[mythtv-users] Is skipping ads really a good idea?

[David Brodbeck]

On Jun 19, 2007, at 2:50 PM, Michael T. Dean wrote:

> So you're saying that just as HDTV is starting to catch hold here  
> in the
> US, people are going to give it up and go to sub-DVD quality just so
> they don't have to go out and--oh, wait, the antenna/cable/satellite
> receiver just brings it in for me...

I'm not sure HDTV is "catching on" except in the sense that people  
will soon have no choice but to buy HDTV sets.  The only places I see  
HDTV sets are sports bars and the homes of people who are seriously  
into the "home theater" experience.  And even then, what I usually  
see is SDTV stretched to fill the wider screen, so everyone has  
squashed heads.  I don't think people care as much as you think about  
the video quality of what they're watching.

>   So, where's the convenience
> benefit?  The only one I can think of is not having to own a DVR (that
> brings in high-quality video for playback when I want it).

Well, yes.  Most people aren't going to build their own DVR and  
struggle with getting it to talk to their cable box.  If they want a  
DVR, they have to rent one from the cable company.  From there, it's  
not that big a leap to go to an on-demand model where you tell your  
set-top box what you want and it grabs it for you, instead of telling  
it what you want and waiting for it to come around in the broadcast  
schedule.
>

> Then there's the whole Flash-based video-on-demand from the networks
> thing.

Well, yeah, Flash-based video is a bad idea all around.  But that's  
an implementation detail.  It's being used, I think, for two reasons:  
It avoids the whole confusion over getting the right codecs  
installed, and it prevents people from saving what they're watching.   
The latter seems to be a major fixation of every media company.   
They'd stop us from recording broadcast video, too, if they could.