Why isn’t tv replaced by the internet?
In many ways the Internet has replaced TV. Where television used to be a medium that, when consumed, was dictated by time and it’s content was limited to large networks with large budgets and broadcast equipment costing millions of dollars…transmitting signals through a venue that required licensing by the federal government.
Today, consumers of broadcast multimedia do so on their schedule and on their own terms. Content can produced and broadcast by anyone and competition for views has never been more dynamic. The big-budget networks now place their content on the Internet where it can be consumed at the end-users leisure, and it is consumed wherever that user has a connection to the Internet.
In that sense, the Internet has indeed replaced ‘TV”
The broadcast medium of choice is now Internet protocol. IPTV is the vehicle that reaches the most viewers, and is also the vehicle of choice for big-data companies like Google for their Google Fibre initiative. Anyone can be their own TV station. Popularity of content is no longer driven by sponsorship of product. Viewership is now dictated by quality of content, is produced by anyone who has a cellular phone and a connection to the Internet with an account to multimedia repository like YouTube. Another way that the Internet has replaced TV.
Interestingly enough, trends for capturing viewership has come full circle, with services like periscope, meerkat and YouTube live, where the individual broadcaster can broadcast live video to hundreds and even thousands of viewers at a moments notice.
Given these considerations,the Internet has certainly changed the landscape of how multimedia content is interfaced from concept to delivery. From whom it originates to how it is delivered. When it is consumed to where the consumer when it is experienced.
In the light of these facts I would challenge anyone to introspectively claim that the Internet has not replaced TV.
TV is experiencing the long slow death.