Gizmodo 
Enter your username and password.
Tip your editors:
tips@gizmodo.com
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | Email | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
Email | AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
Email | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
Email | AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
Email | AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
Email | Twitter
Sean Fallon
Email | Twitter
Jack Loftus
Email | Twitter
John Herrman
Email | Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Email
Chris Mascari
Email
Danny Allen
Email | Twitter
Rosa Golijan
Email | Twitter
Chris Jacob
Email
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Email
Kyle VanHemert
Email
Comment Intern:
Nick Ellenoff | Email
Comment Account Questions:
Comments@gizmodo.com
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
10/19/09
10/19/09
10/19/09
10/19/09
10/19/09
10/19/09
10/19/09
10/19/09
10/19/09
10/19/09
So cut the crap. Comcast buying NBC doesn't kill Hulu, and you sound like a loon for even suggesting it. And even if they put some sort of subscription service in, I can almost guarentee that will be back catalog stuff, like Heroes Season 2. #nbc
10/19/09
10/19/09
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