[bellerocky]

I don't understand why older people hang on to less optimal way of doing things? I hope I never do this. Being able to watch content at any time you want is better than having to schedule your time around broadcasts. No advertisements is better than having to endure advertisement breaks in the middle of a show.

Same with newspapers. You can't share newspaper content easily. You can't click on a word and Google it or look up information about Ukraine's president while reading the news paper. Newspapers take up space in your house and unread newspapers are a huge waste. I get some people like distraction free reading, without a glaring bright screen so the case here isn't as clear cut as with a TV, but the point is valid.

Older people, by virtue of having been around longer should be more capable of recognizing the pattern of new innovation leading to improvements, and not get stuck. I just don't get it, and I hope this doesn't happen to me, I'm already nearly in my 40's so we'll see.

[iconjack]

Because the aggravation of obtaining, understanding, and maintaining a computer + internet connection is not worth the trouble.

I hear people claim that once everything's set up, it's easy. That's not my experience. Every time I go home I've got to deal with issues with my mom's computer and internet. They're never her fault, and sometimes they're difficult to solve, even for a tech person.

Watching video online is great when everything goes right. But it seems like a good portion of the country has fairly lousy internet, which makes videos sputter or stop. People who grew up with the ease and reliability of tv have a hard time stomaching these kinds of problems.

Also, when you get older, you don't necessarily want more choices. Your mind is tired and cluttered, you just want to relax in front of the tv and not have to sort through an infinite array of choices or deal with technical issues.

[coldtea]

>I don't understand why older people hang on to less optimal way of doing things?

Because they are used to it and it works for them, so they couldn't be bothered? It's not all about "optimization" of options and full utilization of potential features, sometimes personal convenience is more important.

>Same with newspapers. You can't share newspaper content easily. You can't click on a word and Google it or look up information about Ukraine's president while reading the news paper. Newspapers take up space in your house and unread newspapers are a huge waste. I get some people like distraction free reading, without a glaring bright screen so the case here isn't as clear cut as with a TV, but the point is valid.

Not being able to "click on a word and Google it" is exactly why some people prefer newspapers. And it's exactly why some people who read the news on the web actually read 1-2 articles, skim 90% of them, and end up with cat videos somewhere on the corners of YouTube.

Also some people don't like sharing content. Why would I want to share a news item? As if I'm the purveyor of news to my un-englightened friends? Finally, "newspapers taking space in a house" is a first world problem if there ever was one. Let's be honest: nobody really considered "newspapers taking place" a real problem...

[bluedino]

>> I don't understand why older people hang on to less optimal way of doing things?

They have less to do, and probably don't care as much about maximizing every minute of their day. They probably also like a routine. Dinner at 5:00p, Matlock at 6:00p...

>> Newspapers take up space in your house and unread newspapers are a huge waste. I

You can also read a newspaper if you don't have internet, or your internet connection is slow, or down, or you can read it out on the porch or the boat where your wifi doesn't reach, you don't need an iPad to read it...

You also can't line the bottom of a birdcage, pack dishes, wash windows, or get a fire going with an online newspaper. You also can't cut an article out to save or pin up on the fridge.

[toyg]

> Older people, by virtue of having been around longer should be more capable of recognizing the pattern of new innovation

Not necessarily. The current generations of "old people" have always had TV; they have always had books, newspapers and magazines; they have always had cassettes for music (vinyl was the reserve of a rich minority and CDs weren't mainstream until the '90s). They have always had cars, trains, electricity, airplanes. They were already 30+ by the time videogames and PCs came about, which is why they left them to their kids. In fact, they saw the digital revolution happening in the workplace and were taken aback, to the point where, 30 years later, they are still not particularly comfortable with it.

The generations that saw real technological revolutions, innovations changing their way of life in radical ways, were the ones that fought the first and second World War. A lot of them didn't have home telephones or electricity while growing up, often even running water was missing; they didn't have cars, trains were expensive, and the thought of flying was just ludicrous. They bought the first radios and TVs and marveled at silent movies. Those generations could recognise change; the current oldies mostly saw marginal improvements, all considered. They spent most of their time actually dealing with social changes, rather than technological; which is why they are responding to the current wave of changes with a barrage of social prescriptions (i.e. silly new laws) -- they can see the social change happening, although they don't really understand the technological underpinnings of it.

[booruguru]

> I don't understand why older people hang on to less optimal way of doing things...

I'd imagine they simply don't understand how these things work. I don't think my parents have ever intentionally watched a YouTube video. I'm sure they've heard of Netflix, but I don't think they know how to setup it up... so they wont even consider the value proposition... even though their Blu-ray player has built-in Netflix support.

We've grown up with this technology so it's not a big deal to rip a DVD or download a torrent.

But if you're barely aware that these things even exist, it's difficult to actually learn how to use them... even if the procedure is ultimately trivial.

[sfk]

I think having a dedicated TV with cable is optimal:

  1. Computers and Internet are for work (HN being an exception), TV is for
     entertainment. It makes sense to keep things separate, even physically
     separate.

  2. If I watch TV, I do *not* want to be bothered about thinking what to watch.
     I reserve these kinds of decisions for work or for things that actually
     matter.

  3. If another person makes the program for me, I'm likely to be exposed to
     interesting things that I would not have picked by myself.

[guard-of-terra]

There are a lot of different modes of entertainment. One that you describe is pretty rare - "Show me something I would like to see, I don't care what, maybe something new".

Obviously this is a useful mode to have. TV channels about wildlife and history are good examples - you can turn them on even for 10 minutes while you do some chores, for example. But for "stateful" content like sports or TV series this is suboptimal. And that's the bulk of entertainment.

[penprog]

> It makes sense to keep things separate, even physically separate

Saying something doesn't make it true.

>2. If I watch TV, I do not want to be bothered about thinking what to watch. I reserve these kinds of decisions for work or for things that actually matter.

Fair point. It's the same reason I listen to pandora in that sometimes I'd rather not choose.

> 3. If another person makes the program for me, I'm likely to be exposed to interesting things that I would not have picked by myself.

Maybe but more often than not, this isn't true unless you find the massive amounts reality tv to be interesting.

But none of the reasons you describe make TV with cable optimal for anything except lying back and having random (not necessarily good or interesting) entertainment thrown at you and exposing yourself to hours of psychological marketing tricks.

[sliverstorm]

Because people tend to stick with what they are used to.

[walshemj]

Because in a lot of ways a decent smart TV at say 50 inches with iPlayer is lot less fuss than messing about with a pc and a much smaller display an suboptimal sound.

[penprog]

Smart TV and cable are not the same.

[walshemj]

Why your chopping logic and nit picking here

[penprog]

I wasn't trying to be a jerk, I should have explained myself better. Basically using a smart tv is analogous to young people using the internet in this situation because

A. You are picking and choosing your content.

B. You aren't exposed to advertisers (unless you are using hulu but even then you are picking what show you want to watch)

C. You aren't paying a massive monthly subscription.

D. It works using the internet, not cable.

The article isn't so much about using a TV (the actual device that displays the picture) or a computer monitor as it was about watching "traditional" tv (the content, shown in a scheduled manner)