The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Back in the late eighties, early nineties, a lot of people were heralding the imminent demise of TV and Cinema...
The future, they said, is interactive...
Ten years on, and it apears we are only starting to see the beginnings of mainstream interactive Telly...
-----
Oft used currently for sporting events,
When Wimbledon was going, the BBC allowed people to watch any of four current matches.
Football often allows a person to change the camera, to select the view they want to see...
Big Brother allows no only camera choice, but also interactive voting...
And finally in the Web Pages, services like Open... offer a service that can best be described as cross between Teletext and web browsing
----
No doubt interactivity will become more involved...
But, how involved do we want to be?
Surely televisual entertainment is best experienced with the viewer as a passive party, switching on the TV and demanding entertainment, rather than being an active member taking part in the unravelling events?
Or can interactivity enhance the viewing experience? DVD's often come with extras, short movies, camera control, etc... Options that are there to enhance and add depth to the movie experience. Never intending to take the spotlight away from the feature presentation, which still requires only the attention and imagination of the viewer
-----
I think the problem with interactive television, as it stands, is that of unoriginality.
The Currently provided interactive options, are implementation of the ideas people were talking about over ten years ago, when interactivity was still a concept idea, not a practical reality. There seems to have been few new ideas to develop the concept since...
Does this demonstrate interactive TV is a fad, a short-lived novelty? Too limited to be valid? Or that it will grow to be an essential part of the viewing experience?
Of are we resting, in the dark ages, waiting until Broadband net access becomes standard, allowing the option of a much richer interactive environment? With greater potential?
Will TV move in the future to become more interactive, or to provide a wider service, with an infinite number of channels, programs on demand, allowing the user to watch any program ever recorded, at any time of day or night?
Where now for Interactivity?
The future, they said, is interactive...
Ten years on, and it apears we are only starting to see the beginnings of mainstream interactive Telly...
-----
Oft used currently for sporting events,
When Wimbledon was going, the BBC allowed people to watch any of four current matches.
Football often allows a person to change the camera, to select the view they want to see...
Big Brother allows no only camera choice, but also interactive voting...
And finally in the Web Pages, services like Open... offer a service that can best be described as cross between Teletext and web browsing
----
No doubt interactivity will become more involved...
But, how involved do we want to be?
Surely televisual entertainment is best experienced with the viewer as a passive party, switching on the TV and demanding entertainment, rather than being an active member taking part in the unravelling events?
Or can interactivity enhance the viewing experience? DVD's often come with extras, short movies, camera control, etc... Options that are there to enhance and add depth to the movie experience. Never intending to take the spotlight away from the feature presentation, which still requires only the attention and imagination of the viewer
-----
I think the problem with interactive television, as it stands, is that of unoriginality.
The Currently provided interactive options, are implementation of the ideas people were talking about over ten years ago, when interactivity was still a concept idea, not a practical reality. There seems to have been few new ideas to develop the concept since...
Does this demonstrate interactive TV is a fad, a short-lived novelty? Too limited to be valid? Or that it will grow to be an essential part of the viewing experience?
Of are we resting, in the dark ages, waiting until Broadband net access becomes standard, allowing the option of a much richer interactive environment? With greater potential?
Will TV move in the future to become more interactive, or to provide a wider service, with an infinite number of channels, programs on demand, allowing the user to watch any program ever recorded, at any time of day or night?
Where now for Interactivity?
Mewtwo wrote:
> Back in the late eighties and early nineties how many people had
> herd of the internet? How many people had internet access? How much
> multimedia had the internet at the time?
Comparitivly few... (whats your point here?- sorry???) :)
Interactive TV will never
> be as big as it could have been because of the internet and peoples
> acceptance of the internet. If we look at SKY Open is loosing money
> and Why? because most people who have SKY Digital will probably also
> own a computer.
Interactive TV should have arrived before the
> Internet took off. If we had interactive TV anytime up until as late
> as 1997 then I am sure that not only Interactive TV would have been
> a massive success but also would have created a larger and earlier
> demand for better quality, speed and content internet. After all
> going from Interactive TV to an Internet enabled PC would be a
> natural progression, rather than vice versa,internet to interactive
> TV.
Coundt thew Internet be seen as the saviour of interactive TV...
With high bandwidth digital transmissions... the all important ability to transmit as well as recieve...
Surely the internet (not the WWW) is the medium that provides opportunity for digital to grow in a way that would otherwise leave it like a flash CeeFax?
> Back in the late eighties and early nineties how many people had
> herd of the internet? How many people had internet access? How much
> multimedia had the internet at the time?
Comparitivly few... (whats your point here?- sorry???) :)
Interactive TV will never
> be as big as it could have been because of the internet and peoples
> acceptance of the internet. If we look at SKY Open is loosing money
> and Why? because most people who have SKY Digital will probably also
> own a computer.
Interactive TV should have arrived before the
> Internet took off. If we had interactive TV anytime up until as late
> as 1997 then I am sure that not only Interactive TV would have been
> a massive success but also would have created a larger and earlier
> demand for better quality, speed and content internet. After all
> going from Interactive TV to an Internet enabled PC would be a
> natural progression, rather than vice versa,internet to interactive
> TV.
Coundt thew Internet be seen as the saviour of interactive TV...
With high bandwidth digital transmissions... the all important ability to transmit as well as recieve...
Surely the internet (not the WWW) is the medium that provides opportunity for digital to grow in a way that would otherwise leave it like a flash CeeFax?
Back in the late eighties and early nineties how many people had herd of the internet? How many people had internet access? How much multimedia had the internet at the time?
Interactive TV will never be as big as it could have been because of the internet and peoples acceptance of the internet. If we look at SKY Open is loosing money and Why? because most people who have SKY Digital will probably also own a computer.
Interactive TV should have arrived before the Internet took off. If we had interactive TV anytime up until as late as 1997 then I am sure that not only Interactive TV would have been a massive success but also would have created a larger and earlier demand for better quality, speed and content internet. After all going from Interactive TV to an Internet enabled PC would be a natural progression, rather than vice versa,internet to interactive TV.
Interactive TV will never be as big as it could have been because of the internet and peoples acceptance of the internet. If we look at SKY Open is loosing money and Why? because most people who have SKY Digital will probably also own a computer.
Interactive TV should have arrived before the Internet took off. If we had interactive TV anytime up until as late as 1997 then I am sure that not only Interactive TV would have been a massive success but also would have created a larger and earlier demand for better quality, speed and content internet. After all going from Interactive TV to an Internet enabled PC would be a natural progression, rather than vice versa,internet to interactive TV.
PoP?
Back in the late eighties, early nineties, a lot of people were heralding the imminent demise of TV and Cinema...
The future, they said, is interactive...
Ten years on, and it apears we are only starting to see the beginnings of mainstream interactive Telly...
-----
Oft used currently for sporting events,
When Wimbledon was going, the BBC allowed people to watch any of four current matches.
Football often allows a person to change the camera, to select the view they want to see...
Big Brother allows no only camera choice, but also interactive voting...
And finally in the Web Pages, services like Open... offer a service that can best be described as cross between Teletext and web browsing
----
No doubt interactivity will become more involved...
But, how involved do we want to be?
Surely televisual entertainment is best experienced with the viewer as a passive party, switching on the TV and demanding entertainment, rather than being an active member taking part in the unravelling events?
Or can interactivity enhance the viewing experience? DVD's often come with extras, short movies, camera control, etc... Options that are there to enhance and add depth to the movie experience. Never intending to take the spotlight away from the feature presentation, which still requires only the attention and imagination of the viewer
-----
I think the problem with interactive television, as it stands, is that of unoriginality.
The Currently provided interactive options, are implementation of the ideas people were talking about over ten years ago, when interactivity was still a concept idea, not a practical reality. There seems to have been few new ideas to develop the concept since...
Does this demonstrate interactive TV is a fad, a short-lived novelty? Too limited to be valid? Or that it will grow to be an essential part of the viewing experience?
Of are we resting, in the dark ages, waiting until Broadband net access becomes standard, allowing the option of a much richer interactive environment? With greater potential?
Will TV move in the future to become more interactive, or to provide a wider service, with an infinite number of channels, programs on demand, allowing the user to watch any program ever recorded, at any time of day or night?
Where now for Interactivity?
The future, they said, is interactive...
Ten years on, and it apears we are only starting to see the beginnings of mainstream interactive Telly...
-----
Oft used currently for sporting events,
When Wimbledon was going, the BBC allowed people to watch any of four current matches.
Football often allows a person to change the camera, to select the view they want to see...
Big Brother allows no only camera choice, but also interactive voting...
And finally in the Web Pages, services like Open... offer a service that can best be described as cross between Teletext and web browsing
----
No doubt interactivity will become more involved...
But, how involved do we want to be?
Surely televisual entertainment is best experienced with the viewer as a passive party, switching on the TV and demanding entertainment, rather than being an active member taking part in the unravelling events?
Or can interactivity enhance the viewing experience? DVD's often come with extras, short movies, camera control, etc... Options that are there to enhance and add depth to the movie experience. Never intending to take the spotlight away from the feature presentation, which still requires only the attention and imagination of the viewer
-----
I think the problem with interactive television, as it stands, is that of unoriginality.
The Currently provided interactive options, are implementation of the ideas people were talking about over ten years ago, when interactivity was still a concept idea, not a practical reality. There seems to have been few new ideas to develop the concept since...
Does this demonstrate interactive TV is a fad, a short-lived novelty? Too limited to be valid? Or that it will grow to be an essential part of the viewing experience?
Of are we resting, in the dark ages, waiting until Broadband net access becomes standard, allowing the option of a much richer interactive environment? With greater potential?
Will TV move in the future to become more interactive, or to provide a wider service, with an infinite number of channels, programs on demand, allowing the user to watch any program ever recorded, at any time of day or night?
Where now for Interactivity?