Should Online Video Really Be Called Internet TV? I Say No.
Dan Rayburn | Tuesday February 20, 2007 | 12:02 AMI've been debating this for a long time with lots of people and it seems everyone has a different opinion. Many vendors have been describing their services as being that of "Internet TV". But is that really the right term to be using? For years now, many of us online video folks have been explaining over and over how the TV and video on the Internet are not the same. We're always giving examples of how different the user experience is, the way content is distributed etc.... but still, Internet TV seems to be the phrase put forth by many.
Personally, I think it's incorrect. We are so many years away from being able to truly think of the video we see on the computer as being compared to the video we see today on TV. Some of this is a good thing as we don't want the video we see on TV to be the same via the Internet. The whole point is that online video is changing the way the TV industry thinks about content, advertising and eyeballs, which is a good thing. But I still think combining the words Internet and TV together, at this stage in the game, just sets expectations incorrectly.
I'd love to hear your take on this subject in the comments section.




I'm with you Dan--I don't think online video is the same as Internet TV. But like you, I see the two interchanged with one another daily in news stories, headlines, and comments.
My end conclusion? I think it's really a lost cause to try and differentiate the two. I've came to this same conclusion around the terms IPTV and Internet TV as well.
The mainstream media will continue to communicate them as interchangeable and thus consumers will come to know them as such.
Here are some statistics from Yahoo for searches on "Internet TV" and "online video" in January 2007. Naturally, I would presume this to be more inclined to "online video" due to the proliferating number of video sites on the web. However, that's not the case. Even online TV won out.
Searches Term
19159 online video
39110 internet tv
35900 online tv
In regards to your last statement, "But I still think combining the words Internet and TV together, at this stage in the game, just sets expectations incorrectly."
How would you then describe MLB.tv?
Posted by: Curtis | Tuesday, February 20, 2007 at 06:43 PM
Iron Horse, Horseless Carriage, Wireless, Ice Box, Flying Machine.....Internet TV?
Who cares what they call it? Eventually they'll call it something else. We all know what they mean.
I think.
Posted by: DickStock | Wednesday, February 21, 2007 at 12:17 AM
I would classify MLB.tv as online video, not as Internet TV. The experience of watching MLB on the computer versus on my 50" Samsung hi-def TV can't compare. If I am traveling and can't get the Mets game locally on TV, then the Internet is great. But it will never replace how I watch the Mets when I am near a TV that gets the game.
Posted by: Dan Rayburn | Wednesday, February 21, 2007 at 11:32 AM
Funny I should find this post.. So I am biased and will tell you up front that I am one of the sites out that calls themsleves Internet TV. Here is why I differ myself from several of the others out there, mostly the U-Tubes etc. Point and click VOD to me isnt a simulation of TV or anything close. However given the enviroment and presentation similr to TV , in that when you log into a Internet Stream ( maybe what should really be called) it drops you into the spot at which the segment is playing much like when you turn on the tv 15 minutes into an episode you get what is playing at that time and not the beginning of a video everytime. For this reason I say calling it Internet TV ( call it a buzz word if you want) is valid. I am in no means saying my computer Monitor is the same as standard NTSC TV, however I dont know if you watch TV lately but the air waves are full of a bunch of trash and some variety that of which can usually find on the net is a refreshing change. At the same time there is also bad to come with it, easy access to porn and stuff that really should be required to have restrictions. Well theres my 2 cents worth ... Have an awesome day all.
-G-
Posted by: George | Wednesday, February 21, 2007 at 04:05 PM
Interactive TV, now that will be what is next. When you can watch a baseball game on your TV and using your remote as a mouse....click on a player to reveal his stats.
Or watch a movie and click the remote on an actor and reveal every movie he played in.
To just sit and watch TV anymore as a one way street is just getting old. When I watch TV I have my laptop on the arm of my chair.
Maybe they won't call us couch potato's anymore....but research analysts. Either way, we will still be 20 pounds over weight.
Posted by: FIsh | Wednesday, February 21, 2007 at 10:09 PM
I'm with you but don't see the mainstream media or even the industry specific media getting it right anytime soon.
To me Internet Television is a long way off. At least until a majority of the homes in the US have 30+ MB/sec connections. When someone says Internet Television most people rightly assume that it the same type of service they would receive from their local cable company. Not what they would get from the internet now.
IPTV on the other hand is exactly what they would expect. A highbandwidth connection to their home with most of the bandwidth dedicated to video delivery streamed to a set top box righ to their TV.
Internet Video is the youtubes and google video stuff out there and not related to television at all.
Posted by: Paul Davis | Thursday, February 22, 2007 at 09:45 AM
When I describe my show, gardenfork.tv (http://gardenfork.tv) to people, I call it an internet video show that is available on iTunes or at the gardenfork.tv website.
Whenever I speak to someone who doesn't live and breathe this stuff all day, I've found 'internet video' to be the term that people "get" . If is say gardenfork.tv is an Internet TV show, I get looks of confusion. They think its a show available on a cable network.
Posted by: eric rochow : gardenfork.tv | Thursday, February 22, 2007 at 04:07 PM
It may not be a bad thing to use the buzz word Internet TV right now. I believe it is currently being called Internet TV because an industry term has not been defined. All of the online components have not come together and are still fragmented.
Now that video is easily accessible, the online industry was quick to adopt TV terms. TV terms are used to attract advertisers because this is something that is familiar to their ad purchasing. The reality is video is an important component to the overall online experience but does not define it.
As Dan stated, it isn’t a bad thing because it brings attention to this medium. The true power of online entertainment will be the user controlling and interacting with the experience. This new form of media will revolutionize all industries and not just TV.
Posted by: Adrian Payne | Thursday, February 22, 2007 at 07:58 PM
One of the most successful content that run on traditional TV is mega serial and soap opera. Do we have such examples yet on online video sites ? I mean - not just streaming existing or old TV content into online versions, as done by many traditional broadcast houses for their new media channels. But original episodic content, specially created for an online video channel.
In my opinion, that will be one criteria for transformation of online video into Net TV. Till that happens, Dan is absolutely right, Online Video and Net TV are different animals.
Posted by: Suparno Chaudhuri | Thursday, February 22, 2007 at 09:59 PM
I use the term online television. The online part is easy - the content is online. It is the television part where many people get confused. We have been conditioned by television for over 60 years, viewers had favorite programs that traditionally were parsed out in weekly doses. Fundementally we were told stories and we would keep coming back for the continuation of them again and again. The ultimate sticky!
Today, with the multiple distribution opportunities for motion media alot has changed. But, when I classify content as television, I revert to some fundemental aspects of the tradional TV model. Storytelling, character development, episodic timed release, etc. Video clips that are prevalent online are not necessarily television.
The internet is a wonderful way to recieve a television experience. As backend hardware and software technologies become more transparent we can focus on the size of our screen, the quality of the audio and the wonder of the stories.
Television is about the content experience regardless of what we call it and where we see it.
Curt Worden - http://www.tangopix.com
Posted by: Curt Worden | Friday, February 23, 2007 at 08:30 AM
This reminds me of the introduction of electronic newletters. In the early days, it was no match for newpapers even though many feared it would be the death of the printed press. Today, both have survived and have different niches.
I believ the same would the case for online video and television (as we have come to know it). As the Curt Worden wrote...."As backend hardware and software technologies become more transparent we can focus on the size of our screen, the quality of the audio and the wonder of the stories."
User generated content will get more polished and organized and will rival current day TV.
Posted by: Don | Sunday, July 08, 2007 at 02:46 AM
For most people the terms are interchangeable but for me and my company, the defining line is very clear. Internet TV is professionally produced, broadcast quality video that is delivered through a portal or media player that functions identically like Dish TV meaning there are numerous "channels" to choose from and plenty of shows or programs to select from within each channel. Monetization can occur through a subscription-based, ad-based or pay-per-view model.
Posted by: Kurt Knewitz | Wednesday, March 05, 2008 at 10:49 AM
Sending pictures through a wire or over the airwaves is television. Online video is TV, TV is online video. The technology used to receive and transmit, analogue or digital, number of channels, on-demand aspects, programme content, various applications (such as medical and CCTV) are a subset of details. Television is best defined as moving pictures through the air or by wire, or simply "seeing at a distance". All media are extensions of the human body to increase speed and power. Television is an extension of the sense of sight.
You can't properly define the impact of a medium through the nature of its content. This is like trying to use baked beans to define the impact of canning technology on food preservation.
Posted by: Iain Baird | Wednesday, September 10, 2008 at 07:05 AM
Instead of looking at the term 'Internet TV' as in Internet Television, 'TV' should mean 'Television-Video' as in Internet Television-Video. That way, the term satisfies both arguments and definitions.
Posted by: Phil (TV on PC Guy) | Wednesday, July 22, 2009 at 12:17 PM