Why I Changed My TV

For years and years I have loved television.  I mean adored it in a way that is probably not healthy. In 1995 and 1996 I can safely say that I watched at least one episode of each and every network show. When I started working I realized that instead of majoring in history and political science, I probably should have gone to school for communications and media studies. I should be the guy they ask about television shows in interviews on television. 

Media_httpwwwtvhistor_bgooe
I think my parents owned this exact 1974 Zenith Console TV

That being said, I recently said good bye to Directv. I did not add cable. I found that overall television has descended into a black hole absent of creativity. For every 30 Rock there are plenty of shows I will never, ever watch. Too much of cable has become a wasteland of reality shows: dangerous jobs, people hoarding piles and piles of junk, vapid idiots trying to be the dumbest person to every walk the face of the Earth. Outside of HBO and a handful of shows on other networks (30 Rock, It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, How I Met Your Mother) there is absolutely nothing to watch on pay television.  Nothing.

So after some investigation, I discovered I could stream two of the three sports I love (NHL and MLB), use an over-the-air antenna to get HD network programming, and stream the rest via Netflix and Hulu (though the verdict is still out on Hulu as it doesn't seem to have much content). As a result, our cable bill that was once around $105 per month is now replaced by $24 in streaming and DVD services. That's about $1,000 a year in savings.  The best part? I don't miss a thing (except Larry David which I'll get on DVD as soon as it comes out).

Actually, I've been watching shows and movies I always meant to try or watch again like Sports Night or Starblazers or Louie (from FX). Instead of wading through crap, I'm doing the programming and finding good stuff. Plus, by going OTA I get three PBS stations. So I now get more nature and history shows than on satellite.

You can do it too.  There is absolutely no reason to keep paying for cable. They gave up trying to really entertain you. They don't produce anything worth watching. If you're happy to pay $100+ a month so you don't miss an episode of Alaskan State Troopers or Frightening Old Ladies who Hoard Piles of Shit and Cats then by all means feel free. But, if like me, you miss the glory days of television and would rather not participate in the corporate sham that exists today, then join me. You won't miss a thing.

Netflix's Problem

 

A lot of people are getting mad at Netflix. First they raise their prices, then they go and announce plans to split into two companies. Oh the Humanity! How could they treat us so? The comments against Netflix are staggering. In my opinion, too many people are focused on the price aspect (they doubled the price and now I have to go to TWO websites?). The point is, they're not trying to be greedy, Netflix is looking too far into the future. Yes, I said that Netflix is looking too far into the future.

Netflix is made up of tech geeks and early adopters who, I'm sure, are all streaming television. They may have even done what my household has recently done, cut all pay TV sources and go streaming only. When I tell most people that we have no cable and no satellite and we get all content via streaming or an OTA (over-the-air) antenna they don't get it. I'm asked questions like, "so can you get TBS with that antenna," or "how do you get ESPN?" I don't. I get network TV for free (yes they still broadcast it) and stream everything else. I can only assume that many of those making decisions at Netflix have done the same thing. They are likely streaming using Netflix to provide the majority of their entertainment content. If they're like my family, they're also relying less and less on the DVD service.

So what does this have to do with the split and all the changes? I think Netflix is imagining a world in the near future where everyone gets more content like this and sees no reason to ever get another DVD in the mail again. Face it, eventually, all of the content on DVDs is going to be sold digitally like music. Netflix is anticipating that by splitting into two companies. With streaming enabled TVs and DVD players becoming the norm, streaming is set to take off. With postal rates about to increase and Saturday delivery about to go away, service via mail is going to get more complicated. Additionally, new competition from kiosks like Red Box may make take over what is left of an increasingly less lucrative physical DVD business.

A lot of people are upset because they don't want to wait for content to get to streaming/streaming has a poor selection of movies/streaming quality stinks/etc. Again, Netflix is making a play based on the future. As more and more consumers stream, the companies that own the rights to this content are going to see the need to stream more content more quickly. Who cares about DVDs being the first thing out if nobody watches them anymore? All of these problems will eventually go away and fix themselves. Broadband will get better, the selection will get better, etc. The only danger here is if broadband companies start to throttle bandwidth or find a way around net neutrality. 

The thing most people don't realize is that Netflix is thinking like a successful technology company NOT a consumer services company. By looking to the future, they're anticipating how people will act tomorrow. Maybe their methods weren't the smoothest, but they're trying to distance themselves from DVDs in the mail and make a play for streaming entertainment directly to the consumer. By doing so, they're betting on the long-term viability of the company and trying to anticipate how the market will change instead of reacting too late (like Blockbuster).

What is It?

Google_baby

 

There was a thought provoking op-ed piece by William Gibson in the Times yesterday about Google. In light of all the product announcement hysteria that went on yesterday, the measured wonderment of what Google is and what it might be offered a stark contrast to consumerism cult of Apple. Apple is making more stuff for us to buy. Google is changing how we fundamentally interact with information and the rest of the world. 

Lately it seems that every article is pronouncing the death of something old or traditional. The death of the book, the death of television, even the death of the internet. These are the easy pronouncements. Decrying big change that you'll never be called to prove or illustrate moving forward is easy. I've grown weary of the hype machine that seems to be flipping stories and ideas as quickly as pancakes. The idea that everything new is good and exciting. Everything old unnecessary and bad. The bravado that comes with creating the fiction of the future with clumsy fingers.

Gibson, however, deftly writes with uncertainty. Gibson's most powerful line is shrouded in ambiguity:

We have yet to take Google's measure.

Maybe that's what we could all use for now.  A little uncertainty. A little more consideration over time. A pace that allows for the true measure of ideas to unfold and our brains the time and luxury of reacting in a meaningful way.

Killing the Past Doesn't Help the Future (or Why I'm Tired)

Why does every article I read lately feature the death of something or the end of another thing? We keep hearing that the past is dead. Murdered by progress.  Good riddance because we'll never need it again. The hipster hordes want to stamp out the imagery and completely remake the world in their image and ideal. Is this the insecurity of my generation coming to the forefront? Or is it a younger generation living entirely in the now and wanting to stamp out nostalgia?

Media_httpwwwdocument_eaeec
 If it's the end of everything like newspapers, what will happen to those scenes in movies when the spy is sitting on a bench, passing time reading a newspaper. You know the one, the spy is waiting for his next meet up (maybe he never lowers the paper) or is using the newspaper to conceal his identity. If we kill the past, a newspaper might make the spy stand out as suspicious. It's interesting that in fiction, various technologies always look forced or dated. The iPad in someone's hands in a movie today might be this generation's version of the 70's porno mustache. Does our culture really need to move that fast and constantly be up to date?

Can we all agree to stop with the hipster aesthetic? I don't need everything to be the apex of design and functionality. It all makes me tired. Is the need to murder the past borne from the same hell that gave us jumpsuits, disco, and the pet rock? Is it the cousin of the Swatch watch and acid wash jeans?

It's accelerating. Maybe not in the way Douglas Coupland imagined, but things are getting faster and faster. On the one hand we're awash in information. It's delivered to us in both raw and curated forms: Information Democracy. On the other hand, the zombies haven't vanished. They're still here cycling through meaningless trends and the need to be first (at a much quicker pace). Instead of raising the discourse, the fad-hogs are just hungrier. The rest of us? We're just more tired. While we never worked to keep up, it's become more of an arduous task to fight it off.

So as I hear more often that I'm weird for not liking soccer or NASCAR, for continuing to read paper (instead of digital or nothing at all), for desiring open solutions to technology and information gathering (instead of choosing design or a fear of technology witchery), I'll just wish it would all slow down again. Just a little.

What do I want/believe in?
  • Not being available 24 hours a day
  • Apple is just another big tech company and is sometimes not the best option
  • Physical books and newspapers
  • Big companies should be regulated but individuals should be left alone to make (sometimes poor) decisions for themselves
  • Children should be kept out of bars but smoking should not
  • Baseball doesn't need replay but football does
  • The 1980s were the worst decade known to man and should never be celebrated
  • There is nothing wrong with a healthy does of cynicism
  • Everyone is too worried about being productive all the time

Another Reason Android Rocks

via androinica.com

A lot of iPhone users laugh at me when I tell them I got the T-Mobile Android phone. First they mention the commercials and ask what Whoppi Goldberg has to do with selling phones, then they ask me why I didn't get an iPhone. They feel the iPhone is superior in every way.

Personally, I felt the iPhone was lacking. While it has a gazillion applications, it seems that Apple is creating a device with a lot of design but limits on functionality. Google, on the other hand, seems to be pouring a lot into the Android system. The latest cool example? The Quick Search Box.

At first I thought, what good is the quick search box? It's just another portal to the web. Boy was I wrong. The thing searches the web, the phone, my contacts, everything! I was in New York recently trying to find a client's address. I used the quick search box in hopes of pulling up a map and the results took me to the contact of the client I was going to meet. It was exactly what I needed on the fly.

This operating system is on the verge of blowing away the iPhone and its functionality.