Quote:
Originally Posted by Akrapovic
All of that is true, but that doesn't matter. At one point TVs were extremely popular, and there were areas that couldn't get reception. When Channel 5 rolled out in the UK, it didn't even include Scotland. You could get fuzz at best (and the Scottish football games became exclusive to channel 5 at the time too - and we couldn't see them up here). What you are describing is exactly how every technology in the history of the human race has ever rolled out - some have it good, some have it bad, and it keeps on going. You can apply this to TV, radio, motor vehicles, powered boats, airplanes (especially relevant example here!) - everything.
Let's also keep things in perspective. I picked 20 years as a random number, but it most certainly is enough to get an internet quality to stream HD media. HD only requires a stable 5 mbps. 20 years ago, speeds were approximately 56k. In 20 years that's a 90 fold improvement. The internet is progressing technology quicker than we've ever seen before. Everything is now connected to the internet - smart homes with fridges that have twitter access, to wifi stats from your vehicle, to syncing text messages (which are also moving to internet, away from SMS) to every device you own. I'm not saying we need (or want) a fridge that can tweet, but the fact is, that's how the world is going - that's the future. A fully integrated smart home. For some that's 50 years away, for others that's not even the future - that's now.
Also, there's no reason why you can't have both internet and TV. We still had horse and cart when we had early motor vehicles. Saying the internet is the future is not saying that TVs will all be turned off by 2020.
And the final nail in the coffin is every TV company has made serious plans for integrating or switching to online services. BBC, ITV and Channel 4 all offer it in the UK, as does Sky, Virgin, and then you have the countless tech companies - Netflix, Amazon, Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon, etc.
What you say isn't wrong - it's completely correct. But that won't stop progression. We may not like it, and may not suit everybody, but fringe problems with broadband speeds are not stopping the juggernaut that is internet streaming. What the TV accomplished in 100 years, YouTube has done in 12. That is staggering, and it will be the default way of getting things within most of our life times. Ignoring the internet is a death sentence - just ask Woolworths.
Fun stat - since your post at 16:41, and my post at 17:52, there have been 21,600 hours of content added to YouTube. 244,000,000 videos were watched. Most of those are probably cat videos, but I suppose it's better than reality TV.  |
I, possibly, didn't explain my position fully. I don't disagree with you about the direction of travel for viewing in the future, regardless of the fact that I am an old fart who doesn't like change. However, I do actually embrace, somewhat reluctantly it must be said, new technology. In fact, I digitalized my company back in 1982, way before any of my competitors and have used electronic goods ever since.
But my point remains that I do believe that modern media delivery mediums for motorsport are changing faster than it's audience are able to receive it. It's all very well moving F1 behind a paywall in just over twelve months in the UK, but I contend that those disenfranchised by that move will not be able to take advantage of any live online content, regardless of whether it is legally obtained, because they don't have the infrastructure to bring it to them on devices that are suitable. I don't believe that people would want to watch a 90 minute race on a mobile device.
I think that the teams ( I don't give a fig about Liberty or FOM) will end up regretting this short-termism in the pursuit of $$$ when they quickly lose their audience.
Oh, and by the way, that is not the only place where money is wasted on white elephants. Spain has three new major international airports, constructed in the last ten years, that have no planes going to them. One, outside Madrid opened for a couple of years before closing due to lack of passengers and airlines willing to use the airport.
The second is a third airport near to Barcelona that was closed for years after completion, but opened to much fanfare to welcome Ryanair who only flew in about half a dozen flights before pulling out. It's now just gathering dust.
The third one is at the southern end of the Costa Blanca, and cost about €300 million to build, money which came from both the EU and the regional government after the private developer went bust. It has no licence to operate as an airport because the Spanish Ministry of Defence will not permit civilian aircraft to use the flight paths into and out of the airport because there are three military flying bases in the vicinity, and the civilian flight paths go through the military airspace. And one of the bases is actually controlled by NATO, and is used primarily for training specialist troops in high and low level parachute drops. The last thing that a free diving parachutist wants to see is a 737 full of holiday makers approaching him when he is practicing his manoeuvres.