Talk to your neighbors about their television viewing habits and you will probably find that, although the range of programmes watched is pretty narrow, the methods for receiving them vary wildly from house to house. Some people get their favorite shows via gaming consoles, some by downloading them on a PC; some by playing them through a device such as Apple TV; some are satellite customers; while others doggedly stick to so-called "linear" viewing on the standard terrestrial channels, albeit received through a digital system.
We are in a great era of choice. Or so we are told. But what if the ideal TV viewing of the future offers less choice, not more? What if we have reached a tipping point and the winners in the race to entertain the nation will be those providers that can bring valuable content into people's homes in the simplest way? This month the TV industry has gathered in Cannes on the French Riviera for the annual Mipcom conference, trying to work out where the industry should be heading. At one session the challenge was summed up by Gary Carter, of the production company Shine, who pointed out that even the use of the word "television" has become confusing. Just as the term "broadcasting" no longer covers what it once did, so "television" has become ambiguous.
Carter said: "When we talk about television now in the industry, it is not clear if we are talking about the programs themselves or the object in the living room. We are starting to talk more often about the content as 'television.' " He also argued that production companies should now regard themselves as making shows that float free of all the traditional channels.