login about faq

To prove you're not a spammer, email newuser.lgqa@gmail.com with the subject "Account Request" to request an account.


As tv are now becoming on the decline in 2012, guess how long till it will be obsolete.

http://www.lockergnome.com/blade/2011/12/02/tv-household-ownership-in-the-us-will-decline-in-2012/

asked Dec 02 '11 at 18:52

kevin's gravatar image

kevin ♦♦
35.8k161317591


This is ... well, misleading. Perhaps it's a better idea to redefine television. For years monitors with computer AND television inputs have been available, and now you buy a TV with built in internet CHEAPER than one without.

I would say that it's more accurate to say television died already, when broadcast analog tv was turned off. Because when broadcast tv became digital, it really bore much more resemblance to the internet.

answered Dec 02 '11 at 23:14

Duodave's gravatar image

Duodave
4.6k404998

agreed, the TVs we buy today are more like a big screen with a weak computer system built into it. But I think they mean the difference between a traditional TV and a computer with a monitor and in that case we will probably never stop using the TVs but they will definitively be on the decline as more and more younger kids use the computer to watch television channels.

(Dec 03 '11 at 05:12) Yarvaxea Yarvaxea's gravatar image

I agree. I use a TV for my computer monitor. Also, my other TV is a projector for my theater, which is usually powered by another computer. Any TV I do watch, is from a personal over-the-air antenna. Sure it only gets a few channels, but it's free!

(Dec 04 '11 at 13:50) KylePolansky KylePolansky's gravatar image

I think that it would take about... 1 octovigintillion years

answered Dec 02 '11 at 23:53

stb109's gravatar image

stb109
121239

There still is a place for TVs since they an be used by more than one person to watch something together.

answered Dec 03 '11 at 19:39

bradto's gravatar image

bradto
116232632

There still is a place for TVs since they can be used by more than one person to watch something together.

answered Dec 03 '11 at 19:41

bradto's gravatar image

bradto
116232632

I believe TVs AS WE KNOW IT are obsolete. More and more people are switching over to the internet for their entertainment purposes. Soon we will be seeing a wave of "smart TVs" that can do more than what they do now. I don't think its too hard to imagine a Android TV, iOS, or even Ubuntu TV. Canonical Ltd, the company behind Ubuntu, already announced plans to migrate Ubuntu to TVs.

answered Dec 03 '11 at 20:24

JordanV's gravatar image

JordanV
4.1k6685128

TV as I know it is for sure obsolete hook up the TV receive the signal from air waves 3 or 4 local channels all carrying a few hours of network programming ..

TV sets in the home are hooked to cable the TV set is nothing more or less then a monitor you could still use an out side antenna but its far more costly and difficult to do that today, cable all channels are owned by a few giant company's who decided what you want to see for you there is no real honest news forecast any more its a few .. iant company's who put on a show they call news but its really the world the way they want you to see it news today might as well be call the evening propaganda ..

as far as tv's becoming a rarity in homes this is a ways off the numbers of tvs in a home may well be dropping fast how ever each home has 2 to 4 or more TV in the past 50s and even the 70s homes had 1 TV the family watched together even if TV owner ship dropped by 50% the number would still most likely average out to 2 per home families get small more couples become empty nester as baby boomer get older they need fewer TV's

answered Mar 29 '12 at 13:52

jadtechnic's gravatar image

jadtechnic
2.0k518

I can only assume that those predicting or announcing the death of TV have forgotten that they are still very much part of an elite group if they have broadband capable of streaming HD pictures without glitch. And of course there is still nothing to compare with TV for live broadcasting. How many people watched the Superbowl, for example, on anything other than their good old TV set?

Predictions of doom in media are nearly always premature. You won't be old enough to remember when radio was all set to kill off print, and then TV was all set to kill off both radio and cinema. You might remember that the pop video was predicted to be another radio killer though. I-Tunes didn't destroy CD sales, Netflix & other film 'rental' services didn't decimate cinema takings, and so we go round the mulberry bush. Expect TV as we know it to outlive you and, if Governments finally get the grip they are so desperate for, to outlive the Internet too!

answered Mar 30 '12 at 09:58

Cornelia%20Cornflake's gravatar image

Cornelia Cornflake
8802316

actually VHS video DVD wrecked the industry big time movies are outrageously priced because crowds are so small drive ins are all but a memory for some old enough to even know what that is ..

CDs destroyed the music industry pretty much no one records music with out a whole album of music the day of the record and one hit wonder no one cares or wants them or is even very interested ..

as far as electronic music sales it really hurts to because of the .99 a track pricing is in some ways nearly 30 years behind the time add that to pirating and its a huge hurt ..

a lot of people like very much like me have not watch TV in year what I have watched of it I am not seeing what they want which is the advertising that pays for the market and use to keep it going its gottin so low that only a few company own all media choices ..

(Mar 30 '12 at 10:18) jadtechnic jadtechnic's gravatar image

In the UK, cinema attendances dropped by 70% in the period 1946-1960 with the advent of TV but revived to record levels in the 1990s, during the peak of the video rental trade, and have been equally healthy to date.

The suggestion that the music industry is suffering is good propaganda to persuade Governments to intervene in the Internet but simply has no basis in fact. There may have been some shift toward albums from singles but it certainly hasn't impeded the progress of the likes of Lady Gaga and Katy Perry in recent years. There has certainly been a massive diversification in the industry but that means that there are probably more people whose income comes partly or wholly from music now than at any time in history!

Yes there are people who haven't watched TV in a year but there's nothing new in that. I've been hearing that there's nothing on worth watching for half a century and yet ..... !

(Mar 30 '12 at 11:10) Cornelia Cornflake Cornelia%20Cornflake's gravatar image

i haven't watched TV to speak of since 92 and I know many many the same as myself and the bits I do catch are on DVR I don't have to see the advertising i haven't watched any new at all since that time or longer TV or new paper magazine other then what I have caught online while surfing ...

i have not bought a record , album tape CD since 1983 other then purchases I might make at garage sales and such as investment for hobby purposes...

as far as the music industry I was paying $1 when I was a kid in the mid 60s and 70s for a record and today they are paying the same dollar sorry you cant tell me the cost of everything hasnt gone up since then someone some where is hurting for sure ..

(Mar 30 '12 at 16:10) jadtechnic jadtechnic's gravatar image

The $1 you paid in the 60s bought you 2 tracks & the vinyl it was impressed on. The $1 you pay today buys you one track and nothing else. A large chunk of the costs involved in getting recordings to the customer simply fell away when direct download became possible. And the democratisation of music that has resulted from the download revolution brings further pressure to sell a track at its true value.

The vast majority of the income from recordings comes now, as it always has done, from radio plays, use in TV ads, cinema soundtracks etc. while a similar proportion of the artist's income comes from live shows. The truth is that most leading artists (at least those who write their own material) could afford to let you have their records for nothing without noticing much difference in their bank balance if they were not tied to big label contracts that favour the company to an outrageous degree!

answered Mar 30 '12 at 17:37

Cornelia%20Cornflake's gravatar image

Cornelia Cornflake
8802316

Your answer
toggle preview

Follow this question

By Email:

Once you sign in you will be able to subscribe for any updates here

By RSS:

Answers

Answers and Comments

Markdown Basics

  • *italic* or __italic__
  • **bold** or __bold__
  • link:[text](http://url.com/ "title")
  • image?![alt text](/path/img.jpg "title")
  • numbered list: 1. Foo 2. Bar
  • to add a line break simply add two spaces to where you would like the new line to be.
  • basic HTML tags are also supported


Join Us in the Chat Room

Tags:

×551
×85
×15

Asked: Dec 02 '11 at 18:52

Seen: 1,322 times

Last updated: Mar 30 '12 at 17:37