互联网与文化paulgraham.com
电视为什么输了
Why TV Lost
2009 — 2021，它一次次回到首页
黑点是上首页（≥ 50 分）的那次投稿，空心点是没冲上去的投稿，点越大分数越高。
导读
Paul Graham 的经典文章《Why TV Lost》，论述电视为何会输给互联网：互联网是比电视更好的技术，而电视行业的失败在于版权限制和糟糕的用户体验，而非内容本身。文章多次登上 HN 首页，引发关于电视与互联网之争的长期讨论。
为什么经久不衰：PG 对技术趋势的判断在流媒体时代不断被验证，这篇十几年前的文章至今仍是理解媒体行业变革的经典视角。
HN 评论精选
娱乐业的阻碍不是技术而是法律，行业被复杂的版权合同网络束缚。
我哥哥是电视编剧，这个行业仍然没有真正理解互联网对其未来的意义。他厌倦了被制作方/电视台的视野（或缺乏视野）限制创作，想绕开中间商直接在互联网上发行。我告诉他这在技术上完全可行，他说那亚马逊等基础设施提供商不就成了新的中间商？也许吧，但这就像说我的电脑被电力公司挟持一样——理论上如此，实际上并不像娱乐业那种剥削性的中层管理。关键在于：对我们黑客来说'能不能做到'是技术问题，对娱乐业的人来说却是法律问题——整个行业深陷于管辖知识产权方方面面的复杂合同网络之中。
9oliYQjP查看英文原文
My brother writes for TV. There is quite an age difference between us; he's older. The industry still does not fully comprehend the Internet as it relates to its future. The other day we were having dinner and my brother said he wishes he could just cut the middlemen (the producers/networks) out of the equation and become a distributor on the Internet himself. He's tired of being creatively limited by their vision -- or lack-there-of. He was surprised when I said that it was well within his ability to do this already. Not in a "woohoo I put up my own website with my own shows" kind of way, but in a "I have become my own virtual CDN via EC2 et al" kind of way. He argued that would simply make Amazon and the infrastructure providers into the new middlemen. Perhaps, though that might be like saying that my computer use is being held hostage by the electrical company. In theory it is, but in practice it does not feel like the very exploitive sort of middle management that exists in the entertainment industry. I've done some work for this industry and the key point you have to understand is that, whereas "Can we accomplish this?" is a matter of technological feasibility to us hackers, it means something entirely different to entertainment industry folks. To them, it is more of a legal matter. The whole industry is mired in a complex web of contracts governing every detailed aspect of intellectual property. So, when we scoff at how long it took the networks to get something like Hulu up on the Internet, understand it was a bunch of lawyers holding up the process. Then, when you get around some of the service's limitations (e.g., geoblocking) understand that too, was a dumb legal requirement. Everyone involved knows these restrictions are circumventable but, they must be in place for the existing contracts not to have to be re-negotiated. Talk to anyone that's worked on the iTunes infrastructure. From what I gather, at least initially, getting an album onto the iTMS involved dozens of contracts. It made getting an iPhone application onto the App Store a cakewalk in comparison. Where a startup could provide tremendous value, it would be in overcoming the legal hurdles to distributing content on the Internet. Spend the money on the lawyers to setup all the contracts that you need, so you can get unsigned artists onto your content distribution network, but more-or-less play by the rules of the current industry. These people are afraid of change, so you don't want to come out of left field in the way you operate. Then, when you become the new boss of the industry, tear down the stupid legal constraints that stifle creativity and innovation, and makes the Internet pretend to be something it is not. The networks are vulnerable. Writers, actors, and other workers hate working for them because they take huge cuts of revenue and then play accounting games to take an even larger portion. There's a reason the unions there are so strong. They're united in their hatred of the middlemen. On the other side of the coin, us consumers hate the networks too. Most of us are tired of their antics. So, any startup willing to take on this challenge would have a friendly set of content suppliers, and a captive audience. Just get yourself the best lawyers you can probably find, because you will need them ;)
盗版的根源是版权方提供了糟糕的用户体验，用户想付费都无门。
版权方只看到盗版造成的收入损失，以为用户盗版只是为了免费。但 iTunes 证明只要够方便，人们愿意在线付费。盗版很大程度只是提供了更好的用户体验。我喜欢看网球这种小众运动，孟菲斯决赛有网络直播，却因转播权问题在美国不可用，还只支持 PC 不支持 Mac！电视台买下了转播权却不在我的地区播出，还封禁了我愿意付费观看的网络流。然后他们还要说教盗版等于偷窃。我明明是想付费的，我在努力付费。
geebee查看英文原文
"[2] Copyright owners tend to focus on the aspect they see of piracy, which is the lost revenue. They therefore think what drives users to do it is the desire to get something for free. But iTunes shows that people will pay for stuff online, if you make it easy. A significant component of piracy is simply that it offers a better user experience." Man, is this ever true. I like to watch tennis a lot - which, being a niche sport, is often not on TV. The memphis finals were televised in some places, but not others. There was a web stream, but dig this - it was not available in the US because of broadcasting rights. And it was limited to PCs (not Mac's)! So I'm thinking about anti-piracy efforts, including a lot of moralizing about how piracy is the equivalent of stealing (which, in some cases, it may well be). A network bought coverage, declined to air it in my area, but also banned a web feed that I would have gladly paid for, but with DRM that prevents it from working on my Mac. But I shouldn't watch a rogue feed, because Piracy would be, you know, wrong. I should just be a passive viewer and decide to enjoy what the network decided I should be watching that day. Keep in mind, I'm more than willing to pay. I'm trying to pay.
2009 年时断言电视已输为时过早，带宽、直播和内容质量都还站在电视一边。
这篇文章言之过早。电视仍是观看节目最主要的方式，总体收视率还在逐年增长。原因：1) 电视屏幕更大更便宜；2) 带宽不够，尤其高清，且进展停滞；3) 直播电视在线上几乎不存在，向所有人直播超级碗的带宽不存在，而体育是电视收视的巨大组成部分；4) 很多人想第一时间看节目，互联网做不到；5) 内容质量空前地好。
mattmaroon查看英文原文
This is many years premature. It may come to pass, but is nowhere near that now. TV is still by far the most common way of watching television shows (and watching television shows is still the most common way of wasting time) and overall viewership is increasing every year. This trend doesn't seem to be changing for a few reasons. 1) TV screens are much bigger and cheaper. They don't need the resolution a monitor does. Watching on a small screen is something you're happy to be able to do on a plane, but would never want to do on a day to day basis. 2) Bandwidth is still not there, especially for HDTV, and progress seems to be stalled. I still have pretty much the same connection for the same price that I did 5 years ago, and I'll likely still have it in 5 years from now. Mark Cuban talks about this a lot. Fiber to the premises may solve this one soon for some subset of the country, but by no means everyone. 3) Live television is nearly non-existent online. It can't handle it. The bandwidth to stream the Superbowl to everyone who wants it doesn't exist. Sports are a huge part of the TV viewing audience. 4) Many people like to watch shows as soon as they're released. The internet is terrible for this. I personally download mine, but I do so knowing that I'm always going to be watching the Daily Show from 2 days ago. If I were a TV addict (i.e. normal American) that would be unacceptable. 5) Content quality is better than ever. Single camera sitcoms, pay channel dramas, reality tv (if you're into that). Almost everyone agrees this is a golden era of television. If you really think that more people are watching TV on a computer than on a good old-fashioned TV, you need to come down from your Silicon Valley mountain for a while.
电视当时收视率仍处历史高位，它失去的只是垄断，而非竞争力。
电视输了吗？尼尔森数据显示收视率处于历史最高点，奥斯卡观众增长 13%，5000 多万人在电视上看奥巴马就职典礼。而且我的网络还是从有线电视提供商那里买的，他们还在反对网络中立、封锁 Torrent，远未被击败。电视和电脑都是数字管道，真正的区别只在于一个是封闭的、一个是开放的。电视失去的只是绝对垄断地位。
jonmc12查看英文原文
TV lost? While I agree with many of the points PG brings up, I feel something is missing. According to Nielson, TV viewership is at an all time high (http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/tag/total-us-television-viewers/). Also, Oscars had a 13% increase from last year with 36.3M viewers. 50+M viewers watched Obama's inauguration on TV.. not on their computers. And of course, we know that those teenagers who are using social apps still cast more votes for their favorite american idol contestant than the sum of adults cast for president. (btw, if anyone knows where to get an annual histogram of viewership in US, that is what I was really looking for). TV viewership may indeed plummet in the future, but as of right now its at an all time high. Then, I can't help but notice that I still procure my internet from my cable provider. And that same cable provider is not only actively fighting against network neutrality, but they are also blocking my ability to download anything from Torrent. They are far from beaten. Lastly, what is the real difference between watching shows on my TV verse Computer. They are both using digital pipes, they both have microprocessors, memory and HDs - one has a bigger screen than the other (usually). The only real difference, and increasingly so, is that one is proprietary, and one is open. TV has not lost.. their content is (unfortunately) as relevant and abundant to the average American as ever. All TV has lost is utter dominance - much like MS windows lost its utter dominance with the adoption of Linux and the rise of OSX (but they are still #1 by a lot). However, whether its piped through a monitor or an HD flatscreen, the US consumer will continue to glue their eyeballs to the content we call TV today for some time before open content can even begin to realize the same advertising dollars as the proprietary networks do.
大屏'后仰式'消费场景不会消失，消亡的是旧的分发模式而非大屏本身。
PG 说的是大屏幕的消亡，还是只是网络/广播/有线分发的消亡？我认为'后仰式屏幕'仍有其位置。人生有三块屏幕：口袋里的个人屏幕、桌上干活的创作屏幕（前倾式）、以及用于共享消费的后仰式屏幕——连接 xbox、AppleTV，用于群体娱乐和与伴侣一起看电影。平板介于第二和第三之间。第三块屏幕远不如前两块重要，但仍有存在的价值。
whatusername查看英文原文
PG - Were/Are you talking about the death of the big screen here -- or just the network/broadcast/cable distribution? Because I think I still see a place for the lean back screen. Effectively you have 3 screens in your life of decreasing importance. First is the personal one. It's 3-4 inches and is in your pocket where-ever you go. Occasionally you might even speak into it and use it as a "Phone". Second is the creative screen. This is the bigger screen at your desk where you do work. Not everyone needs one - but for serious work a larger screen plus relevant input devices are important. (This is the lean-forward screen) Third is the lean-back/consumption screen. This is for consumption and specifically -- consumption sharing. It will likely have a number of 'computers' attached to it: maybe an xbox and appletv. This is for group entertainment (kinect/wii games, etc) and for in-person social media sharing (watchign a movie with your partner) // I see tablets falling between 2 and 3. It's the replacement of the clipboard and a partially social consumption device. While the third screen there is much less important than the first two (especially #1), I feel it still has a place.
互联网在内容制作、发布模式上反而向电视靠拢，电视模式本身并未失败。
电视及其运作方式并没有输。我在北京生活时只有网络连接，却迫不及待想回家看电视、电影、体育。互联网反而更多地适应了电视模式：1) 经过制作的内容优于未制作的内容——HN 本身就是'被制作'的；2) 定时发布内容有好处；3) 大屏优于小屏；4) '500 个频道没东西看'？我在数百万网站里也只浏览 10 个。
bbuffone查看英文原文
TV and the way it works didn't lose. I live in beijing for extended periods of time with nothing more than an internet connection and I can't wait to get home to watch TV, Movies, Sports... The way TV works is far better than the internet was, which is why the internet has adapted more to the TV model then the other way. 1.) Produced content is better than un-produced content -> This holds true on the internet. Hackers News itself is successful because it is produced. Even though the community produces the content it is still produced. I can also find a million @pg - "I focus on the content" comments. 2.) Scheduled release of content -> One of the good things about being 12 hours ahead in beijing is that I wake up and all the content is ready for me to consume in the morning the rest of the day, provides little new content allow me to focus easier on my daily task then be interrupted by this tweet or news article. Sure you want to watch what you want when you want but we knew then 30 years ago when the VHS recorders came up. 3.) Large screens are better than small -> This is definitely true, watching content on little screens isn't that enjoyable, neither is watch horrible quality videos on youtube. Online content catchs up in terms of quality people will watch it on large screen TVs. 4.) 500 channels and nothing on -> I browse about 10 websites out of the Millions on the internet, compare this to TV where I watch 20 channels out of the 500 that is on my TV. Seems like TV and the way it works is being "Copied and Localized" to the internet.
亲身经历印证：付费渠道缺失时，用户自然流向盗版或免费替代品。
'版权方以为盗版是为了免费，但 iTunes 证明只要方便人们就愿意付费，盗版很大程度是更好的用户体验。'这比初读时更加真实。过去一个月我在 iPhone 上买了大量应用和游戏，还发现了 Kindle 买电子书的魔力。但在以色列买不到在线音乐/电视节目，只能去实体店或上 YouTube 听——猜猜我 чаще 用哪个？
edanm查看英文原文
"Copyright owners tend to focus on the aspect they see of piracy, which is the lost revenue. They therefore think what drives users to do it is the desire to get something for free. But iTunes shows that people will pay for stuff online, if you make it easy. A significant component of piracy is simply that it offers a better user experience." I find this even truer than when I first read this article. In the past month (since buying my iPhone), I've bought many, many applications+games for the iPhone, and yesterday I discovered the magic of buying ebooks from Amazon for the Kindle app. On the other hand, I can't buy music/tv shows online (I'm in Israel, Apple doesn't have the licensing deals here), which means I have to either give up on the music or go buy it at the store. Or listen to it on YouTube. Guess what happens most often?
历次讨论
同类还值得读
如今电脑上几乎所有操作在感知上都比 1983 年更慢（2017）
Almost everything on computers is perceptually slower than it was in 1983 (2017)
2017 年的推文串认为，尽管计算机硬件比 1983 年快得多，日常操作的感知速度却常常更慢：启动、界面响应和网络应用被层层抽象、动画、后台检查与网络依赖拖累。
互联网与文化上首页 5 次 · 2017–2020twitter.com网站肥胖危机
The Website Obesity Crisis
Maciej Cegłowski（idlewords）的经典演讲文稿《网站肥胖症危机》，批评现代网页越来越臃肿：动辄数 MB 的 JavaScript、追踪脚本和广告，把本可以轻…
互联网与文化上首页 5 次 · 2016–2021idlewords.com编辑精选亚马逊那本标价 23,698,655.93 美元的苍蝇书
Amazon’s $23,698,655.93 book about flies
博文讲的是亚马逊上一本关于果蝇的二手书被标到 23,698,655.93 美元。
互联网与文化上首页 5 次 · 2011–2022michaeleisen.org浏览器 User-Agent 字符串的历史
History of the browser user-agent string (2008)
2008 年的经典文章用戏谑的“创世纪”口吻，讲述浏览器 User-Agent 字符串如何从简单的标识演变成层层叠加的伪装：浏览器为了绕过按 UA 分发的网站检测，纷纷把自己伪装…
互联网与文化上首页 5 次 · 2012–2022webaim.org编辑精选最后的问题——艾萨克·阿西莫夫
The Last Question - Isaac Asimov
阿西莫夫最著名的短篇科幻小说《最后的问题》的在线全文。
互联网与文化上首页 5 次 · 2009–2019multivax.com编辑精选