Has the computer taken over TV?

[Rhisiart]

My TV viewing time has reduced by 80% to 90% over the last few years (ironically, my viewing experience has improved, as I tend to be more selective in what I choose to watch).

The switch has been mainly due to having two young children, who take up most of your waking time, but I also prefer to go on the net than watch TV (when my partner and I can finally our feet up, so to speak). The obvious exception being Friday night at the pub.

What is it about the net that seems more attractive than television? Or am I asking the question to the wrong audience?

[sinclair_tm]

with the net, you choose what you see. on tv you have a small selection of what is on, and choose from that.

[fryke]

Hm. For me it's the other way 'round. There's _tons_ of stuff on TV 24h a day, whereas on the 'net, I usually visit my usual places. ... I guess the main difference would rather be interactivity. (Sure, they're trying to get you to "participate" all over TV, i.e. spend your money by calling high-rate numbers etc., but that's not the same, I guess.)

I think it's really about what you _do_ on the internet. If you watch movies/TV episodes online, it's not really a different thing. If you use the 'net as a tool for work, it can't really be compared. If you engage in conversations like this one, it's rather comparable to spending a couple of hours at a café or pub. I really don't think the 'net takes over TV in that people spend more time in front of a webbrowser instead of the tube. But, of course, TV itself is moving onto the internet. You can download TV episodes through iTunes (and more shady means as well). But then you still "watch TV", I'd say.

If I actively misunderstand your thread's title, I'd say: The internet _is_ taking over TV. In that more and more, you'll watch TV online. Or maybe you don't. Hm. I don't know what I'm saying.

[bbloke]

Yes, I know what you mean, rhisiart. I think it's a combination of things.

1. With the internet, you have more choice about what you view/do
2. The internet has more variety in terms of what you can do with it (eg. it can encompass web access, E-Mail, online games, instant messengers/chat, and more)
3. The internet is interactive, while the TV is essentially passive
4. Using the internet is also be more sociable (although not as good as being with friends in person) than watching a TV

So I'd say it was about variety and about some degree of user/viewer activity, rather than just staring at a screen while sat on a sofa.

[Rhisiart]

I hasten to add that I do spend time with partner (except when she isn't watching 'Friends', which seems to be on 24/7 if you keep flicking channels).

[fryke]

So you spend 24/7 watching Friends with her. If I interpret the "isn't" correctly, that is. :P

[Qion]

Hmm yes -pip pip- except isn't, double negative, very good yes...

But anyway, I would have to believe that computers will indeed take over TV. We're in the age when everybody likes everything in one place/device. Essentially, the TV only serves one purpose. The computer serves many. We've had devices that allow us to watch and record television broadcasts for years, and with the induction of mainstream DVR's, media PC's, and more media-friendly Macs, I can see nothing but the obliteration of the TV-set concept. Who wants to buy a 60" TV to ONLY use as a TV? Not many -at least of the tech savvy of us, which seems to be an increasing number-. This idea will proliferate.

[fryke]

Yet I also see people rather having a separate iPod for their music - even though their mobile phone also plays some tunes. Same goes for other things. I don't want to "boot a media center" only to watch the news. The TV is much better for that. Turn on, switch channel, done. We've heard of "convergence of media" for about a decade now. But has it _really_ happened? Will it?