Undolog.com

Comment Article Net + Television of Tessarolo Thomas , considered by some " [...] a long time , "other" [...] [...] an attempt to justify , "by others" [. ..] [...] resignation ! " But all this could be the real crux of the matter, in my opinion, is far from being gutted! N3TV , the project where I had the good fortune to participate actively, has been a fantastic experience, experienced by all participants with large genuine enthusiasm (I say this because I was there). Not all, unfortunately, myself included, have been able to devote time and resources! I do not deny - and Thomas knows - that the evolution of the project was which seem curious, changing its original form into something that at the end - I think - had little to do with the Web, the so-called Net-Television, in short ! At least he had nothing more to do with the initial premise of the project. But this is normal! An innovative project evolves and changes over time, due to unforeseen events, and is therefore reason to wonder if the initial conditions change.

I state, for the avoidance of doubt, that I believe in freedom of expression and, as long as you do not harm others, everyone can do and say what they believe, especially in a "free world" as the Internet.

For this discussion I would like to make one event and is critical to N3TV both to Current.tv , and my own - so do not necessarily agree with - interpretation of the meaning-Net Television.

What is Net-Television?

The simplicity and clarity are essential when introducing a new topic and become even more so when you add the word - magic - 'TV'. Those who have read the book of Thomas ( Net TV: Internet TV will change forever ) will not have to agree that in the end, the project N3TV has actually departed from the premises shown in the text of Teesarolo. Despite what at least has kept his identity a web, as opposed to newly Current.tv . A "true" Net-Television, in my opinion, should have the following requirements:

• Must be accessible primarily by Web
• Must provide all those services is cross-platform Web and cross-media: RSS, Podcasts, etc. ...
• It should allow a strong interaction with users, Blog or style - even better - Web2.0 style: word order, therefore, interactivity
• It shall promote, monitor and at the same time, the User-Generated Content
• Must not forget that his audience is the Internet! The arguments (format) must therefore align this target

But all this has something to do with the videos? Nothing! I think Television has unintentionally stifled Net-Television. I always thought, and still think, that to make Net-Television must forget about the classic TV. After the initial enthusiasm, in fact, it seems to me that even the most promising projects (see Joost or Babelgum ) risk - if you do not already have - to fall into the trap of "mirror" what is already implemented on the Web is a normal TV! Of these, among other things, was discussed at the presentation of their book Tessarolo: moment due to the birth of N3TV!

To understand, I do not care at all to see CSI or Dr. House on Joost! I expect, at least, that such initiatives are taken by RAI (prarte that it does), by Mediaset or any other broadcaster, including the manufacturers of the same format: HBO broadcast on its website Sex and the City, and so on ...

What you forget is that Blog, Web and Net Radio-Television are ultimately the same thing! Web tools like blogs have opened the season Web2.0, leading (or restoring) the user at the center of attention and participation! The Internet is, therefore, free participation. If the blog has allowed end users to create text content (see comments or suggestions for other posts), radio (podcasts) give "voice" to users. Natural consequence, then, thanks to new technologies (massive dissemination of Adobe Flash Player) is to provide "video", a "face" to the users! Schamtizzando:

• Blogs have given written
• The Radio / Podcasts have given "voice", the sound
• The Net-Television should give the "face" or even the sum of the previous

Just as happened with the transition from radio (traditional) television (Traditional), Net-TV should just aim for the text-to merge video and audio into a single entity! If only because it is able to do so.

What Current.TV?

Directly from the website: "Current shows you what's happening in your world and you and your friends will not find on any other news site or cable TV channel.." For this reason it is a channel, and is probably for this reason that can be seen on Sky.
In addition, "Current.com is the virtual place that allows you to find and share stories and videos that interest you. The site puts you in touch with Current TV, a global satellite network.. " It is a "virtual place", it is true, because it uses the Internet but is not a "television" for the Internet. Use the Web to "exchange" information but does not realize what he had tried to do N3TV . Tries, but it remains to be seen if it will be and in what ways.
Finally: "You can watch Current TV online or enjoy it sitting comfortably on your couch. " The last five words clarify the concept. A "true" Net-Television is not the "fruisci" "sitting comfortably on your couch!" For that there are already many, many options.

Surely not fully Net-Television! Nell'accezione least described precisely Tessarolo. Does not comply, in fact, some of the points listed above, apart from the UGC (User-generated content) as a side effect of all to assess. Personally Current.tv is a "new" (yet another) channel, nothing more. Poor, also the choice (if choice is treated) to go on Sky, an initiative that distracts and eliminates what little there might be Web. This is not say that it is something interesting to follow, although personally I do not find motivation to go there often, but with the concept of Net-TV does not see what it has to do - for now ...

Why Current.tv and Joost are NOT Net-Television?

Who said that? If we redefine the meaning of Net-Television everything is possible. Tessarolo, for example, has repeatedly stressed the difference between IP-TV, web TV and Net TV. Evidently, in the end, it just made so much confusion!
Perhaps I have misunderstood, no doubt, but the significance of the term Net-Television is not simply "Web TV" or from the web in this case fall within the cross-platform, ie the ability to a media to be enjoyed on different devices. I play the Net-Television in a different way, the more it approaches the traditional TV and the less-Net Television!

What then remains?

Radiopodcast: N3TV first of all the good ways

Remain, for example, interesting initiatives, although not dealing with the video (and maybe now it's better that way), give off that "fragrance" that both recalls the original spirit of the Net-TV style Tessarolo or - if you prefer - N3TV first so.
Radiopodcast , led by DJ Frank , is a "true" web-radio (or Net-Radio), precisely because it respects the points listed in the first paragraph:

• It is accessible mainly from the Internet
• Provides all services cross-platform and cross-media: Blogs, RSS, Podcasts
• Enables Skype and Chat via Web Chat a 'real-time interaction during the broadcast, along with the ability to comment on the posts later broadcast in Podcasts
• User-generated content is: you can send any audio
• Do not forget all the Internet universe, focusing, more often, its own format on topics not covered (or intractable) elsewhere

These characteristics can not but bring to mind the first "day" of life N3TV , when the Web and interactivity of the video were placed at par / format.
The fact that you can not listen on Radiopodcast the latest single by Ligabue or Madonna is, in my opinion, an asset and not a defect. For there to your home stereo, iTunes, eMule or iPod! I "listen" - and interact - with Radiopodcast precisely because it offers what I can not find anywhere else.

N3TV / Net-Television: What has he lost?

Surely an opportunity! Most likely, the imbalance between their format and the Web, is "the change of direction" that the project has been compared to the first premises. The Daily News (which required a huge job, even at night - congratulations to all those who made ​​them), technology, and more on the Games, despite their extreme quality and care, were not sufficient to offset the loss of first direct-interactive manner.

The emphasis has been "too much" on video, on the almost "manic" quality of the movie, chasing "too much" aspect of TV formats! You forgot the Web, thinking more high-definition (HD), made possible with the latest release of Adobe Flash, and less to invent tools (and format) of new and engaging interactions. If you take my opportunity to comment on a Blog ...?
A blog edited graphically is not necessarily a Blog "success", then everyone can have an opinion on the word "success". Whatever are the contents of a blog and the activities of readers to make it an interesting and useful.

Web 3.0

I conclude by explaining better what I mean by "inventing tools (and format) the interaction new and exciting." The videos offered on the Internet is innovative in that it follows "verbatim" the television video. On the Web, I expect a real-time transmission-participatory involvement and "technology" by users.
I expect a "contest" and "games" that take advantage of online video, audio, chat all together.
I expect the ability to invent new entertainment venues and exploiting the audio-visual capabilities of the Internet.
I expect short films (or entire movies in the future) interactive, where the user is involved in a completely different experience from today.
In short, I expect an attitude of "reformist" and "innovative." How blogs have changed the way people interact and bring the Web, the so-called Net-Television - if any - should do the same!

Finally, I believe that the whole issue misunderstandings are due precisely to the term "television" that, until now, has not been a great help. From today, so I will try to stop using the term Net-Television that, in light of the facts, it seems to me that you understand does not mean anything! I feel much more appropriate instead to talk about Web 3.0.

This article was useful to you?:

Loading ...

• 

• Tweet