Viewing Outside the Box

The latest issue of Time Magazine features an article by James Poniewozik chronicling the week he spent as TV critic with a broken TiVo. The article, entitled “Viewing Outside the Box” grabbed my intention because at the top it asked, “When TV moves from your living room to your laptop and your phone, how does it change? A critic’s look at the big (and little) picture.”


Poniewozik discusses the “posttelevision society:” Netflix online, Hulu, iTunes, etc. Going into the week his questions were “Could I satisfactorily watch TV without a box? How would it change my experience? And more broadly, now that TV (the medium) is divorced from the television (the machine), now that video is as portable as a Grisham paperback, now that big-budget series can be blog-embedded and e-mailed just like your YouTube video of your cat falling asleep – what are we even talking about when we talk about TV?”

“For a good half-century, ‘watching TV’ meant one thing. It was something you did at home, with friends or family, in front of a stationary machine in a dedicated room, preferably with snack chips. You experienced a broadcast exactly when and how millions of others did – same Battime, same Bat-channel – or you did not experience it at al. And unless you got proactive with a VCR, you did not copy, carry or remix what you saw. This was why mass media were culturally unifying (or homogenizing): those moments that mattered, we all saw in exactly the same way.

Poniewozik’s description of how TV used to be is correct and he’s correct in saying it isn’t like that anymore. If I happen to catch an episode of The Office on Thursday night on NBC I know the majority of my friends will either be TiVo-ing it for the next day, watching it on Netflix, watching it on Hulu, or downloading it to their iPods or iPhones for something to do while they wait for the T Friday morning.

Poniewozik, however, believes that his week dedicated to the small screen actually made him more focused and attentive to what he was watching.

"That brings us to a truism about online video: it rewards brevity and scatters attention. That's true to an extent. Five to seven minutes seem to be the sweet spot for a webisode; 'Baby Panda Sneezes' loses its magic after about 11 seconds. But a funny thing happened in my cable-free week: I found myself paying closer attention to the TV shows I watched online. Here's the important physical fact that separates online from off-line TV: you're holding something. Watching old-school TV, you flop on the couch and let the medium wash over you. New school, you hold a screen in your hand, balance a laptop or sit at a desk. There's a small but constant effort, the tiniest bit of physical feedback."

I can't really say whether or not I agree with this statement because although I watch a lot of TV on my laptop, I still watch a lot of TV on my...TV, and I'm always invested if it's a show I like. I'm definitely a "loyal" watcher. I can see, however, how this theory makes sense. Poniewozik goes so far as to say that watching TV on a smaller screen is similar to reading a book.

"I apologize to all the English teachers to whom I have just given aneurysms. But the watching-as-reading analogy is true in more ways than one. Whereas channel-surfing is like turning on a faucet, finding a show online is more like rummaging through a new-and-used bookstore, where House is shelved next to Hill Street Blues. Like reading, viewing online TV is more solitary. You don't gather the family around your MacBook to watch the Super Bowl."

My roommate can attest to this as whenever I put my headphones on to watch something on my computer I hear a loud SIGH followed by "Why do you have to do that, I get bored because it's like you're not here. Can't we watch something together?"

Poniewozik thinks there are some things that are suitable for one kind of screen, and some things that are suitable for others:

"We'll have tiny screens and giant screens: online devices and ever cheaper flat-screen video walls. To me, lush cinematic shows like Big Love and Mad Men need a big canvas; for others, it's football that demands the real estate. Some shows are more interchangeable. I was not surprised to find that MTV's The Hills, with its sleek visuals and forgettable dialogue, is perfectly suited to the bauble-like screen of the iPhone. So some shows will be big and grand for the giant screen. Other shows, like Comedy Central's on- and off-line hits, will thrive on both platforms. Producers will start conceiving series both as whole entities and repurposable parts--like the Jan. 31 SNL skit involving Pepsi that ran the next night as a Super Bowl ad for Pepsi."

I agree, there's no way you'll ever catch me watching Lost on my iPod - not even the second time around.

Hulu Pulls Content from Boxee

Citing demands from content owners, Hulu announced that it will no longer allow the Boxee software package to carry Hulu content. Since Boxee makes viewing content from Internet providers highly intuitive and simple, the owners of the content argue that people will be less likely to buy cable and DVDs or to download videos from iTunes.

Boxee argues that their only goal is to drive users to content that is available for free on the Internet, but since Hulu is entirely dependent on the content supplied by their providers, they have little choice but to attempt to enforce their interests.

Boxee users argue that Hulu is now forcing them to make a choice between watching the content on a computer screen and downloading the content (in better quality) via bit torrent. Since Boxee simply provides Internet content to be easily streamed to your television set, it seems to make very little sense that content providers are now mandating where you are allowed to watch their content -- not which content or when.

TRADECOMET.COM VS. GOOGLE

MICROSOFT CONNECTION LOOMS IN NEW GOOGLE LAWSUIT. 

CNET NEWS courtesy of writer Charles Cooper reports

TradeComet.com has sued Google, claiming that the search company abused its market dominance to "squash" competition.

Rick Rule, who works for the company's law firm, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, claimed that SourceTool.com and its subsidiary, TradeComet.com, "had a thriving business before Google decided to eliminate them as a competitor...We believe this complaint has strong merit and represents a serious antitrust violation.

It also turns out that Rule helped represent Microsoft during that company's antitrust battle with the United States government. The Cadwalader law firm also was employed by Microsoft on its failed bid to acquire Yahoo.

In its statement, which was issued late Tuesday, TradeComet said it filed the lawsuit "when Google refused to stop engaging in predatory conduct to block search traffic by imposing massive, unjustified price increases. Google's anti-competitive conduct eliminated TradeComet as a competitor."

TradeComet.com said that its business-to-business search engine subsidiary was targeted by Google, which "then engaged in illegal conduct to diminish and ultimately extinguish SourceTool.com's platform."

A spokesman for Google said that the company's lawyers had not had a chance to review the lawsuit. But in a statement, Google said that "the advertising market in which Google operates is highly competitive and advertisers have a huge range of choices."

Ramone Kendall -

Trade Comet is a tiny start up, which utilizes GOOGLE'S search engine for purposes of selling industrial products. Trade comet  was one of many such vertical search engines targeted by google with higher fees. However unlike the others, who will remain nameless they are fighting back. This appears to be a truly David and Goliath situation as Trade comet  tries to take advantage of changing tide against Google and Microsoft. This stems from a Government blocked deal between Yahoo and Google to share adds.  Timing for Trade Comet is everything as they try to stand their ground. At present google possesses nearly 70% percent share of the search add market.... They are pretty omnipotent... RJK

Nvidia Plans To Power $99 Mobile Internet Devices

Nvidia has announced that it plans to power $99 mobile internet devices with its Tegra 600 series chips, perhaps as early as this summer.

What’s a mobile internet device (MID)? Well, it’s a gadget that fits somewhere in between a smartphone and a netbook. It’s compact and internet-enabled, but it can’t quite fit in your pocket or make phone calls. It’s primarily intended for web surfing and watching videos over a WiFi or 3G connection.

According to VentureBeat, Nvidia is touting both the long battery life and the HD video capabilities of these Tegra-based devices. General Manager Michael Rayfield says they can go for days without a recharge and they support 1080p HD video playback, which is the high end of what you’ll find streaming online.

Nvidia plans to use both Windows CE and Android to power its cheap MIDs (although it appears as though the Windows CE-based versions will come first, with Android-based devices a more distant prospect). The $99 Tegra-based device is just the low-end of a product line that includes a $299 device (that also runs on an Intel Atom processor) and a $599 device that has more of the functionality you’d find in a regular laptop.

Part of me wonders whether Nvidia is trying to fill a niche that doesn’t really exist. If I want to surf the web, my smartphone does just fine - and I’m already paying a monthly data plan for it anyway (I certainly don’t need to pay for two). As for video, I’ll stick with my laptop since it can play DVDs, which are still the most reliable way to watch TV shows and movies.

It also doesn’t help that Nvidia plans to run Windows CE (really…Windows CE?). Android sounds more promising, though, especially with its greater potential to power netbooks and an array of smartphones all at the same time.