• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

6/8/17 Into the 3rd Generaon of Presentaon Outline Video: Cloud TV • 1. 3rd Generaon TV--Overview • 2. Media Industry Structure of 3rd Generaon TV – Content Creators Eli Noam – Content Online Aggregators Columbia University, Columbia – Cloud Plaorms Ins9tute for Tele-Informaon – Content Distribu9on Networks – Internet Service Providers/Transmission Networks Speaker Background Notes – Consumer Devices • 3. Policy and Societal Issues of 3rd Munich 2017 1 Generaon TV • This presentaon is about television. • It is therefore important to understand that • But it iss really much more than that we are on the verge of one of humanity’s • There are few ques9ons with more long-term greatest leaps in media communicaons, and implicaons than the way we shape our consequently also of one of its major communicaons system. disrup9ons of social, cultural, poli9cal, and • If the medium is indeed the message, and if these economic arrangements. messages influence people and ins9tu9ons, then tomorrow’s media, and today’s media policies, will govern future society, culture, and economy. • Television has come a long way, and has an • If Moore’s law is a rate of change of about even longer way to go. 40% a year for the IT sector, , then the what • What runs through its history is myopia. we can call Sarnoff’s 2nd law , aer David • In each of its generaons, most users did not Sarnoff, head of RCA a for decades, would be perceive a need for anything more advanced about 4% per year. X than they already had. • And in each of these generaons people did not eXpect the impact of the new medium when it emerged -- by a wide margin. 6 1 6/8/17 • This was possible, because the intermediary • TV has been around as a mass consumer distribu9on systems controlled the technology product for about 70 years. That’s over 30 that could display what came out of the pipe, years per generaon. This is a glacial pace. • and the content that went into the pipe. • TV sets from almost 70 years ago would s9ll work in most countries. • And the protocols under which such content could be coded or modulated or whatever was • In those 65-70 years, the bit rate has done to it. increased, if we are generous, by a factor of 12. That’s a CAGR of 4%. • These were TV broadcasters, were also internaonally organized through various collaborave cartel arrangements such as EBU or ITU. Their impact was to harmonize & standardize & stabilize 7 8 • And on the consumer end, the hardware the • And as TV is migrating to the internet, it is terminal devices were almost interchangeable moving away from the control of the TV sets, traditional broadcast organizations, and into a • Manufactured by a few large consumer new territory. Companies like YouTube and electronics firms or brands like Sony and Netflix Philips and Thomson. • this has of course been widely noted. • But one would make a real big mistake to think of the change as only one of adding another distribution platform for pretty much the same 10 9 stuff. 6 5 • But that is only part of the change, and arguably the less important one. 4 • More important is that we have to think 3 40% CAGR through what it means for TV to move away 4% CAGR from Sarnoff’s Rate to Moore’s Rate. 2 • From 4% to 40% CAGR. • From a stable broadcast medium 1 • To a dynamic high tech medium 0 11 Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 2 6/8/17 • So if the medium is the message, then if the • How do societies handle this? • Badly, if the past is a guide to the future. Cultural medium changes more rapidly, then the conservatism is deeply ingrained. message changes more rapidly. • Most individuals like the foods we grew up with, the music we courted to, and the ideas we encountered at home or in • This is what I would call “cultural college. • Societies are even more conservative, extolling its classic acceleration” heroes of literature, poetry, arts, and music. Change was accepted but it had to be gradual. • But now the pace is accelerating. Inevitably this creates cultural conflicts. In the 1960s we encountered similar cultural dissonances when “youth culture” broke out creating conflicts that are still reverberating 50 years later. 13 Presentation Outline • 1. 3rd Generation TV--Overview • Then, the change was precipitated by the emerging broadcast TV medium with which that generation had grown up with, • and the music that broke out of the parental styles. • 2. Media Industry Structure of 3rd • Today, too, we observe the culture wars, with moral traditionalists on one side and young people comfortable with gay marriage, Generation TV abortion, multi-racial friendships, feminism, atheism, – Content Creators environmentalism, and legalized drugs. – Content Online Aggregators • these culture wars will probably intensify. – Cloud Platforms • What we see in the politics of countries, like Trump, Brexit, and across Europe, is a reflection of these culture wars – Content Distribution Networks • This is even a greater problem in traditional societies and countries – Internet Service Providers/Transmission Networks where the forces of traditionalism had a stronger hold and the – Consumer Devices change is more abrupt and disruptive. • 3. Policy and Societal Issues of 3rd Generation TV The Chain of Online TV Content Creators • If we think of this online video, as just as another Content Online Aggregators distribution platform for the same stuff, we are not thinking far enough. High enough. Cloud Platforms • The new distribution form affects style and content. Content Distribution Networks • The changed medium creates a changed message. Just like film was not just theater that was recorded and distributed differently. Internet Service Providers/Transmission Networks • It may have started that way, but quickly became something else, and dramatically so. Consumer Devices 3 6/8/17 Emerging TV • Immersive • Content: From Story to Experience • Vertically interactive • visual media will evolve from narrative to • Peer-to-peer horizontally interactive experience. • Diverse in technology • Diverse in platforms • Not all of it, of course. But the leading edge of • Personalized content and its high attention, high creativity, • Participatory big-budget content creation will be oriented to • Experiential create environments in which users actively • Globalized participate, and whose level of stimulation and involvement they can regulate to suit their 19 desired mood. 20 • Media consumption will move in that direction, in which the user will be more than a • In the past, “entertainment” content followed viewer, and become a participant in an basically the model of novels and plays. A experience, beyond the current choice that is structured plot, comprised of scenes and limited to switch on/switch off. This is part of chapters. Taking the viewer in a tightly edited a more general trend to an “experience plot, with pre-programmed emotions of economy”, where companies go beyond excitement, horror, anger, sadness, arousal, offering a good or a service but create and laughter. In this scenario, the viewer was the specific experiences, created on an industrial spectator scale. Whereas earlier stages of economic development dealt with physical needs -- 21 satisfying needs for food, clothing, 22 Experiential Media emerge for several reasons • transportation, and alleviating physical labor— • the technology makes it possible the focus of economic development is • the economics makes it affordable increasingly to serve psychological needs such • viewers crave new types of experiences as dealing with boredom and search for companionship. Whereas the goal of the • creators seek originality industrial economy was to save time, the goal • marketers seek new approaches to engage of the post-industrial economy is to fill that consumers time meaningfully • media companies seek audiences 23 24 4 6/8/17 A new discipline emerging: „Content Engineering“ • Personalization tools “Content • Participation tools Engineering” • Authoring tools • Branching story lines • Content processing • Semantic analysis 25 26 • Now obviously not all of video will be like Personalization that. • Linear will be around, but shrinking • Almost certainly this starts with personalized Advertising serving • Immersive content will be the frontier of • But then also Content serving technical and cultural creativity • And going beyond that, Content • The destruction will be soft. Users will use personalization interactive sometimes, but they do not have to. • There will be a lot of individualization that is automatic. • Or, a basic storyline and model may be 27 possible 28 • Q: who will be the creators and • The conventional wisdom is that everybody can enter, that there will be a lot of user- producers of such video generated content, and content from a lot of content? countries. • I am much more skeptical. • Sure, there will be a lot of specialized, long- tail, content. • But for the mass market, the trend would be in the opposite direction. 30 5 6/8/17 • Both favor content providers with • To produce such immersive, – big budgets interactive content is expensive – can diversify risk • It requires creativity, many – can distribute over other platforms programmers, lots of alpha and – Brand beta testing, and many new – Delivery of large audiences versions – Ability to coordinate specialized inputs 31 32 31 32 • Such expensive content exhibits • These factors are also available strong economies of scale on the elsewhere, but probably nowhere content production side, quite in such combination or • and network externalities on the magnitude. (On the other hand, the demand side. US lacks the supportive mechanism • And distance-insensitivity on the of public TV that exists in Europe distribution end. and Japan.) 33 33 34 • That means that major Hollywood distributors will • But the main audience will be even stronger, because they still be attached to big-budget, now have a more direct link to technically sophisticated global audiences.

Load more

  30

Copy Link