#Future of DTV?
3 messages in this thread
Paul:
>RE Video Phones: The phone companies can point to piles of research indicating
nobody wants this.<
Not that the phone co's. do much to push it…In fact, best as I can tell, they
consider it a deuced inconvenience!
>What's the plan to overcome the 'creative burden' of video? More
Ready-to-wear clips?<
Probably at first–along w/easy-to-use, low-cost A/V recording devices. Let's
face it, Paul–while nobody here would think (much) of dropping $1,000 or
better on a decent camcorder, most non-videohead consumers <g> probably
couldn't bring themselves to spend more than $100 for a device like that.
Once manufacturers figure out a way to make an A/V recorder w/a decent picture
for *that* kind of money (and realize there's a profit in doing so–or so
sayeth that great sage Quark <g>), I think that's when we'll see the REAL
revolution!
Best,
Tim
<<non-videohead consumers <g> probably couldn't bring themselves to spend more
than $100 for a device like that.>>
Maybe cheap and easy to use is the catalyst. The camcorder manufacturers seem
to be using the same marketing technique that the computer makers tried. That
is, instead of making it cheaper; you hold the price break but make the product
faster and more feature-laden. So, perhaps they need to address a broader type
of consumer.
One tough thing for us video-bigots to swallow is that this huge consumer base
may like the idea of video; but they don't want to make movies. I had my boss
and his wife over a coupla weeks ago. They brought a few 8mm tapes (I'm always
interested in seeing what people tape; so I always ask). They were labeled
'1992' '1993' '1994'. They use their camcorder as a chronicle or diary. The
weird part? They had never watched these tapes.
Paul:
>The camcorder manufacturers seem to be using the same marketing technique that
the computer makers tried. That is, instead of making it cheaper; you hold the
price break but make the product faster and more feature-laden. So, perhaps
they need to address a broader type of consumer.<
Actually, not any more–camcorders over the past two-three years (w/a few
exceptions) have been designed for ease of use over features (which *I* don't
like, but then I'm a videohead <g>). Unfortunately, I don't see them going down
significantly in price–unless you figure street price of $400 as opposed to
street price of $600 is significant (and it is, I suppose, except that for
folks who wouldn't *mind* a camcorder but it isn't a burning need, it's still
too expensive…). You're right about them addressing a broader consumer base,
though–they're starting to w/easier-to-use camcorders, but they still seem to
think folks are willing to pay a fortune for 'em…
>One tough thing for us video-bigots to swallow is that this huge consumer base
may like the idea of video; but they don't want to make movies.<
I wouldn't refer to most of us a "video bigots"–more like "video worshippers"
<g>… But your point is valid, nonetheless. For most people, they're not
looking to do GONE W/THE WIND w/their camcorders– they just want records of
their kids growing up, or what they've got that's valuable (for insurance
purposes), etc.
Best,
Tim