Steve Gillmor writes that TV is dead. (Following in the footsteps of Vista and Office.)
I think that he is somewhat right, but should explain it better. TV is broken because – I assume for cost reasons – there are few really original and imaginative shows. Living in Germany I am not familiar with most of the shows Steve lists, but let’s look at some examples.
How long did it take until you figured out The Incredible Hulk? (The series) Yes, he turned into the green monster exactly twice every episode. And the typical thriller series is boring why? Because by looking at the clock you know exactly whether the detective is close to solving the problem or not. And is never going to die in action anyway. Why was Friends so successful? Not only because the actors had pretty, likeable face, but even more because in addition to the main storyline was the subplot per episode which was funny and often unpredictable.
What do I watch today? Very few shows, among them Dr House. Is it very original? No. But at least it is so far out at least for me because I don’t know any medicine that goes beyond ER. And it has the subplots as well. Sure, I know that they first assume a wrong illness/treatment and that 7 minutes before the end of the episode the cure is found. But I can deal with that.
Though I have to complain to the network: Why do you have to show so damn much of the plot in the teaser that I know what will happen? Why to you have to give a way the solution to the medical problem in the title of the episode?
Unfortunately I guess, TV advertising does not work that way and since it dictates the programming we’ll be subject to content that is aimed at millions thought never “hitting” anybody really.
Here is another logic reason why the Google-YouTube deal will matter in the long run: Unpredictable content. No format. No 30-second-spot, no 90-minute-textbook-thriller. That is the entertainment of the future, not everything on YouTube will be trash and stolen.