Television 2.0

~ Thursday February 26 2009 09:00
This is probably the longest blogpost I have ever done. It just came out this way. See it as compensation for all the time I've kept you waiting for new posts.

So as you might know, I'm living the new digital lifestyle. I have my 1080p LCD and my PS3 connected to the internet. And I'm happy with that. But I would love a new trend in my media experience. Let's call it Television 2.0, which is of course a pointer to the Web 2.0 we already know.

To explain my idea for Television 2.0, I'll first explain the important parts about what makes the Web 2.0 idea so wonderful and new. It's not the Web 2.0 pretty shiny interfaces that I'm after. It's not about the design, it's about the idea. If Web 2.0 had a slogan, it would be “playing well with others”. It's social, it's interactive, it's experiencing media the way I want. From a technical point of view we have RSS, AJAX and API. This combination makes it possible to use content of other sources and use it on your own site or application. Take Twitter. I tweet from my iPhone using Twitterific, after posting it on twitter, I can see my tweet on twitter.com but I also have webapps in place to put the tweet on my facebook, my hyves and also this blog.

What I would want is to have the Web 2.0 philosophy to come to the TV world. When I turn on my TV I would like to see my interface of choice. Let's say, the PS3 interface, AppleTV or something I created myself. I know it well, I like the way I have to navigate through it. If I want to play a game, I navigate to the game section and start playing my game. If I want to see what's on Revision3, I want to go and navigate to Video and select Revision3, see it live, see the latest episode of Diggnation in 720p. Of course, my system already knows I like this show, so it already downloaded the episode for me.

Let's go a bit further. My cable company has a digital TV box with a DVR built in. Why would I need to flip my channel to see what's on or navigate their interface to program the DVR? Why would I need to switch interfaces at all, just to get to another source of content. If I can setup the interface once on a TV set and the rest of the equipment would just follow orders, I would never ever have to explain it to my grandmother again. She would be able to turn the thing on and off and switch between streams of live TV and always see the news at 20:00. The system would keep track of the programs she watches and figures out by itself what it could suggest to show. It suggests by showing. If she changes channel every time she sees it, that will count as a no. It will all appear as if she's watching normal TV. Because for her, the best interface will be one that's invisible. For me it can't be visible or interactive enough, so I would install something like the HUD of Iron Man with voice activation.

So how about the interaction. Let's say I want to watch a TV series, like Heroes. I want a choice of paying for it or see an ad block in exchange of paying. I want that ad to be aimed to me. So I decide to share my interests with the ad-server. I stay in control of what info I share. Is it just my content or location or is it aimed directly towards me. In print we already see that last option, if they can do it, so can tv. Also I want the option to explore an ad. Let's say Apple shows a commercial of their new Mac and I want to buy that product. I want to be able to click on the ad and explore the advertised product and buy it on the spot. The chances of me buying a product that's advertised towards me is a lot bigger then just bombarding me with useless stuff I don't need. I don't need to see an iPhone 3G ad, I already own one. I might want to see what iPhone apps are available.

Back to the interaction. I'm still watching Heroes. The content provider knows that I watch it on a system capable of 1080p and 5.1 audio and watch content in its original language and sometimes turn on English or Dutch subtitles. Although my content provider might not know the Dutch subtitle option is only turned on when I'm watching it with friends, they still know I make use of it. On their end they can decide if or when they're going to deliver that subtitle option. More on that option later.

Another kind of interaction can be to rate media, share media or recommend media. I like Heroes, so I rate it 5 out of 5. My friends can see that rating on their system and check it out too. But one of my friends still hasn't seen it, so I can recommend it to him. He get's a message and checks out the series, loves it and not only buys every episode of Heroes but also buys tickets to the new Star Trek movie, because Sylar plays Spock. The next time Heroes comes out, we share an episode by watching it at the same time and discuss it afterwards through video chatting.

Now how about the content creation itself. TV should not only be the playground of the big media creators of this planet. Everyone should be able to participate and even get money out of it when done right. The possibility that the current media creators still rule the media world is big as long as they provide us with good content. And since most of them have created good content for a hundred years, they shouldn't be scared to take the jump.

Consumers want a plug and play solution for new options. Consumers like to buy new options, but don't always like to figure out new stuff. Buy a new 7.1 amp and my system automagically downloads 7.1 media when it's available and updates my existing media to 7.1 in the background if it exists. Consumers also want freedom of choice. They want to be in control of their own content. That's why DRM failed and also why packaged media still sells good. They want to be in control of their media player. I want to be able to say: this is my iPhone, home theatre, tv in the bedroom, my computer, my browser or even that this is my seat in the cinema or on the plane. A TV screen is a display of content and it has options.

It's also a great way for handicapped people to experience media. Let's say there's a deaf woman. She could tell a content provider, by clicking on a button, that she's interested in certain content. The content provider then knows that there is a demand request for a subtitle option or a picture in picture of a sign-language translation. If the content provider doesn't want to deal with that, maybe it's an opportunity for (fan)subbers to make some money.

Nothing in this world is free. So independent content creators should be able to make money as easy as the big boys. Every content creator should be able to tell the system how much a piece of content should cost. If it's free, there's always a donate option. Donate by paying or watching ads. You can even think about selling a concept this way, people donating a content provider to make the content or update technology to make it. Let donators share in revenue when the new content is available. The Podcast Hak5 for instance sold stickers to their viewers, to finance their jump to HD.

This idea of Television 2.0 could also mean the end of a big part of piracy. I believe most people pirate out of convenience or because they just can't pay for it. On the content creation side, there's the usage of existing media to create new work. If that's the case, royalties should be paid. But royalties could easily be a percentage of the price of the content. It just can't be free content anymore. Metadata in the audio or video stream, can tell the system what external media was used and calculate the price, the new media should need to cost, automatically. The Metadata can also be used to check if the viewer already payed for the media, thus lowering the price, or show the viewer what was used so he can buy the rest of it. For instance, there are a lot of songs that became famous and sold well, just because someone decided to use it in an ad campaign. But it must go both ways. If a recommendation from a media creator, lets say a blogger, makes me decide to purchase, that media creator should get payed for his effort.

Now this idea may be ideal for new content, but how about existing media? I think that a lot of technology already exists for broadcasters. Any serious broadcaster has a play-out system. The only reason why it's linear instead of non-linear, is the fact that we can't control the playlist. But it's all file based, so conversion to non-linear on demand broadcast shouldn't be that hard. How about the CD's and DVD's I own? Yes, that's a hard one, because there is no real check if I own something or just scan barcodes from friends. I'll leave that to the content creators themselves, because its not the consumers fault they bought something that couldn't be tracked back.

The only thing that could hold back all this is greed. If I buy something after renting it first, I should get a discount. Same goes for going to the Cinema. For all content providers, a new medium is not an upgrade but somehow a new piece of content. Which is strange, because it's the license that they're selling. Not the content. Upgrade the media, the license remains the same. But most content providers won't do this, even though consumers will probably buy more in the long run and piracy probably will come down, they still get the feeling that they could get more revenue for upgrades.

I googled ‘Television 2.0' and it seems I'm not the only one that has ideas for a new TV experience. But I didn't see anything that ties in as much as the idea stated above. Most of it is just a new interface with a connection to the internet. Also most of them only focus on the current content providers and simply ignore the youtube/podcast generation. Maybe I just invented Television 3.0 before 2.0 ever existed. But all of this is easily possible with the technology that exists today, we just need to make standards and ways to implement them.

Comments are disabled for this blog due to abuse.