It’s hard not to be wowed by today’s 4K TVs, living room projectors, and multi-room sound systems. And between Netflix, Amazon Video, Hulu, HBO Now, Shudder, FilmStruck, and the myriad of internet TV services, it’s easy to bombard ourselves with entertainment options beyond the traditional walls of cable. But we’re still living in a fragmented world that requires hopping between apps, remembering what show is where, and keeping tabs on content that might suddenly disappear at the end of each passing month. Even Alexa is affected; you might be able to play Amazon Music on basically any Alexa-enabled device, but something as essential as Spotify support varies depending on the product.
We’ve seen some fascinating attempts to leapfrog the limitations and frustrations of today’s entertainment platforms and streaming devices. Take the Caavo, for example. This $400 “remote of the future” uses machine vision to operate all the gadgets plugged into your TV (and the TV itself) by automatically doing the grunt work of switching inputs, opening the right episode, and hitting play — all with a single voice command. It actually understands what’s happening on your TV screen. It doesn’t (and can’t) eliminate all the menus and steps necessary to start streaming something; it just handles those tedious steps for you. And you thought your Logitech Harmony remote was fancy.
In today’s episode of Home of the Future, you’ll see how home integrators have managed to do the best they can with what they’ve got right now by wrangling home theater components, smart home gadgets, and streaming platforms under a single interface — in this case from a company called RTI. A Roku is the central video device, and you can even see its remote displayed on RTI’s iPad software below.
And where would we be without voice commands and universal search? Ordering your Fire TV or Apple TV to start playing your latest favorite Netflix series or round up movies starring a certain actor — spanning all the streaming catalogs — are some mighty convenient powers to have. Still, hopefully in 5, 10, or 20 years, sitting down to relax and find some entertainment won’t feel so splintered.
Some companies are already making things a little more cohesive: with its Prime Video Channels, Amazon lets you subscribe to HBO, Showtime, CBS All Access, Shudder, and other services and keep everything on the same bill instead of being overwhelmed by an avalanche of recurring charges every month. Apple is rumored to be exploring a similar model. For now, Apple has its TV app, which aggregates the shows and movies you have access to and brings them all together. You still get kicked out to other streaming apps once a show starts playing, but there’s no avoiding that... yet. If you’re watching a Netflix show, you’re gonna see that Netflix splash screen.
The screens we fixate our eyes on are only going to become better and better showcases for that content. Top-grade 4K TVs are cheaper than ever, and tech giants like Samsung are already building modular, MicroLED televisions that could someday be customizable to any size you need. 8K is also a thing these companies continue to push, but whether it’ll prove worthy of our home of the future (or yours) remains questionable.
Comments
If anything, I feel like the future is that people won’t be using tech anymore. What are you gonna watch? There are endless amounts of movies and TV shows being released, who can keep up with it all? Same thing with games. Who can play the entire library games? The worst part is that these entertainments give you nothing of value in return. They just waste your time and prevent you from becoming an expert in something that could actually be useful to you. Like a skill that is marketable. Learn to become the ultimate, hard-level player of your own life, not in some made-up game world.
By peartechlish on 09.03.18 12:29pm
We definitely need better means of controlling the chaos. Right now, I can guess what the creme de la creme is, at least for the high profile stuff, and just forget about the rest. I know The Americans is worth my time. That new Jack Ryan show – probably (I checked it out, yep, it’s a winner). Maniac – yeah probably worth checking out. But that means ignoring 99% of everything, including stuff I’m sure also deserves a look. It does help a lot that broadcast is so bad, I can safely ignore it across the board now.
By nerdrage on 09.03.18 2:05pm
That might be part of the issue. At one time, there were only a limited amount of theater releases and only a few shows made it to syndication. There was more thought put out in each individual product, whether it was music, movies, TV shows. Nowadays, anybody can make a movie at home or write a song in Garageband, so there are myriads and thousands of songs released every day. It’s overwhelming, on the one hand, there is something magical about accidentally discovering something magical, but on the other hand, you can see how it promotes the mediocre. Because it’s just a matter of throwing something out there, there’s little feedback or incentive to even make something great. That’s from the creator’s perspective.
From the consumer’s perspective, when I walked into Target the other day, I noticed they got rid of almost all the CD’s and they greatly shrunk the Blu-Ray section. Basically, that’s the end of music and movies right there. Everything is going to streaming or Netflix. That’s a shame, because there’s something weird about digital storefronts. When you’re looking through thousands of selections in digital media, it all just turns into one big collection of nothing. I don’t know why, but it loses its value. The 1970’s masterpiece is standing alongside the made-for-TV 2015 biopic. There’s no way for an objective viewer to even try to understand where anything comes from or the difference between one movie or another.
What ends up happening is that people gravitate towards a few things and then most of the stuff ends up going unwatched, except for the major ones that get promoted on the home page. This is the YouTube effect. Music videos used to be curated by MTV, with a variety of artists being played and viewers on TV being forced to sit through different music videos, but now when people get to choose what they want to watch, there’s no longer a standard anymore and people just randomly pick and choose artists and watch videos in a way that doesn’t correspond to release dates or music video quality.
It’s like having a wider net, but having less chances of catching anything amazing.
I think it’s interesting that you’re still able to sift through and guess at what could be interesting to you, so maybe we’re moving into a more individual-led media system.
By peartechlish on 09.05.18 11:53am
No one has to or can watch and play all good TV shows or games, that all or none dichotomy doesn’t seem to apply here at all.
Sure, a few people will be overwhelmed and just drop out, but it seems like people are consuming more content than ever, even if it’s a smaller slice of the pie. The pie is just getting larger.
I can’t remotely play every AAA game out there with the few hours a week I get in, but that also means I’m never playing anything /bad/.
By tipoo on 09.03.18 4:42pm
That is a good point. Perhaps it could overwhelm some and cause people to abandon gaming/movies, but it could also engulf and surround others and encourage even more movie-watching/gaming.
Don’t you think there is a point where people see that there’s a neverending chain of games and movies and music and that you’ll never see them all, so they eventually opt out of it? In the past, games and movies were more manageable and there was a sense of progression and excitement as technology advanced. Today, it’s a just a huge sea of media and I wonder how long people can stay out floating in this huge sea. I’ve checked out, but I’m curious to see if it can be a lifelong pursuit into the world of media.
By peartechlish on 09.06.18 10:56am
Same can be said about any form of entertainment that ever existed.
So if history is anything to go by, your prediction is quite unlikely to happen, anytime soon anyway.
By BigDaddy0790 on 09.03.18 5:47pm
If you think that, you don’t understand the point of entertainment.
By ZubbuZ on 09.04.18 1:57am
I’m not working/learning/doing cocaine 16 hour days. It’s ok to chill out and spend an hour on Doom or mindlessly watch people act in a show.
By rosickness12 on 09.04.18 1:32pm
Imagine being so indoctrinated into capitalism that you see no value in anything that doesn’t earn you money.
By 4ndrew on 09.04.18 1:56pm
That’s a good point, considering most people get money, just so they can use it for entertainment.
Some people do enjoy earning money, the way people enjoy entertainment. The mind is relative. People can be trained to like something most find disagreeable. Is it really fair to call working indoctrination and being entertained as being free from indoctrination? Maybe laziness and not working is indoctrination. How do we know that it’s better to not work than to overwork?
By peartechlish on 09.06.18 11:03am
I’m not making a judgement about whether work or entertainment is more valuable, just that our collective measure of value shouldn’t be solely dependent on what makes money. That belief I think is definitely a result of the culture of capitalism. It’s hard to argue that people who make money are always doing good for the world. Learning psychological tricks to undermine people’s self-worth so that they’ll buy your products is a very marketable skill, buy good luck arguing that it’s more valuable than taking care of people in need, which people often do without pay.
By 4ndrew on 09.06.18 12:34pm
In a way, I feel like capitalism promotes the opposite. Capitalism favors the frugal and the miser. However, I feel like the lack of self-control is something that is not really created, but just a personality type, and it seems to be very common. It doesn’t matter if you’re in a socialist or capitalist society. Nevertheless, there are many people who have to buy things to make them happy, or for other people they become obsessed with status and keeping up with the Joneses to get all of the must-have items of the season. It really just comes down to relativity, which is to say that status, honor, and glory are all things that you could have without ever spending a dime. People don’t realize that a person in an empty room can have just as much fun as a person with all kinds of stuff, but society and the people around you feel the need to pressure you to constantly get more.
By peartechlish on 09.06.18 5:44pm
Yeah, I bet you’re a lot of fun at parties bro. /s
By Ralphjoeylauren on 09.04.18 5:54pm
You do realize the irony of assuming people only want to do things that are "useful", and posting in the comments section of a website right?
By OpssYourBad on 09.05.18 8:35pm
That’s a good point. Anything that distracts you from work is taking away from you. Surfing the web, reading a book you don’t need to read to do your job, thinking, needlessly eating out, watching TV, playing video games, listening to music anything really.
I just feel like time is so limited that any one of these things could distract you from what you’re wanting to do. It just depends on how ambitious a person is or whether they even care to go above and beyond what is readily accessible to them.
By peartechlish on 09.06.18 11:06am
I see both movies and music on the downgrade. Maybe computer games will still spawn something interesting. Other than that, things are being ‘economized’. Quantity over quality (which costs too much).
By _LC_ on 09.03.18 12:36pm
I feel like music is still safe since it’s cheap enough for independent artists to produce without compromising their artistic vision. Movies and videogames are definitely on the downgrade. Blockbusters are too expensive and studios aren’t willing to take the risks to make anything interesting. It’ll only get worse.
By ReplicantZero on 09.03.18 2:11pm
Some smart corporation will start offering One App To Rule them All. Needs to be some party with clout – Google, Apple or Amazon are the most likely candidates. They’ll probably start with the video entertainment streaming services, create a front-end that will let you parse the various subscriptions in different ways and pay via one subscription, one place to log in, one credit card.
By "parse," I mean that the Netflix system of just tossing everything at you for one monthly price is just one way that this could be organized. Why not input a list of names of shows and movies you specifically want to see, regardless of the service they are on, and see a total for how much they will cost, and then schedule them so you have access at whatever rate you choose? Or just say "I like sci fi, I’ll pay $15/month, put together a package for me." Or just let the app track your viewing patterns and offer a package (this assumes an algorithm that works a lot better than Netflix’s does right now). Or just watch whatever you want, but set an alert when you are approaching your pre-set budget for the month. Or opt for a bargain hunter’s special: shows and movies should get cheaper as they age, so maybe you’re happy seeing stuff that is a few years old or even very old.
Once all that is settled, sports and music could be the next elements to bring in. The hold up to this happening now is that nobody wants to give up that all-important direct relationship with subscribers. Visualize a database filled with names, emails, credit card numbers. That is the thing everyone is fighting over. That’s the end game – control that database.
By nerdrage on 09.03.18 1:59pm
There’s definitely a lot of improvements to come… exciting times I guess! I think it’s different in the UK where most of our streaming services are free once you’ve paid your annual TV license. Other than that the choices are Amazon or Netflix really. Certainly, things feel a lot less fragmented here, but it doesn’t mean they still can’t be improved further.
By kayzee on 09.04.18 4:49am
The problem isn’t that they haven’t tried, it’s – as you pointed out – that the powers that be in the entertainment industry want to have that direct relationship with the customer themselves instead of letting other companies aggregate shows into a system that actually works.
It’s all about the Benjamins. The next 5-10 years will be really interesting to see how the landscape changes as more people switch to streaming services.
Can you imagine if there were a Plex-like service that handled subscriptions to anything and everything entertainment-related and presented all of that content in a single unified interface? It’d be awesome.
By lusional on 09.04.18 5:02pm
"One app to rule them all" will never happen. Apple will never let people into their walled garden, and why would any other major tech company (like Google or Amazon, who do not need to play nice with Apple) want to play nice with Apple if Apple doesn’t reciprocate?
By OpssYourBad on 09.05.18 8:37pm
Frankly, this all sounds absolutely terrible. I wouldn’t even have this setup in my house even it were free, much less pay for it. So far, aside from the pre-built houses and solar panels, there’s virtually nothing about these "future homes" that seems useful or practical to me.
By ReplicantZero on 09.03.18 2:17pm
Its a start, I guess? Maybe a more apt title is "Very Expensive Home of the Present". There isn’t much futuristic about this house.
By tnypxl on 09.03.18 11:36pm
It would be really interesting to see the budget they had to create this demo house.
There is so much room for improvement, but I guess they’re just trying to do business, which is why they sponsored these posts.
By lusional on 09.04.18 5:05pm
Everything starts out as haphazard Frankenstein parts that barely work together, then they get better over time, or no one adopts and they disappear. I think smart homes will be the former. After all, high end homes have been using automation for a long time so clearly there’s value there.
By OpssYourBad on 09.05.18 8:40pm