Apple's Moment — Consumers Want To Download To TV 295
ack154 writes, "With so much recent news surrounding Apple's upcoming iTV system, their timing may be nearly perfect. Ars Technica gives the rundown on a recent report, released from Accenture, stating that about half of users surveyed across the globe are now looking to get downloadable videos, movies and other content onto their TV. Based on the article, if Apple can get the right combination in features, price, and usability, many consumers may be ready to eat it up. Macworld has more speculation on Apple's potential living room dominance."
It really does work. (Score:5, Insightful)
However, I have long considered that if iTunes was a bit faster at getting the content (or had exclusive content!) I'd hop on the bandwagon in an instant. To that end, I was one of the many who downloaded the Aquaman Pilot to check it out. For a pilot, it was quite good - though a bit too "hip and edgy" in Stargate 200 [youtube.com] kind of way. Still, if there were more episodes I would have seriously considered downloading them.
Then iTunes got Eureka.
For those of you who don't know what it is, Eureka is a SciFi Channel original TV Show that is on during weeknight timeslots. Exactly the type of timeslots I don't manage to catch very often. I've been curious about the show for a while now, but wasn't curious enough to pay a $1.99. But then iTunes had a special. The Pilot Episode could be downloaded for FREE, as in at no charge. (A promotion that I'm sad to say appears to be over.) So I downloaded it.
Suffice it to say, this show was GREAT! It was like Stargate hits Andy Griffith, if you can imagine that. All the humor and technobabble of a SciFi show, but combined with a traditionally rooted character who's trying to make the adjustment. As of yesterday, I have now purchased and watched every Eureka episode available. The quality is good, and the price is right. If iTunes would just carry Stargate and stop making us wait 2 weeks, I'd cancel my cable. Even at a $1.99 an episode, I would probably save money over what I pay Comcast today.
I don't know about anyone else, but I just don't watch the TV enough to make cable worth my while. Which means that I'm paying a premium to watch shows like Stargate, BSG, and Star Trek Enhanced.
If there's any complaint I have about iTunes its that its video player is still somewhat immature. I often like to watch shows in a small window while I work. (I have a TV card for a TV.) Unfortunately, iTunes still lacks an "Always on Top" feature to prevent the show from getting obscured by the corners of windows. Also, the size controls are a bit random If you undock the window from the postage stamp in the corner. For example, if I minimize the main iTunes window (what else am I going to do with it while I'm watching a show?) the "Fullscreen" control will redock the player rather than switching between full screen and windowed mode.
These aren't MAJOR issues, but I do hope they get fixed in the near future.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
But I seriously doubt I could bring myself to pay $2 an ep to watch it. And there's no way in hell I'd pay per ep if I'm limited to watching it in low res, in a shitty window, and have no control over what device I get to watch it on.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Depends on what you mean by "low res". iTunes shows TV in standard television resolutions (H.264 - 640x480), which is only low res if you have an HDTV. I'm sure that an HDTV upgrade will be in iTunes' future, but you're correct that it isn't here yet. (Then again, neither is HDTV market penetration.)
Is there something wrong with watching it in full screen? Especially if you have a large monitor or a TV-OUT.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
And I never have to worry about 'registration' or finding out at the last minute the software glitched and I can't watch what I want after all. No thanks.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
1024 * 576 is squarepix PAL DVD resolution, it usually make it onto the disc at 720 * 576
I wouldn't pay for content at any lower a resolution than that, to be honest
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're using a tube-based NTSC television, you're only seeing ~200 lines of resolution anyway. This is why I record my shows (MythTV for me! [mysettopbox.tv]) at a much lower resolution.
Re:It really does work. (Score:5, Informative)
Ah, the resolution conversation.
First of all, the actual resolution of a DVD image is 720x480 NTSC and 720x576 PAL. The displayed resolution, however, can vary depending on how you want to interpolate pixels. The common 640x480 is used because it contains all the vertical resolution of an NTSC signal, and squishes the horizontal resolution to display properly in square pixels. This is the equivalent of display a PAL image at 720x540. Oddly enough, if you display an NTSC signal by stretching out the vertical resolution instead of squishing the horizontal resolution, you also get 720x540, but with interpolated pixels. PAL would be 768x576.
The 1024 res you mention is for 16:9 anamorphic image. Do you know why the call it anamorphic? Because the actual signal is 720x576. The image needs to be stretched out to display properly. For NTSC this would be 853x480.
But I see after writing all this, that you did mention square pixel resolution. So I guess this post is rather useless. However, 640x480 isn't that low res if you have an NTSC DVD player, especially considering I'd have to either throw out or interpolate information to to display it properly on a square pixel display. But let's not get into a PAL vs NTSC flame-war. I personally hate them both for different reasons.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm well aware that the ACTUAL resolution does not change on a 16:9 anamorphic DVD. I'm well aware that it is the displayed resolution that changes. I'm also aware of pixel aspect ratios (and how D1 is .9 and anamorphic is 1.2). . I'm not sure if you caught this part of my post:
I was refering to PAL, obviously.
I'm really not sure why you're ranting so much. I was pointing out that a 640x480 video file is not that much lower res
Re: (Score:2)
Yawn, this has been discussed. The resolution (especially now, since they upped it to 640x480) has always been comparable to NTSC broadcast. I bought the pilot for "Knight Rider" just to check it out, and put it on a 35" TV (component video from my iBook using a cheap adapter). It was about what I expected for a twenty five year old pilot, and looked fine. That was at 320x240, I'm sure the latest videos are much better. And what's with the "shitty window" comm
Re: (Score:2)
I just checked the resolution of an iTunes download (The Village), and it was 640x344. This is only slightly more than half as many lines as PAL, and so doesn't really fall into the category of 'acceptable.' There was also very noticeable aliasing and macro-blocking.
For TV shows, I don't care too much about the quality - 640x344 would probably be enough - but I do care about being able to play
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Most modern codecs support such flags in the bitstream, as do modern container formats - MPEG (codec & PS/TS/ES),
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I have to agree that adding an anamorphic flag in the video file would be the best way to go. I'm not really sure why that hasn't been done, other than laziness.
Oh, and don't even get me started on people not knowing how to set up their TVs/DVD players to display 16:9 images properly (or even 4:3). I can't tell you how many homes I've been to with people watching SDTV broadcasts on their new LCD HDTVs and have the image stretched out because they don't like the black bars on the side. And it's as useless t
Re:It really does work. (Score:5, Interesting)
Hell, that would probably save me money. I'm one of those weird people who watch little enough television that if I could pay for the shows I watch by episode, it would be cheaper then paying a monthly cable/satellite bill.
I'd love to see some kind of tiered pay structure set up. For example:
I doubt the networks would go for it, because it would cut into DVD sales. (Never mind that it would increase overall sales and end up making them lots and lots more money in the end. Remember, they're stupid.)
But if Apple had enough boxes out there to start developing their own content (i.e. pay television and movie studios to develop good-quality content exclusively for them), not only would they revolutionize how we all watch television, they would revolutionize the entire entertainment distribution medium. There's no telling what kind of major impact it would have on television networks and cable/satellite companies.
Of course, you can probably shortly thereafter count on cable/satellite companies paying lots and lots of money to Congresscritters so that they'll legislate what can and can't be shown via iTV, lest they lose major marketshare. (A la the way cable companies legislated what television networks I can and can't watch via DirecTV here in Atlanta. "Sorry, if you want to watch the New York ABC station, you're SOL!") Hopefully by that time though, Apple will have made enough money to fight that kind of fire with bigger and hotter fire.
At any rate, this is definitely an idea that is right on—not ahead of its—time, and I'll be one of the first in line to get a new iTV. Really exciting stuff!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It really does work. (Score:4, Insightful)
I do like the idea of extra content; it could really help the format take off. I seriously believe that unless Apple really screws this up (and I don't think they will), it could revolutionize the industry.
The example structure I gave was just that—an example. I'd leave it up to the marketing gurus to decide the exact final prices and structure, but the general concept was to charge a premium rate for one-off high-demand content, give a discount for buying an entire season, give a discount for people willing to wait for a show, and give a deep discount for stuff that's so old that people who normally wouldn't care to watch it might buy it just because it's so cheap.
At any rate, I think that the really interesting thing is that it could totally do away with two middlemen: the television networks and the cable/satellite companies. Studios could market and sell their stuff directly to us, the public. That would take the power to decide what we watch out of the hands of pinhead network executives and put it where it belongs: in our hands, the actual consumers.
If enough people buy a show like Firefly, for example, that they pay their costs and make a little bit of profit, there's a strong incentive to keep making it. There's no idiot in the middle with decision-making power like the guy at Fox who said, "Cancel it." There's no accountability to sponsors. There are no networks fighting for space among a limited cable or satellite bandwidth. There is no mentality that a show must be watched by millions and millions of people to be worth being made. Good stuff all around!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're lucky you only need more RAM. Quicktime is a bloated piece of turd on my PIII 450MHz computer with 256MB of RAM and a Radeon TV Out card hooked up to my television. I can play DVDs and most divx encoded videos just fine with this setup but Quicktime videos are terrible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The quality is good, and the price is right. If iTunes would just carry Stargate and stop making us wait 2 weeks, I'd cancel my cable. Even at a $1.99 an episode, I would probably save money over what I pay Comcast today.
I'm not a typical consumer, but I think I do represent a common market segment in some ways. I don't need or want a telephone, aside from my cell phone. I use the internet and my cell phone to communicate. This is very common among younger people. VoIP is going to kill the normal phone b
More techies than you think (Score:2)
I think that number is a bit high. I know it's a popular assumption among Slashdotters that they are in some very small group of people who understand computers enough for certain tasks, but I wonder how true that assumption is. When I was in high school, I think that percentage may have been one or a few percent of my classmates. However, some of these people will have picked up computers skills by now, and I know that no
Re: (Score:2)
Apple support will not respond to this issue, blaming "content providers", but it's Apple's store and
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Need a place to leave a complaint at Comedy Central? Not hard to find. Googled the Daily Show, hit two links, and got this:
http://www.comedycentral.com/help/questionsCC.jhtm l [comedycentral.com]
I can understand that the unpredictability of the posting of the show is annoying. It just s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
As a friend of mine recently pointed out, the long tail has proved a very successful prospect for internet based companies, because of the pervasiveness of the Net. Shows that otherwise would get no audien
If everything works out, everything may work out (Score:5, Funny)
This is often true. If a product can be designed, priced, and produced so that it succeeds, then the product may be a success. Thanks Slashdot!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree there are a lot of players very nearly as good as the iPod (and in some cases, better), but as an owner of both the first commercial available portable MP3 player (the 32 MB Diamond Rio) and the first model of iPod (the 5GB one, followed by a 15 GB, 20 GB and 60 GB one - largely due to losing them/dropping them a lot) and as som
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
This is why Apple "Gets It' (Score:4, Insightful)
Now, we all want downloadable television/video content (as seen by YouTube, et al.) and iTV seems to be just that.
If the Form Factor is right, the price point is right, it should work.
(UI Omitted, as being Apple the UI *will* be right...)
Full disclosure: I am not an Apple fanboy. And the names give me an iHeadache.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Stupid code name, cool final product name. Sort of the opposite of what Nintendo just did this year.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not being able to burn to DVD is a downside, bu
A la carte (Score:5, Insightful)
Thank God (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I paid $9.99 to get Comedy Central for a year.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You can still get a la carte with analog C-band satellite. It's gradually going away as channels move to digital C-band, but as I said in another post, I paid $9.99 to get Comedy Central for a year. I do have to buy five options (channels or channel bundles) at a time, so that's about $50/yr.
Supply following demand. (Score:3, Interesting)
Personally, I only follow a couple of shows, and all my TV content for the past several years has been either DVDs (watched on a computer,) downloads (P2P-style,) or authorized streams (bless you, Adult Swim!) I haven't owned an actual television for years.
Free TV Online (Score:3, Interesting)
This sort of thing exists (at least it does in the Netherlands), but it doesn't seem to be taking off. For me, the reason is that I haven't yet found a service that I can use. Most of them are all MSIE & WMP and ActiveX required - and we refuse to even try to give you service if your system fails the test. There's no way I'm going to install all that crap on my system, but I can't imagine it would be too hard for content providers to use more interoperable technologies.
I would love to be able to watch a movie whenever I feel like it, without having to depend on one I like being broadcast in the few hours a day when a few TV channels broadcast them. I'm sure this goes for plenty of othe people, too. Right now, many people are getting their DivX movies from the shady corners of the net, but who wants to wait for hundreds of megabytes to finish downloading, hoping that the quality will be ok, subtitles will be in sync, etc. etc. if they can get free movies off reputable sites, and start watching right away?
Re:Free TV Online (Score:4, Funny)
Now if only someone invented a box that would let you watch shows whenever you want to without depending on TV schedule.... Maybe digitaly record tv content and let you watch it whenever... that would be cool....kind of a "Tv In-Video Out" device, something that could Replay TV content any time you want to... you know, this T.I.V.O thing could be very cool if someone just would invent it.... too bad its just a Myth, and there is nothing like that..
-Em
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, what's with all this extra hardware when my computer is already perfectly equiped to play video?
Apple's biggest challenge: wireless LAN (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem of syncing-up the audio and video latency alone is tough to conquer (and is most likely the reason you can't stream iTMS TV show audio over AirTunes now). On top of that is the much bigger problem of making sure the packets arrive on time, in a home environment that is increasingly bathed in interfering radio signals. Both of these problems can be addressed by caching at the TV end, which is undoubtedly the reason for the large form factor of the iTV (compare to the size of the AirPort Express).
Finally there is the user experience to consider--right now for example, when I change the volume or equalizer settings on my iBook, it takes about 1.5-2 seconds to be manifested in my stereo speakers over AirTunes. How will this be solved on the iTV? I'm used to pausing my movies the instant my finger hits the remote. I guess the remote could command the iTV, and the iTV could communicate the command to the Mac (thus keeping the latency hidden from the viewer). But this would mean that you could not control your movies or TV shows from the Mac itself, which sort of breaks the paradigm of the Mac as the center of your digital life.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Apple's biggest challenge: wireless LAN (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
My ReplayTV already has cat5 going to it. So I'll either add another jack or add a cheap gigabit switch. No need to deal with wifi problems. Or if the ReplayTV dies (had it for years, it's started acting up lately, my wife's getting fed up with it) I'd just plop the iTV in place.
However, I'd still need to purchase something to capture the video to replace the ReplayTV. This'd be so muc
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, his problem is very easily solved: Read the raw data off of your network filesystem and do the decoding on the set-top box. All audio/video latency problems vanish, unless of course your content was encoded incorrectly.
The problem with the Airport Express and audio syncing with TV is that while the video decoding is taking place on
Re: (Score:2)
Tivo or iTV (Score:4, Interesting)
Say there are 4 shows I really like @ $2 a show for 20 episodes = $160. That is $13.33/mo
Say there are 8 shows I really like @ $2 a show for 20 episodes = $320. That is $26.66/mo
Yes, ease of use and the cool factor will be a draw; however, economics will be the driving force.
Which model is kicking ass in the legal music word: buy your digital music or subcribe to a service and "rent" the music?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Tivo or iTV (Score:4, Interesting)
If those are cable shows, that's a bargain. Nobody gets cable TV for $26/month. If you only like a handful of shows, disconnect the cable service and download them.
If those are not cable shows, then there's no need for TiVo service either. An EyeTV box will let you tune them in over the air for free and record them to your Mac in glorious HDTV.
Mind you, I would not have reccommended using iTMS for any TV shows a month ago. The crap resolution was a deal-killer unless you planned on only watching them on your iPod screen. The new 640x480 progressive-scan resolution ain't bad though. Apart from a few wide-screen shows, it's not a bad way to go. In many cases, the iTMS season packages are cheaper than the DVD box sets of the same show.
Re: (Score:2)
MythTV for me! (Score:3, Interesting)
Plus, it eats the commercials -- how cool is that?
2 weeks? (Score:3, Interesting)
2 weeks for BSG ep's? If i remember corectly last seasion they were available the next day (BSG is the only reasion i started using itunes since i gave up my dvr i had to watch ep's somehow and firday night isn't allways the best time for me to watch tv)
Double standards? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
XBMC had made a believer out of me (Score:3, Informative)
And Apple's going to do it for us? (Score:3, Funny)
Aesthetic problem with iTV (Score:4, Interesting)
You'll be disappointed: no bandwidth (Score:2, Troll)
This isn't video on demand, it's video-after-drumming-your-fingers. I wish it weren't true, but even with faster DOCSIS 3.0 modems, you'll wait for a long time for teeny little rasters that hardly suit a cell phone.
I truly wish we had distributed networking/cached infrastructure that could do this. But to everyone's surprise, we don't.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Um... ok.
*click* *click*
(Waits 30 seconds...)
*click* Play>
So... what's the problem again? As I said in the first post, I've watched an entire season of Eureka off of iTunes, presumably in 640x480 - H264. I am able to start watching my show within seconds of the download starting. I am not seeing any of the bandwidth issues you're referring to. Even doing back of the envelope calculations shows that there's more than enough bandwidth on a cable line.
You do kn
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, it's 640x480. My television can't do any better than that. Why shouldn't I be satisfied?
Do the words, "television signal" hold any meaning to you? I'm seeing close to the same thing on my computer screen as I would see on my television screen. (Assuming they weren't the same, which they are.)
That would be the fault of the encoding studio. Considering that I'm paying Apple mone
Re: (Score:2)
BTW: iTunes is now distributing all their paid videos in 640x480 resolution.
Re: (Score:2)
The showdown is yet to come.
Add that to the consumption problems when you have three teens in the house and two adults. Planning, codecs, all sorts of things come into the equation. Nonetheless, most people will be disappointed... it's just not fast enough yet.
Steam like content (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not the same with TV shows? Get a Season Pass to Lost, it preloads the morning of and knows that at 7pm in your time zone (or whatever time it's on) that you are now allowed to watch that content from your iTV.
I know a lot of people here want to pick what cable channels they have and pay a smaller price... it'd be almost nicer to just pick the shows.
Might work - except for the paying part (Score:2)
I can't see wanting to pay for each episode of some show! - yuck.
Also it needs that automatic aspect so you can just tell it want you want generally and it will
download it for you at night.
Re: (Score:2)
Correct prices (Score:2)
Entertainment budget: about $120 a month.
Television hours: About 112 a month.
Correct price is about $1 per *HOUR*.
Price TV Series people want... $1 to $2 per hour ($3 for foreign made series often).
Price Movie people want... $2.50 to $5 per hour.
Price "cable" people want... $60 per month of all you can eat with one set of premium channels.
Price music video people want... $1 per 3 minutes.
Price music people want... $1 per 3 minutes.
Can we see why there is so much piracy pressure on music
Portability? (Score:2)
What I want is to be able to download a show and watch it on whatever device I want to watch it on. I want to be able to watch it on my PDA while during the train trip to work, or on my TV in my living room, or on my desktop computer in the den, or on a laptop.
I want to be able to back it up, or burn it to DVD to watch at a friend's house or later at any time without losing my entire collection if my hard drive crashes.
I want to download it on my Windows machin
No one WANTS to download tv. They have to. (Score:4, Interesting)
So let's say you're driving home at 6:51 and you're car breaks down, you're show is on at 7:00, you've missed it, so either you have two options, download the episode (legally/illegally) or skip the rest of the season because you don't want to spoil yourself.
But wait what if we have DVR? Ok that works.
Come home at 8:00 all mad at the mechanic for overcharging you and find that there was a cable outage and your DVR didn't record the program, you're still in the same place.
The way TV shows works now the only option is to have something where you can see the episode so you can keep watching the show so the advertisers will keep paying for advertising. The part I disprove of is the fact that they charge you for the right to watch the show again, and will scream bloody murder if they find out you downloaded the episode for free, personally I find the system to be broken and Apple is only a stopgap.
Personal Show Archiving (Score:3, Interesting)
In my case, the bulk of my collected content has been animated shows that are currently very difficult to obtain, such as "Rocko's Modern Life", which have yet to be released on DVD.
However, being an animator myself, having the ability to archive and organize large amounts of animated content serves a purpose beyond simple entertainment. It allows me to access any scene, in any episode, of any show on demand, and then lets me examine the scene in question for ideas that I can use within my own work. This is extremely useful, since I no longer have to interrupt my workflow to locate examples of various techniques used in the industry. As long as I know what episode and approximately where in the episode the scene I need occurs, I can bring it up in a matter of seconds.
I could see this having applications in other fields as well. For example, auto manufacturers could create a video-database of how to repair/replace certain parts of a vehicle, and then allow auto mechanics to store this database locally onto an iPod style device. Then, as the mechanic is working on a vehicle, if something comes up he can't quite figure out, he can simply pull out the device in question, go to vehicle's manufacturer/make/model in the database and bring up video relevant to the problem he's trying to fix. It's definitely not something cool like "augmented reality goggles", but it's certainly a step up from having to climb up out of the pit, and then flip through a 1,000+ page book to locate the needed info.
Re:bah (Score:5, Funny)
Damn straight! Who needs syndicated television, anyway? As long as you have an ounce of AV skill, you can make your own multimillion dollar television content for your own personal enjoyment. No need for all those fancy-schmansy shows like Stargate and Battlestar Galactica! If we want to see Stargate, we can make our own Stargate show! Do I hear an 'Amen'?
I can't hear you! DO I HEAR AN 'AMEN'?!?
*ponder*
Wait. What was the subject again?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
iTV and iTunes is differentiated from Tivos and VCRs by far more than ease of use. Who Apple is targetting is not who you say though they will gladly take those customers as well.
Re: (Score:2)
I've tried walking around with my PC strapped to my back but I can't find an extension cord long enough for road trips.
Re: (Score:2)
What something like iTV allows someone like me to do is dump the satellite package that they're paying for in order to watch one or two otherwise unavailable shows, and instead pay less to be able to buy them elsewhere.
The only thing they need is an option to subscribe to a season of the show, where the price includes the DVD package of that season's shows a
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
And yes, I hate Apple and MSFT. Big whoop, wanna fight about it?
Tom
Re: (Score:2)
Ha-cha-cha!
Tom
Re: (Score:2)
Tom
Re: (Score:2)
You can't sue somebody for their product's internal code name; Apple isn't marketting it as "ITV."
Re: (Score:2)
You can sue for anything. Whether you'll win or not is another story.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple's scheme will support and PC that runs iTunes, any video iPod, and a TV with a computer/iPod/iTV hookup. Amazon's is similar with the exception of iTV (though Apple doesn't have iTV yet either). MS has iTV-like devices that Amazon may be able to use.
These services don't really exist in any mature form yet. Expect them to evolve significantly.
Of course, if you have a Tivo and a PC, you can use the bridge software to provide ide
Re: (Score:2)
OTOH, a system like this would take away my extreme loathing of television, though. I don't watch because I don't have time. I refuse to alter my schedule to watch TV, or to buy a TIVO or something like that so I can record shows. And I destest most commercials. Though I'll put up with them if I want to watch sports or something.
But with an iPod... naw. I'm still not paying
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Honestly, I have no idea what percentage of the market Apple's iTV (whatever it is actually called in the end) will get. Given that only around 10% of households use DVRs, it probably will not be much at first. What I do know is that things are going to change dramatically once this technology becomes easy-to-use and the ave