DESKTOP model computer…oh my goawd..it’s like so got one of those thingies too….fer sure..like wow.Folks..wake up and try and focas…it’s not that hard to close facebook and look around you.and for those of you whom realy MUST have the laptop…shaddup.you can watch any t.v. show you want,any movies,and still look at yourself in facebook…all in one convinant place.DUH.And you also have an S-Vidio capable model laptop on the market.The writer of this artical was going to school in the early 70’s not to have noticed all this before putting the quill in the ink(early type of writeing tool,for those in the preasent day mindset)and dribbleing (not basketball)out that mess.to the author of that stupendeos bit of pulitzer prize stain on a page…put away the bong and look around you.(note from the author of this comment,Please exsuse my spelling..i’m dislexic and can’t spell.)In summation:S-VIDIO PORT WILL PUT T.V. AND COMPUTER TOGEATHER.
8. Andy | 01.20.09
Both you and Yahoo are missing it. I don’t need a new channel on TV, I need the same data on any screen I choose. Early adopters are already watching their YouTube on the computer, on the iphone, and when they are in the living room, on the TV hooked up to their mac mini. The stereo is already hooked up to the computer, the TV is next. iChat with my parents back in the US, so they can see their granddaughter. I download movies on the computer, of course I have computer hooked up to the TV so I can “passively” watch in the living room. The fatter the tubes the less it matters which boob tube (TV, Smart Phone, Computer Monitor) I watch on. Just ask the makers of sling box.
9. Pat | 01.21.09
I LOVED watching the Obama acceptance speech on http://cnn.com/live
In addition to the regular TV coverage, there were at least 5 other views I could click on…. so could watch the action in the Atlanta Church where the King group was gathered, go back and forth to McCain Headquarters, Grant Park, and other revolving feeds around the world.
Totally cool, with it, and NO COMMERCIAL breaks :))))
10. Shawn Collins | 01.27.09
I strongly agree with Mr. Regan’s point that one of the biggest hurdles between total convergence of tv and the internet is the opposing concepts of the newer “lean forward interaction” with the web and the more historical passive “veg out” activity of watching tv (example: I keep getting distracted by IM and email as I type this). I think companies would have been more successful in the beginning if they focused on merging the similar activities like watching videos and movies instead of trying to sell us on the belief that we wanted everything internet from our couch. Now companies are conscious of that and more focused on specific tasks that transfer well. We can stream netflix movies directly to our DVD players and TVs, watch HD podcasts and Youtube videos from the comfort of our couch and stream music from sources like Pandora and Last FM. Now I think as we get more comfortable with the convergence of the more passive activities we’ll soon find ourselves more open to the complex experiences and interactions that the internet can offer.
As far as who will win the battle between the computer and the tv? It will be fascinating to see. As far as I’m concerned, I enjoy a combination of the two. I like to watch streaming high quality independently produced content on my tv (that only the internet could deliver) and I also like to catch up on any broadcast shows I’ve missed through Hulu, Boxee or Netflix. Its compelling that as the battle wages on… the more power we will all have to watch, experience and interact with content in our own unique context.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. Media Researcher | 01.14.09
Quite an amusing article, but it should be realized that technology has always been introduced within society during testing phases where the public either totally accepted it, used it slightly or denied its introduction for a number of reasons. In the past, yes online media was being made available through a home television set, but it was during a time where most people had little interest in home computer use and what it could offer. Now, we have at least two to three computers in a home, car, mobile and more and society wants to be able to access more and more information and entertainment anywhere and anytime. So what will this mean? Media accessing will change and society will adapt to these changes because now they understand and have the gadgets to obtain whatever and whenever they want too. There will be a myriad of gadgets coming out to say they are better and more affordable in receiving digital media on devices, but it will be up too the consumer to select what is right for them. Eventually, this all will become second nature and part of everyday life and then the next new technological developments will enter the market and society will again adapt to those changes. Don’t be afraid to grow world.