The way we all watch TV is in the process of a permanent shift. For decades, the standard setup was to plug the TV into the wall, hit a big red button, and stare at whatever was on. This may remain the most common setup at the moment but I don’t think it will last much longer. I think the standard setup of the future will mirror today's trend - a direct link to the internet with more selectivity in terms of channels and programs. A lot of people my age seem to already do this and it appears like the trend is headed this way for the tech-savvy or affluent outside of my age bracket. Eventually, everyone will catch on.
Why am I so sure this trend is going to stick? Well, it seems like the people who are already doing this now are not switching back to the old setup. This is often a good indicator of a permanent shift – do the new users switch back? The ‘cord-cutters’ aren’t gluing their cords back together, reader.
Thinking about all of this the other day, I realized something – I’ll probably be one of the last people around with the ‘old-school’ TV setup. There will be a day in the future, reader, when it won't just be unusual to have a TV run by a remote control that shows you only what some TV exec decided should be on – it will be widely regarded as crazy. I guess what I’m saying is that when that day comes, I’ll be among the crazy people.
What I’m thinking about here is how in the face of the unstoppable tide of the digital age, there is an endless list of things going on that ignores the seductive promises of apps and rejects the alleged convenience of the ever-present internet connection. These days, it seems like we all play games, order delivery, or read newspapers online. But if you look closely, there is very definitely a world out there where people play board games, pickup their own takeout, or spend a couple bucks on The Boston Globe. These little routines have survived the shift to digital for complex reasons and I don’t think they are permanently going up to the cloud anytime soon.
Let’s consider the example of the record player. Surely, it would be better to pay for a streaming service and listen to anything at anytime rather than being limited to a predetermined set of albums. Plus, doesn’t it cost more money to own and buy records? And yet, record players don’t seem to be going anywhere – if anything, they seem more popular now than they were two decades ago.
Or, how about the landline? The news ten years ago was that the landline was over. And yet, here we are in 2018 and I’ve yet to handle any kind of work call on something other than a landline. It doesn't seem very hard for a company to get everyone a cell phone for work purposes – so why does every desk at my current job still have a landline?
I think the answer is really simple – the best things stick around until something better comes along. They might not necessarily remain dominant forever but this usually happens when the attributes that make something ‘best’ move from a primary to a secondary concern (which is basically what the internet did to almost everything). The record players in my friend’s living rooms aren’t a special kind of statement – they just play better-sounding music than what we might hear via a streaming service. It works the same way with the phone because calls made from a landline just work better than those made on a mobile. When the internet ushers in ways to play higher quality music than a record player or make more reliable phone calls than the landline, those ‘old school’ methods will probably disappear as a result. Until then, though, the only people switching are those who value something other than the highest quality music or the most reliable phone connections. That's still an awful lot of people but on a planet of seven billion it leaves plenty of folks to chat on their landlines about their most recent record purchase.
When will the quality offered by the internet catch up to the quality offered by mainstays like the record player or the landline? It might never happen. When restaurants started offering delivery, it probably seemed obvious to some observers that takeout would end. Who would waste time and money going to the restaurant when it was now possible to sit on the couch and wait? And yet, here we are in 2018 and I know some people who haven’t ordered delivery in years. The last time I ordered delivery was when I was on crutches. I think what’s happening is that though delivery offers some very real advantages in terms of costs or time, it doesn’t do anything for the people who like going for short walks to do things. Is it possible to run into a familiar face or two while sitting on the couch waiting for delivery? The benefits of delivery are real but to suggest everyone gets the same benefit out of delivery or weighs all factors in the same way ignores the many different criteria people have for valuing their own time.
A similar thought applies to written content. Who would ever read a book when it is so much easier to pull up a file online? The catch is, I think if the book were invented today, it would be considered a massive accomplishment. The book would solve all the problems of the e-reader. I don’t think that means the book would replace the internet as the medium of choice for reading. However, it would certainly appeal to a group of readers who were frustrated with the problems of the e-reader and ready to try something that didn’t need to be charged, wouldn’t break if you dropped it, or wasn’t going to interrupt you with a notification about your cousin’s most recent post to Facebook.
I think the main reason people still have standard TV is that TV brings a higher quality service than the current internet-based options. The internet-based options have the edge in many ways (primarily selection) and their limitations are mostly hardware based - these factors suggest it will eventually become the societal norm for TV connection. However, I’ve never streamed something like a live sporting event over the internet and said – wow, this is better than watching it on TV! At best, I’ve noted it was more convenient to be able to pull up the show wherever I wanted on a laptop. But a better quality experience? I'll take NBC on the telly over the streaming on the laptop every time.
I’m not sure the internet-based setup will ever become better than the standard setup. It certainly isn’t a guarantee. I’m no expert on the details here but my intuition suggests the antenna, cable, or satellite setups that currently deliver standard TV have an advantage on the internet-based streaming setups. I’m sure the internet-based setups will improve in quality over time but the same logic was in place a decade ago when comparing the landline to the cell phone. My guess is that the standard TV setup will remain a superior option in terms of quality for a far longer time than we predict today. As long as this remains the case, I expect my future will involve some version of the way TV is delivered today. It just doesn’t seem like I’ll consider it worth having TV in the future unless I know I’m getting the best possible delivery of it.
