I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say being able to pipe The Imperial March from your pocket as you walk about through the day will let people know not to mess with you pretty effectively. Alternatively, you could use it for a nice Saturday Night Fever montage when needed...the possibilities for a soundtrack for your life are limitless! (as limitless as can be with .5W)
@Kaspir: Haha wait, are you suggesting that having a mobile reference to how huge a star wars fan you are would somehow dissuade people from messing with you? Are you one of those people who claims to be a "Jedi" on government census forms, and actually thinks you could defend yourself with lightsaber training?
I furthermore predict that the next big thing will be "portable smells". We already carry electronic devices around that stimulate us aurally and visually. Portable olfactory stimulus is the next logical step. I look forward to the first "SmellPod" with smelling tubes that I will be able to jam into my nostrils.
Eventually, we will have smell devices without personal tubes, so I can spread my favorite smells to everyone around me in public. I'm telling you - this is the next multi-billion dollar industry.
And in the even more distant future, we might have "TastePods" - devices that we can put into our mouths to obtain a variety of tastes. Since by then, we would already have personal portable speakers and SmellPods without tubes, the taste-based parallel would be a device with an attachment that I would be allowed to shove into other peoples' mouths. This way, I will be able to let people know what my favorite tastes are, in addition to my favorite music and my favorite smells. Individuality is such a great thing.
i always love how tech blogs and enthusiasts always think its just so simple, that all it requires is the right interface and bam! all the other problems that are currently insurmountable just go away. My favorite example of this is the future of TV and the Death of BluRay. I love giz and all the writers on the site - but no disrespect intended - just because a 20/30 something gadget geek is all about hulu desktop, doesn't mean Americans like my mom and aunts are going to just stop watching tv the way they always have.
It's not the future of TV - because there is no one future. The future is a profileration of devices and services that let you get your content in any way you want - including traditional cable and satellite. The reason is it not THE FUTURE, is that there's still no good way to get that content off your computer and onto your 56 inch LCD hi def screen. And even if there were, there's no way to currently get the same quality of HD content that i can currently get from Directv or free over the air. And even if there were, no ISP in its right mind (aside from Fios...which is not widespread enough and never will be) will let their customers base (on the order of millions of people at a time) suck down that much data.
On top of that - there was just a report that came out that said - Hulu's ad revenue isn't enough to even produce one of the shows that it 'broadcasts'. Hell, ABCs ad revenue alone isn't enough to fund its entire lineup. That's why they have 16 other revenue streams that supplement their main source - ads. Which brings us to Hulu charging me for service and showing me more commercials. Making it just like what i have right now. Why switch if its the same?
@htifun: You really lack imagination here. Funding for a show does not HAVE to come from advertising.
Perhaps if it didn't we would start getting more shows that are actually of decent quality and not canceled on a whim. If someone funds a show with their own money, they are going to have a lot more invested in making it decent than if its just the network's money being recycled through the same schlock over and over.
Furthermore, many ISPs are perfectly capable of providing that kind of bandwidth, they just refused to build the infrastructure they promised to build with OUR tax dollars. So they still have all that money, and they are damn well going to build infrastructure if we keep falling so far behind other countries.
Do you seriously think that the state of TV is going to remain this way forever? Especially after the proliferation of so many screens and devices capable of accessing that kind of media? That seems rather short-sighted.
@The5thElephant: Network TV shows (the vast majority of them, good or bad, special effects or not) cost millions of dollars per episode to produce. I don't think someone's going to spend that type of money to produce their own content without some guarantee of a return on investment. Which, in the case of "internet TV", is not only not there, but isn't going to be there anytime soon.
Back when I was a kid we didn't have none of this fancy-schmancy Hulowatchamacalit stuff - we had people, who talked to each other, and told bad stories from old men who had too much saliva in their mouth, and we called it our evening bath - and we liked it.
@Hello Mister Walrus: Sadly, the people who provide us with television, are also the same people who offer us internet. Do you think ComWarnIsion is going to sacrifice one half of their revenue to satisfy the other half?
They are already taking steps to prevent that from happening with bandwidth caps. We have come to a point and time where people who burn through their cap limits aren't pirates or criminals, but everyday folks who prefer a legal alternative choice to watching television programming. Telecoms need to realize this, or possibly suffer collapsing upon the entry of business model that provides only internet, like Clear.
@I love my AfricanAmericanBerry: You are correct for now. However, what do you think the industry will be like in 50 years? The TV -> internet switch is inevitable (much like Skynet in Terminator 3). Cable companies cannot keep fighting it, but will control the switch so that it is stretched over time. Already, there are many people, like myself, who do not own TVs despite the internet being an imperfect substitute. As these people become more numerous, the old TV business model will start to decline.
you assume that they will become more numerous. I don't know that i believe that - americans in particualr like big tvs. people owning a single tv are a slim minority in this country. those not owning one at all are even smaller.
You are never going to convince people raised on 50 inch tvs and SUVs that a 17inch laptop screen is an equal substitute, particularly where more than one person wants to watch programming... You really envision a future where are family of 4 gathers around the macbook pro to watch american idol? That's folly, i say.
@Hello Mister Walrus: and you can keep fighting it because you have no other choice 90% of the time on your isp provider. and on top of that - you are talking about the decline of an industry that does 100s of billions a year in revenue... they have lobbyists and politicians in their corner. even if there are 1,000,000 people like you saying the same thing - saying "they can't fight it" really isn't a reason at all. It's false hope.
@htifun: But internet TV will eventually move to regular big TVs. There are already NetFlix boxes for TVs - so basically the internet is already there. The TV is just a big monitor. The method through which the image gets to the screen is completely unrelated to screen size.
I'm not saying that this change will happen overnight. TV will be around for many decades. It might take 30 years, 50 years, or maybe until after we are dead, but eventually the transition to internet will happen. Think about how different the world is compared to 1950. There's no reason that change of similar or larger magnitude will not happen in the next 50 years.
I bet people in 1970 did not imagine a world with a computer on every desk. Guess what? It happened. The TV to internet switch is much less dramatic - the only thing that will change is the kind of signal that comes from your cable, and that you would get a small box that connects the TV to the internet.
And as influential as telecommunications companies are, they are not immune to macroeconomic shifts. In the 1980s, Chrysler was much, much more powerful than Comcast is now. However, this year, people were genuinely worried that the US auto industry would not exist in 2010. Nothing you have said convinces me that US telecommunications companies will continue to exist in their current form over the long term.
@htifun: And I never said that I was "fighting" TV. I don't have a TV because I don't think it's worth it. It's called consumer choice. People who don't have TVs are not hoping for anything. They just don't think it's worth it.
I don't see this totally eliminating TV just yet... you're forgetting one of the most common traits we all share-- Impatience. Unless it streams shows immediately on their airdate/airtime, there will always be a place for the boob(ies) tube.
@Who wants chowdah??: I now have to disagree w/you. Almost everything in Glee was believable/plausible. Well, except for the guy getting shot point blank w/paintball markers.
Equity stake is about the only way they were getting Disney under the Hulu umbrella. Without financial interest in the company, there was absolutely no reason for them to give in.
So does this signal the beginning of the end for one of the only streaming HDTV video outlets on the web? Talking ABC.com, which has better and higher resolution video technology than Hulu. Hopefully not, because unlike Hulu's short viewing windows, you can roll back to the beginning of a show's season on ABC.com.
07/27/09
07/27/09
07/27/09
07/27/09
Eventually, we will have smell devices without personal tubes, so I can spread my favorite smells to everyone around me in public. I'm telling you - this is the next multi-billion dollar industry.
And in the even more distant future, we might have "TastePods" - devices that we can put into our mouths to obtain a variety of tastes. Since by then, we would already have personal portable speakers and SmellPods without tubes, the taste-based parallel would be a device with an attachment that I would be allowed to shove into other peoples' mouths. This way, I will be able to let people know what my favorite tastes are, in addition to my favorite music and my favorite smells. Individuality is such a great thing.
07/27/09
07/27/09
05/28/09
05/28/09
05/28/09
05/28/09
It's not the future of TV - because there is no one future. The future is a profileration of devices and services that let you get your content in any way you want - including traditional cable and satellite. The reason is it not THE FUTURE, is that there's still no good way to get that content off your computer and onto your 56 inch LCD hi def screen. And even if there were, there's no way to currently get the same quality of HD content that i can currently get from Directv or free over the air. And even if there were, no ISP in its right mind (aside from Fios...which is not widespread enough and never will be) will let their customers base (on the order of millions of people at a time) suck down that much data.
05/28/09
On top of that - there was just a report that came out that said - Hulu's ad revenue isn't enough to even produce one of the shows that it 'broadcasts'. Hell, ABCs ad revenue alone isn't enough to fund its entire lineup. That's why they have 16 other revenue streams that supplement their main source - ads. Which brings us to Hulu charging me for service and showing me more commercials. Making it just like what i have right now. Why switch if its the same?
05/28/09
Perhaps if it didn't we would start getting more shows that are actually of decent quality and not canceled on a whim. If someone funds a show with their own money, they are going to have a lot more invested in making it decent than if its just the network's money being recycled through the same schlock over and over.
Furthermore, many ISPs are perfectly capable of providing that kind of bandwidth, they just refused to build the infrastructure they promised to build with OUR tax dollars. So they still have all that money, and they are damn well going to build infrastructure if we keep falling so far behind other countries.
Do you seriously think that the state of TV is going to remain this way forever? Especially after the proliferation of so many screens and devices capable of accessing that kind of media? That seems rather short-sighted.
05/28/09
05/28/09
I got nothin'. Looks beautiful.
05/28/09
05/28/09
05/28/09
They are already taking steps to prevent that from happening with bandwidth caps. We have come to a point and time where people who burn through their cap limits aren't pirates or criminals, but everyday folks who prefer a legal alternative choice to watching television programming. Telecoms need to realize this, or possibly suffer collapsing upon the entry of business model that provides only internet, like Clear.
05/28/09
05/28/09
you assume that they will become more numerous. I don't know that i believe that - americans in particualr like big tvs. people owning a single tv are a slim minority in this country. those not owning one at all are even smaller.
You are never going to convince people raised on 50 inch tvs and SUVs that a 17inch laptop screen is an equal substitute, particularly where more than one person wants to watch programming... You really envision a future where are family of 4 gathers around the macbook pro to watch american idol? That's folly, i say.
05/28/09
05/28/09
I'm not saying that this change will happen overnight. TV will be around for many decades. It might take 30 years, 50 years, or maybe until after we are dead, but eventually the transition to internet will happen. Think about how different the world is compared to 1950. There's no reason that change of similar or larger magnitude will not happen in the next 50 years.
I bet people in 1970 did not imagine a world with a computer on every desk. Guess what? It happened. The TV to internet switch is much less dramatic - the only thing that will change is the kind of signal that comes from your cable, and that you would get a small box that connects the TV to the internet.
And as influential as telecommunications companies are, they are not immune to macroeconomic shifts. In the 1980s, Chrysler was much, much more powerful than Comcast is now. However, this year, people were genuinely worried that the US auto industry would not exist in 2010. Nothing you have said convinces me that US telecommunications companies will continue to exist in their current form over the long term.
05/28/09
05/28/09
05/28/09
05/28/09
05/28/09
05/28/09
It was just okay.
05/29/09
05/28/09
8D
04/30/09
04/30/09
04/30/09
So does this signal the beginning of the end for one of the only streaming HDTV video outlets on the web? Talking ABC.com, which has better and higher resolution video technology than Hulu. Hopefully not, because unlike Hulu's short viewing windows, you can roll back to the beginning of a show's season on ABC.com.
04/30/09
Most of the shiz on Hulu can be found else where, especially network content on network websites.
The window for Hulu, I assume, is so companies like NBC can sell seasons and episodes on iTunes.