Google Blogoscoped posts about a new AOL service:
a Windows-based tool which downloads video content to your computer whenever it’s quite (i.e. it says it won’t interrupt your emailing, surfing and so on). AOL says you can choose from “movie previews, celebrity interviews, music videos, games tips and original AOL programming, with many at DVD quality.”
Pete recently posted about the future of TV:
My recent purchase of a video iPod has triggered some fresh, re-energized thinking about the transformation and evolution of television.
(Pete, I hadn't noticed the cool little graphic joke in that post - nice one!)
To me the content puzzle is composed of at least the following elements:
- Content creators: in the case of TV, these are show producers, writers, directors in large corporations.
- Content creation process: in the case of TV, this is a reasonably expensive thing.
- Content delivery: how does the information get from the creators to the audience?
- Marketing: making people aware of content and persuading them to acquire/experience it.
- Monetization: this may mean adverts (US) or a benevolent society (UK)
- Acquisition and experience technology: the tv set, dvr, etc.
Pete's piece is all about arguing for complete change based on the last piece. AOL appears to be going after the delivery piece (something they have been doing for a while with the content appearing on AOL.com). To me, the experience is very much determined by the genre of content. I don't believe that the new iPod (which, BTW, is deliberately not marketed as the Video iPod) is going to revolutionize any of the other parts in a way that will replace TV. I think that it may well revolutionsize radio and/or podcasting: think radio with images. The reason I say this is because the size of the screen is simply too small to provide any extra value by having images. I've watched it, and I can't watch it.
TV is not radio with images. TV is about value in the moving image. You could have silent experiences on TV, but not on radio, after all.