2020年5月8日 星期五

On Tech: Is ‘death diving’ the future of TV?

The pandemic has shown we’ll watch any garbage on TV.

Is ‘death diving’ the future of TV?

Derek Abella

Stuck at home, we’ve gorged on Netflix and everything else on screens. Is there any turning back?

I talked to my colleague Ed Lee, a sharp observer of media and entertainment, about how our pandemic-driven habits might reshape television, sports and movies.

He thinks his current love for an oddball “sport” shows we’re not picky about the quality of entertainment. And, he suggests we should get ready to hit the movie theater without leaving home.

Shira: What’s surprising about people’s entertainment habits in this pandemic?

Ed: I was surprised the lack of sports hasn’t significantly reduced TV watching. People are still tuning into live TV, mostly for news — but also for old sports or weird sports. I caught something called “death diving” on ESPN. It’s big in Norway, apparently. I’m hooked.

WHAT IS DEATH DIVING?

It’s a version of belly flopping, but a big part of it is performative — the things you do midair before you flop into the pool. I guess coronavirus is great for fringe sports.

But we’re not going to watch marble racing and goofball diving on TV forever. (I think?)

True. Most of this fringe content will be forgotten, but what it tells me is distribution is still kinda king. We’ll watch almost anything as long as there’s an “on” switch.

The quality of entertainment doesn’t matter? Isn’t that discouraging?

Remember when TV used to be only broadcast, everyone complained there was nothing good on, but we all still watched?

ADVERTISEMENT

Now, arguably, there’s plenty of good stuff on television. But it’s about which company can capture the most eyeballs to shove whatever they have at you.

What’s going to happen with sports, which rely on TV money? If sports will be weird for a while, why pay a zillion dollars to football leagues?

It’s like an arms race. If one TV company doesn’t pay up for a major sports franchise like the NFL, someone else will. The only way the arms race potentially ends is if younger people never develop a taste for live sports. That’s possible. Look at Twitch.

There’s a lot of discussion about letting people watch new movies at home instead of in theaters. Will that happen?

ADVERTISEMENT

Yes, there’s a higher likelihood of some — emphasize some — films being released for home streaming instead of in theaters. Blockbusters like Marvel movies will still have theatrical releases.

Do people want this? If I watch a movie at home, it doesn’t feel like an activity.

Not everyone. But for some, the comfort and ease of doing so … yes!! People have been willing to pay as much as $50 to watch a new movie at home.

Besides death diving, what’s your household’s pandemic entertainment?

We’ve been watching “Never Have I Ever” on Netflix, and the latest season of “Killing Eve.” I’ve kept up with “Westworld” on HBO, but my heart isn’t in it. I’m just watching it to watch it. The “on” switch.

Get this newsletter in your inbox every weekday; please sign up here.

ADVERTISEMENT

The cost of fast and free shipping

After I wrote this week about the future of online shopping, a couple of readers pushed back on the idea that more neighborhood package hubs would mean more traffic and pollution. Wouldn’t deliveries dropped off to everyone pollute less than all of us driving to stores?

Yes, in principle, but probably not in practice.

Anne Goodchild, a professor at the University of Washington, has found that consolidating deliveries in one area produces fewer climate-harming emissions than the same people driving back and forth to multiple stores.

But Dr. Goodchild said that’s not a fair comparison because it’s not the reality of online shopping in the United States.

As more companies offer to ship online orders in one or two days, people are ordering more often. That tends to increase the number of times airplanes and trucks have to head out, and increases delivery miles traveled.

In January to June of last year, 94 percent of Amazon orders were for only one item, according to Rakuten Intelligence, which asks people’s permission to analyze their email receipts. Speedy deliveries also require more airplanes, and compel companies to send out half-empty delivery vans.

E-commerce companies will likely become more efficient at bunching deliveries and plotting transportation routes, but it won’t solve everything.

Dr. Goodchild said the best practice for the environment is for people to buy less stuff in general, and for shipping times to be slower.

Before we go …

  • “There’s Zoomd, Zoomi, Zumi, Zoomy, Zoomies, Zoomin, Zoomvy, Zoomly and Zoomph.” Other than this WONDERFUL newsletter, you will read nothing better than my colleague Erin Griffith’s Dr. Seuss-like tale of tech company names that suggest speed.
  • Your regular reminder to be suspicious of what you see online: The “Plandemic” video that was everywhere online was initially a coordinated effort by people who oppose vaccines. They’re trying to capitalize on our coronavirus fears to spread discredited conspiracy theories, NBC News reported. Facebook and YouTube said they were deleting the video from their sites, but versions of it are still popping up.
  • The dumb jokes are coming for you: The conspiracists (see above) and the money-minded people always figure out how to game popular online hangouts to get attention. My colleague Taylor Lorenz writes about the bombardment of TikTok, mostly known for its dance crazes and skits, by financially minded networks that create visual jokes known as memes.

Hugs to this

Staring at the planet Mercury is weirdly calming. Also, it’s science, so you can feel good about watching an internet video.

We want to hear from you. Tell us what you think of this newsletter and what else you’d like us to explore. You can reach us at ontech@nytimes.com.

Get this newsletter in your inbox every weekday; please sign up here.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for On Tech with Shira Ovide from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

|

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your Email|Privacy Policy|Contact Us

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018

歡迎蒞臨:https://ofa588.com/

娛樂推薦:https://www.ofa86.com/

2020年5月7日 星期四

On Tech: Your iPhone costs too much

It’s a failure that all the energy goes to the Lexus of smartphones, not the Corollas.

Your iPhone costs too much

China Daily/Reuters

When I stare at my phone, I feel pangs of regret. For my wallet.

My phone is fine. But I know I paid more than I needed to for my $800 phone. Most of us probably did.

On the road, far more people buy a Toyota Corolla than one of the company’s luxury Lexus cars. Over in smartphone land, the Lexus has been king.

It’s a failure of the market that most of us have more smartphone than we really need.

This is slowly starting to change. My colleague Brian X. Chen has raved about the iPhone SE, Apple’s new, $399 model, which has the body of a three-year-old smartphone and the brains and guts of the latest editions.

“State-of-the-art smartphone technology has finally come down to a modest price,” Brian wrote Wednesday. “It’s about time.”

It’s beyond time. I’ve written in this newsletter about smartphones morphing from novel to normal, dousing our zeal to buy new and better models all the time. This is the natural order of things.

But what has been unnatural is the pit of despair for the smartphone of the masses. All of the attention has been on the luxury end.

That has meant that what we pay for smartphones on average has stayed stubbornly high in the United States. Yes, we’re getting more for our money, but for most other consumer products, we’re paying less AND getting improved products.

ADVERTISEMENT

As long as people were splurging on new models, most companies had little incentive to make great and truly affordable phones. At least until recently. Global smartphone sales are on track to fall for the fourth straight year, and the pandemic-related economic freeze in many countries doesn’t help.

The companies have slowly started to take the hint. Apple’s iPhone XR, which now goes for about $600, is far outselling its $1,000-and-up models in the United States. Samsung’s top-of-the-range phones haven’t consistently sold well.

And while smartphones below $600, including an earlier iPhone SE, haven’t been hot sellers, Brian’s enthusiasm shows that great smartphones don’t have to cost $1,500 or even $600. We just need the companies to put as much energy and marketing muscle into the Corolla end of their range as they do in the high end.

That’s not to say I’m dissing those pricey phones. We should be glad that companies stretch their minds and their research labs to invent phones with bleeding edge technology and $2,000 price tags. Fancy parts and gizmos in today’s luxury phones become tomorrow’s widespread, affordable and important technologies.

ADVERTISEMENT

So you should feel free to buy the Lexus of smartphones if you want to and can afford it. Just know that you don’t have to.

This will make you wince

My colleague Cecilia Kang wrote this week about Americans in rural areas having trouble getting internet access at home. Friends, I have a doozy of an example for you.

Several years ago, Susan Wakabayashi moved her family into a newly built home in Middleburg, Va. To her surprise, she and some of her neighbors were in a dead zone without fast internet lines.

What happened next was a maddening five-year saga that shows that even people who can afford to get online can’t always do so because of bureaucratic failures.

ADVERTISEMENT

Wakabayashi tried every trick in the book so she could work from home and get online for one of her children who was home-schooled.

She said she paid $900 a month at times for subpar mobile internet service. Wakabayashi organized the neighbors to try to persuade internet providers to wire their area for fast internet. She said local government officials told her that exclusive contracts for internet and cellphone providers left them with few alternatives.

Wakabayashi said she even briefly considered hiring a lawyer to sue the county under the Geneva Convention treaties, which create obligations between states at war. (Such a lawsuit would have been impossible, of course, but she was desperate.)

Eventually, Wakabayashi gave up trying to work from home and instead drove three hours round trip to the office.

Wakabayashi later sold the house and moved her family further east to a place with fast internet. She said she misses her old home. Kind of. “All those horses, all those kind people — and lousy internet access,” she said.

Before we go …

  • Facebook’s quasi Supreme Court: In a Times Opinion piece, the chairs of Facebook’s new oversight board said they will now be the final word in disputes over posts deemed to violate the company’s rules for harmful or hateful speech. Kara Swisher writes for Opinion that this board's rulings on individual cases can’t fix Facebook’s structural flaws that stress “engagement over context, speed over reflection and viral growth above all.”
  • The strain of fast forwarding to the online grocery future: Instacart, which sends shoppers into supermarkets to deliver groceries, is seeing order volumes it hadn’t expected until 2025, Bloomberg Businessweek reported. The pandemic surge has been a strain for staffers logging 18-hour workdays, and for some of Instacart’s contract shoppers who say their compensation and protective gear is inadequate for the health risks they’re taking.
  • “Quiz Daddy” is back! Scott Rogowsky, who for a hot minute was famous as the host of the HQ Trivia online quiz game, is now streaming a comedy talk show from his apartment.

Hugs to this

A weatherman for the BBC does double duty drumming out the news broadcast’s theme music.

We want to hear from you. Tell us what you think of this newsletter and what else you’d like us to explore. You can reach us at ontech@nytimes.com.

Get this newsletter in your inbox every weekday; please sign up here.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for On Tech with Shira Ovide from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

|

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your Email|Privacy Policy|Contact Us

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018

歡迎蒞臨:https://ofa588.com/

娛樂推薦:https://www.ofa86.com/

Savings for international readers: Subscribe now.

Expert reporting to guide you through the crisis.
 
The New York Times View in Browser
 
Unprecedented times. Unparalleled coverage. International readers subscribe at a discounted rate.
 
VIEW OFFER
 
 
 
 
There’s never been a more important time to connect with the facts. Let our experts in global health, business and politics bring you the story in full by subscribing to The Times.
 
International readers subscribe at a discounted rate.
 
 
 
 
VIEW OFFER
 
 
 
Cancel anytime.
 
 
 
 
No commitment required. Cancel anytime.
 
Limited time offer. Your payment method will automatically be charged in advance every 4 weeks at the introductory rate for one year and at the standard rate thereafter. All subscriptions renew automatically. You can cancel anytime. These offers are not available for current subscribers. Mobile apps are not supported on all devices. Other restrictions and taxes may apply. Offers and pricing are subject to change without notice.
 
This email was sent to puseguliao.mail02@blogger.com
 
Account Login | Help Center
Attn.: Customer Service, P.O. Box 8041, Davenport, IA 52808-8041
 
Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | Unsubscribe
 
©2020 The New York Times Company | 620 Eighth Ave., New York, NY 10018
 
 
                                                           

歡迎蒞臨:https://ofa588.com/

娛樂推薦:https://www.ofa86.com/