FTA:<p>"The best content creators will do just fine. [...]
The lousy content creators will disappear. "<p>The problem with this is, that most people don't jump from nothing to "best" in one go. The people who created all that lousy content, some of them learnt from their experience and got better and started developing better content. If fewer people are able to make a living creating bad content, fewer people are going to be able to climb the learning curve to start creating good content.
The reason newspapers died was because you got yesterday's news, and the web just offered so much more.<p>TV and the web don't really compare yet. Not in quality, not in the viewing experience(can't really watching anything with more than 1 person)
I think this is spot on. Traditional broadcast video is headed toward a cliff that is just barely out of sight to anyone who doesn't want to see it. It brings to mind the larger point of Clay Shirky's article on newspapers (<a href="http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2009/03/newspapers-and-thinking-the-unthinkable/" rel="nofollow">http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2009/03/newspapers-and-thinking...</a>): the internet is built to distribute information instantly and ubiquitously. This is fundamentally disruptive to any business built on distributing information of any kind. If that's how you make your money and you treat the internet like it's just another distribution stream, you're in for a short, rough ride.
<i>A few clever online aggregators--YouTube? Hulu? Cable companies? Netflix?--will create nice video portals and build powerful new businesses. At these portals, you'll be able to sign up to watch anything in the world on any device you want. You'll be able choose among multiple subscription models (monthly, a la carte).</i><p>I would be quite positive about such a development. Unlike newspapers, I - and millions like me - pay a significant monthly outlay for TV (Dish in my case) for a lot of stuff I don't actually want (as opposed to my newspaper-reading self, who spends a lot less money for stuff I do want).<p>For example I pay a significant amount of money to subscribe to a foreign channel in which I only watch one program. I also subscribe to a motorsport channel so I can watch one series. I would be very happy to go a la carte - (eg. pay for programs I want to DVR). I probably would be okay with spending similar amounts of money for more shows I want to watch.<p>Also, TV has various successful pay models already including subscription (HBO) and PPV, which will probably translate a lot better onto the Internet than the newspapers models did.<p>That said, I do agree with the author that there will be a rearrangement of the landscape.