per Delano Sento-S
Since its invention in the 1920s, television has been the largest mass information and entertainment medium on the planet. In its most accessible form (the open signal), it reaches everyone at no cost except, of course, the price of the device itself and the obvious energy to power it. Over the years, television has fought and often won with other media such as print, newspapers and magazines, besides radio and cinema, and today it feels the spell turn against the wizard. TV is increasingly losing space to the internet as the main option for information and entertainment.
In addition to the greater versatility of content, the internet is unbeatable in terms of availability. Unlike TV (both open and subscription), the Internet does not require much for consumers to be present before the receiving medium on the day and time of presentation of what interests them. The vast majority of content on the Internet is available at the moment the consumer wants to consume it, free of hours and programming. TV content providers recognize the weight of this issue and the rise in on-demand services (on demand), channel, network and broadcaster applications, and the use of YouTube channels prove that TV shows no longer survive on TV alone.
The increasing disuse of the expression second screen, which served as a designation for the use of media such as the internet and mobile applications in addition to television programs, proves that its connotation of something separate and secondary no longer serves today. The world is definitely multimedia. And in this world, TV has long lost its leading role. And by allowing you to consume what you want, whenever you want, the internet shines brighter and brighter. It is an irreversible movement, and, luckily for us, the fall of TV audiences has led its officials to understand the true meaning of the saying if you cannot with it, join it. In addition to TV networks and broadcasters, the advertising market has also understood this, and today the success of brands and products can only be achieved through exposure in different media, as the consumer market is both scattered and ubiquitous.
In addition to scheduling and scheduling, TV loses to the internet in geographic terms. Why carry a portable TV if it's easier to find a good Wi-Fi hotspot or have a data plan on your smartphone than get a signal from a TV station? Beyond what and when, where gives the viewer even more freedom when it turns anywhere.
The current time-based and schedule-based TV model has its days numbered. People no longer accept submitting content availability and Milton Nascimento's handwriting expands to "go where the people are, with what the people want, whenever the people want it." The solution for TV is 100% on demand, replacing channels once and for all, and we have to get rid of different and still few applications available from programs and broadcasters.
I want to sit in front of the TV at 16 o'clock, click on the TV Globo icon, choose the Journalism option, then Jornal Nacional and see all the issues of the week available today as I do today in the app, as long as at 20:30 the live edition. The same goes for soap operas, games of my team and series that I follow. Fits Globe, SBT, ESPN, Sony, Warner fits any channel.
The TVs would leave the factory with open content cones and more cones would be added according to their package contracted with providers, plus of course the icing on the cake: the ability to install apps. Increasing connection speeds would not be a problem and 0 and 1 would replace electromagnetic waves altogether. As with most services, the biggest drag would be on public power and the availability of public connections. A transitory solution could be, within the operating systems of TV sets, the coexistence between this new model and the current SBTV (digital TV).
Advertisers? I don't mind watching a 30-second commercial before every show. If you think about it, nowadays, all viewers see the same commercial at the moment of its exhibition, which is sold by inserts. Why not sell them for clicks? Two people watching the same content may see two different commercials. And yet there would be the advantage of the algorithms, which would better decide which product or brand to show, according to the user's profile and program not only, enabling a more efficient media plan. Age range, income level, consumer history, audience measurement would all be easier to find for both agencies and advertisers.
I have been pretentiously prophesying this TV model for a few years with friends and colleagues from the advertising industry and believed that Apple would change the TV with the new Apple TV this year, but the information already released about the new model does not seem to reach much. For the future of television, as the company says, much remains to be done. But there is something I still believe in: of all the companies that can bring about a revolution in the way we watch TV, freeing the viewer from rigid schedules and programming, Apple is the most serious candidate. And with your Apple TV.
This belief does not come from the hardware superiority of Ma's equipment. Far from it. In addition to Apple TV I also have here, in the living room, Google TV (Sony), Chromecast, Roku, Fire TV, WDTV and of course a Mac mini like HTPC (home theater personal computer). There is also a Slingbox, but it doesn't count because it only sends the content of my pay-TV decoder over the web. Enters the list doing figure only. If we compare all, we will see that Apple TV is not the most complete and versatile equipment that exists. It doesn't even have a USB port to stick a thumb drive in, which many of the remaining DVD players have had for years.
But that starts to change. A new operating system, a new SDK (software development kit, or software development kit) and the ability to install applications is just a good start. But, let's face it, this is new to the industry and we risk, just like other models, getting stuck in what the manufacturer's ecosystem says. Incidentally, it was this proprietary OS and SDK formula that led to the sinking of Google TV from Sony and other brands, leaving its users to see ships unable to install Android apps other than those designed exclusively for the platform. And take him sideload!
And what does all this have to do with the future of television? Now all these equipment I mentioned are designed to be used with your television. And as profit, not its diversion, is the ultimate goal of all this, each manufacturer tries to force loyalty with platforms and services themselves. iTunes, Apple Music, Amazon Prime, and Google Play are just a few. This attempt by manufacturers to add value to equipment that exists in the millions around the world is in fact proof of the resilient and immense importance of sitting in front of this screen looking for information and entertainment. Definitely, bringing online into the TV will guarantee its survival. What's more, television still carries the spirit of the collective, the social, the instantaneous sharing of content that solitary browsing on a computer does not provide. Unless you prefer to watch your team games alone and not with your friends.
But if not for the hardware, let alone the proprietary platform, how would Apple change television with Apple TV? You can name it as you wish: dim-dim, greenbacks, cash, buffalo or simply money. Going for the content supply, partnering with networks, broadcasters and movie theaters, facing their own productions, and even, according to some, altering the American legislation on the subject are Cupertino's giant atrocious attitudes that sometimes pop up as rumors or rumors in the specialized press. For all this, I need a lot of money. And money is not lacking in Apple's cashier, as we well know. Once these backstage changes are achieved, changing hardware is the easiest part. If this proves to be true in the future, then we will really have a revolution in the way we watch TV.
One last question may still raise questions: How is this revolution possible if television, as already pointed out at the beginning, is a mass product and Apple does not make mass products? It is easy to glimpse the future if we look at the past. People already listened to music before the iPod, already talked on the phone before the iPhone, and before Apple Watch, zillions of watches already showed the time and other information on everyone's wrists. More than new products, throughout its history, Apple has set new standards, new ways, new ways to do what we have always done. Easier, more fun, more practical, more integrated and especially more desirable. And the whole industry went behind. Television would have the same effect as we have seen Apple provoke in other areas. Or would you still be content today with a touchless cell phone?
I have a passion for gadgets, I am a consumer of technology and especially of Apple products. I'm not fanboy. I have too much insight to be fan and too old to be boy. But I really admire this company for several reasons. One of the most important is their ability to innovate rather than create. This has already proven itself on several occasions. As I also like television a lot, my imagination has merged A with B, with C, with G, with M and resulted in a future for our TVs that I would really like to see.
You don't have to agree with me. Don't even believe it all. I believe. And I really love it.