Tablets killed the television stars.

So CNN released an article on January 14th about how tablets (specifically iPads) are starting to eat into prime time television for reading.

http://tinyurl.com/4gvje93


The article proposes that the times normally used for paper reading or TV is being usurped by tablets because folks are reading more.  Are folks really reading more?  Has the electronic book really replaced the remote control and folks no longer watching TV?


NOPE.


With TV now being "when" and "where" you want it, you can now make more trade-offs on your time.  If you want to catch-up on all your shows every Saturday or Sunday and focus on finishing up that last book in the Twilight series, you can now do that.  


Without doing any math, I would propose that TV and reading has increased in tandem over the last couple of years.  Now that I can 'carry' multiple books and multiple movies / TV shows with me when I go somewhere, the idea of "Prime-time" is almost a thing of the past.  Sure I have to remove myself from Facebook as all my friends 'blog' about a show as it happens, but I have to squeeze in my time with Gregory Maguire and Anne Rice too!


So are you reading more and watching less TV?

Get it when you want it ... Get rid of cable, create your own "On Demand"

So we cut the cord in our household 2 years ago and went cable-less. But why? With all the amazing shows that you can watch and ensure you are caught up around the water cooler, why would anyone not have cable?

Let's do some numbers ....

Digital Premier = $110

HD = $8

DVR = $15.00

Cable = $133 ... $130 for good measure

http://www.csun.edu/science/health/docs/tv&health.html

Number of hours per day that TV is on in an average U.S. home: 6 hours, 47 minutes ... 7hrs for rounding's sake.

Let's use 30 days for a month ... so 210 hours of television. Assume each 1hr block represents a show.

So you are paying $0.62 per show, which is great if you really sit down and watch 7 hours of television every day for 30 days.

Let's put some brackets around this ... let's just say I can only watch TV for 3hrs a night and because of a busy weekend schedule, I don't watch on the weekends.

Let's use 4 weeks for a month ... so 60 hours of television a month.

Now you are paying $2.16 per show. That's pretty expensive considering I'm probably watching commercials in about half of those shows I'm watching. That was a loosing proposition for me.

If we were to strip away everything and start from scratch ...

Over The Air HD (ABC, NBC, CBS, WB) = $0.00

Tivo HD DVR = $10.00 per month ($200 up front for the box)

Netflix 1 DVD At A Time + Instant Watch ($8.99) + Blu-Ray ($4) = $13

Apple TV (just because you want a little extra) = $0.99 cents to rent a TV show, $4.99 to rent a movie in HD

($99 up front for the box)

Alternative Setup = $26 bucks a month ... plus any shows I may watch, round to $30 for shows or a movie here and there.

What are you missing. SPORTS ... Sports have been the one thing that has kept many folks from cutting the cord.

espn.go.com

Live streaming of just about every game that ESPN covers.

Now how do you get that on your 100" reach through and grab someones popcorn HD screen? There are several computers that do HD straight to the back of your TV.

What else are you missing ... sitting in your living room and watching any fresh episodes of BIG cable shows like True Blood or The Big C. You get them later (on netflix or Apple TV). Stars did something different with their show Spartacus where they had it available immediately on Netflix the week it aired. More than likely cable networks will do this more often.

One could argue that to do the alternate you have to have good internet

Internet

= $60 if you are starting from scratch

= $20 if you already have it and are dropping cable television

So your savings could range from $40 (no internet at all) to $80 (had cable before and dropping it now)

Either way it's cold hard cash back in your pocket every month. A good way to be thrifty, no?

3Don't ... 3D is just not ready for prime time

I know that a lot of folks love 3D. I am just not one of those folks. I've seen several moves with and without 3D (specifically Avatar) and I can certainly say that 3D is just not ready yet. Not that the visual piece is not stunning, it is. The issue stems from the glasses themselves. There is a slight reflection in the bottom of the glasses that is very distracting. During fast motion images become blurred. Lastly, there is a depth of color in 2D that is flat out missing in 3D.

You go to the movies to be engrossed in the experience, to suspend your disbelief. The glasses have a reflection of the screen in the corners that is basically the movie playing in the corner of your eye. It's bad enough that people distract you with flashing cell phones and ipods but to have the entire movie playing in front of you and your periphery is not the way you want to spend two hours.

"Why are you so M* f* blurry" ... I'm not sure what causes this, but while watching Avatar I noticed that when things became very fast paced, you almost could not focus on anything. All of the images on the screen began to blur. Seeing Avatar in 2D, there were no issues with the fast paced action. Might be the way 3D is filmed that just can't handle scenes like that.

Color ... Avatar was an amazingly rich environment with more colors than you can shake a crayola box at. 3D made Avatar seem muted, washed out. In 2D you could see every little floating seed and fleck of burning tree.

It's not just the big screen that is lackluster. 3D televisions leave a lot to be desired also. 3D was big in the 50s and has attempted to make a strong come back. Watching television with extra equipment is not something that most people handle the extra equipment. The technology has to get to a point where you don't need the additional accoutrements.