Online television offers a truly dizzying array of choices. Viewers of services like Hulu and Netflix, as well as customers of iTunes and Amazon Digital Services, can stream, rent or purchase episodes of television shows from every era.

But not every show that ever aired is legally available online. Surprisingly, there are plenty of high-profile shows that are not available for online consumption – not even for purchase. For a variety of reasons, there are some seriously popular (or once-popular) shows that you just can't find online.

Here's my list of the concluded shows that were popular in their day and are not currently available online in any streaming form. DVD collections do not count, and the show doesn't have to be free online: shows on HBO Go are regarded as online, even if you have to subscribe to HBO to get them. (I'm looking at you, Sopranos.) And because legal is the watchword here, I am not going to count the ways you can download copies of episodes with BitTorrent or watch them on YouTube.

Note that the availability of online shows is constantly shifting. The Cosby Show was once on Netflix, then off, and now is on Hulu Plus. Nor is this list complete: you may have your own favorites that you can't find online. Stick around until the end, though; I've included linkst to a set of tools that can find shows even on obscure networks.

1. Batman

Image courtesy of Greenway Productions/20th Century Fox Television

Thanks to the DC Comics/Warner Brothers money machine, you can view Batman animated series episodes practically anywhere on the Internet. But the original 1966-1968 classic show starring Adam West and Burt Ward is not showing online at any Bat-time or any Bat-channel. For comic-book aficionados, this is both bad (it's Batman!) and good (the Batusi? Really?). But at the end of the day, who wouldn't want to relive the harrowing cliff-hangers we saw as kids while also catching the barely disguised innuendo we can detect as adults?

2. Full House

Image courtesy of Jeff Franklin Productions/Miller-Boyett Productions/Warner Bros. Television

Yeah, I cringed too. But the 1987-1995 run on ABC was hugely popular and its absence online is sure to be noted. This wholesome-to-the-max family drama with three men caring for three girls (trust me, it worked) actually poked a few holes in the usual sitcom situation, especially with the notion that dads could parent, too.

3. The Golden Girls

Image courtesy of Witt/Thomas/Harris Productions

In the days when comedy shows reigned supreme, this one showed viewers that old could mean funny. For seven seasons, from 1985-1992, this NBC show featuring four sharp women was acerbic enough keep even younger audiences interested. But older audiences flocked to this show, and might again if it was more widely distributed online.

4. The Honeymooners

Image courtesy of Jackie Gleason Enterprises

"To the moon, Alice!" Or at least to the nearest IP address, please. But alas, the comedic genius of Jackie Gleason and an incredible cast of comedy veterans is not to be found online now. Popular from 1953-1956, and then even more when it was revived as a part of a variety show from 1966-1970 (with sporadic episodes throughout the '70s), this comedy about working-class couples remains timeless.

5. Little House on the Prairie

Image courtesy of Ed Friendly Productions/NBC Productions

For about a season, maybe two, this NBC family drama followed the books written by Laura Ingalls Wilder fairly closely. But the popularity of the family drama pushed the writers to expand the Ingalls-verse to keep the show going. Until the end, it mostly worked. The saga of Charles Ingalls and his family in Walnut Grove, Minnesota, was compelling and genuinely warm, even if it bore little resemblance to history.

6. M*A*S*H

Image courtesy of 20th Century Fox Television

One of the longest-running shows on television, this medical procedural/comedy/war series ran for 11 seasons on CBS, bringing the Korean War into our homes every Monday night. You wouldn't think a show about a medical unit in a proxy war in Asia would be a hit so soon after the actual Vietnam War, but it was. The chemistry of the cast and the razor-sharp writing kept this show alive far longer than the conflict in which it was set. I'd like my kids to see this one.

7. Mork and Mindy

Image courtesy of Henderson Productions/Miller-Milkis Productions/Paramount Television

This spin-off from Happy Days (yes, go look it up) followed the adventures of one Mork from Ork in Boulder, Colorado, for four seasons. Not a long run, but Robin Williams, Pam Dawber - and even the late Jonathan Winters - created a show full of insane improvisation and sheer goofiness… and maybe a valid mirror on human behavior. That it's not online now? ShazBot, somebody call Orson.

8. The Six Million Dollar Man

Image courtesy of Kenneth Johnson

You can rebuild him. You can make him better than he was before. Faster. Stronger. But if you want to actually watch Lee Majors as the world's first bionic man online? Forget it, the show's locked up tighter than the OSI. Okay, so the show doesn't rank up there with the greats, but it was pretty decent sci-fi that managed to bring super-heroics to the screen and show us a surprisingly realistic future of bionics. Even if they always did run in slow motion.

9. Thirtysomething

Image courtesy of The Bedford Falls Company/United Artists Television

I may be one of the few people on the planet that has never watched a single episode of this show, but there's no denying its impact as an ensemble drama that drew in the lucrative demographic of, well, thirtysomethings to ABC for four seasons. The show's depiction of baby boomers in their thirties was smart, well-written and very much loved by its viewers.

10. The Waltons

Image courtesy of Lorimar Productions

This nine-season family drama based on the novel Spencer's Mountain ran from 1972-1981 depicting the lives of a rural Virginia family in the midst of the Great Depression and World War II. This was a big family, too, with seven kids, the parents, and the grandparents all trying to make do in one of the roughest American economies ever. A lot of people make fun of this show, pegging it as pure schmaltz. Yet the Waltons enjoy a lifestyle that many people not-so-secretly strive for - and might watch all over again.

Good night, John-Boy.

Find Your Own Favorites

If you are not sure if the show you want to watch is online anywhere, try Sidereel, which does a pretty good job listing the online availability of shows. It's not 100% accurate, though, so if your results come up empty, try Hulu next.

Even if you are not a Hulu subscriber, you can still search for TV episodes on the site. If Hulu does not have them, it may point you to other sources (like cable channel websites) where the show can be watched.

You might also try Netflix, which often changes show availability at the drop of a hat.

Hopefully, all your favorite shows will be online someday. Until then, what shows are you missing?

Lead image courtesy of Henderson Productions/Miller-Milkis Productions/Paramount Television

This post was originally published on our SAY Media sister site, Remodelista. We're republishing it with permission.

We've all been there. You want to push a piece of furniture or a countertop appliance close to the wall and a protruding plug stands in the way. And let's not even talk about the wall-mounted flat-screen TV that require unsightly cords and plugs but needs to sit flush against the wall. Here's a simple solution: recessed outlets. 

Above: Notice the absence of cords connecting to the flat screen TV In a Brooklyn loft. Recessed outlets sit invisibly behind flush mount screens, keeping plugs and cords out of sight (for more guidance, see 7 Secrets for Living with a Flat Screen TV, Cord Control Edition). Photograph by Ragnar Ómarsso via Skona Hem. 

Above: You can push a dresser up to the wall and still use the plug that is tucked behind by sinking a standard two socket outlet into the wall. The Leviton Recessed Duplex Outlet is available in white, black, ivory and almond; $7.53 at Amazon. 

Above: To be filed under "great practical ideas," the simple Leviton Recessed Single Outlet with Clock Hanger includes a hook for mounting clocks and other objects (like a piece of art with a picture light that needs power); $6.80 at Amazon.

Above: Hiding outlets behind small appliances not only eliminates an eyesore but also helps gain counter space as the appliances can be pushed directly against the wall. The Arlington Recessed Electrical Outlet Mounting Box accommodates two-, four- and six-plug receptacles (sold separately) and has a paintable coverplate for even more camouflage; prices start at $15.24 at Amazon.

Above: The Leviton Recessed Dual-Gang Duplex Receptacle with Six QuickPort Openings works well for wall-mounted flat screen TVs, wall units and computer monitors. It manages multiple cords in a single location with connection points for AC power, audio, video, data and phone; $20.95 at Kyle Designs.

Above: The Datacomm Recessed Media Plate with Duplex Receptacle features a super-low-profile design that fits behind the thinnest mounts and  TVs; $20.45 at Amazon. 

Another solution for eliminating electric socket eyesores in the kitchen? Flush pop-up outlets. 

Something huge is happening in online TV this year. No, it's not a new streaming set top box or Web-exclusive video series. It's not even an app. It's a milestone: 2013 is the year that Internet-first TV became truly normal. 

People have been watching TV programs online at places like Hulu and Netflix for years. But until recently, most that viewing has involved programs that had previously aired on broadcast or cable TV. There have long been geek-centric webisodes of TV-esque programming online, but nothing that everyday people would watch. This year, things are changing. 

"An Inflection Point For Online Television"

For evidence of the mainstreaming of Web-first TV, look no further than the online revival of All My Children and One Life to Live. The classic TV soap operas are returning not to a broadcast network, but to Hulu and iTunes. It may sound like a distribution strategy fit for a tech video podcast or no-name Web TV series, but these are soap operas. TV doesn't get more mainstream than this.

(See also: The Internet's Assault On Traditional TV Is Working)

Citing an "inflection point for online television", the shows' backers are betting big on the notion that enough people watch TV online these days to make this a profitable endeavor. If recent history is any indication, it's a safe bet.

The first sign of Internet TV's legitimacy among mainstream audiences came earlier this year with House of Cards. We still don't know precisely how many people tuned into Netflix's TV-quality political drama, but it's clearly been popular among the service's 29 million subscribers, as well as many critics.

Most importantly, the show got people talking. Not just tech-savvy people living their lives online, but normal, everyday people. Suddenly, you could hear House of Cards being chattered about at parties as though it was the latest drama on HBO, whose U.S. subscriber count Netflix just surpassed. (Sort of, at least.)

At 4 million subscribers, Hulu is markedly smaller than Netflix, but it's growing fast. And unlike Netflix, Hulu lets non-subscribers stream shows for free from the desktop, so the potential reach of shows like the new All My Children isn't capped at 4 million, or even 29 million, for that matter. Then there's iTunes, through which viewers will be able to purchase individual episodes.

The Imperfect Science of Measuring Web TV

Even on these popular online services, these soap operas will almost certainly fall short of the kind of ratings numbers they used to see on daytime TV. It's impossible to know for sure, since each of these services has different viewership metrics and they're not particularly eager to share. Even Netflix, which proudly boasts the success of House of Cards, won't say just how many people actually watched the show. 

The measurement challenge might begin to change soon, as Nielsen moves toward measurement tools that Internet sources into account. Next month, a temporary pilot run of its Nielsen Digital Program Ratings will track online views from the networks' own websites. In time, the tracking method could become a standard utilized by an array of online video services, finally painting an accurate picture of what's getting watched. 

Nielsen has a long way to go with Internet TV measurement, but the fact that it's tinkering with a decades-old formula is a sign that online TV viewership is now too enormous for it to ignore if it wants to stay relevant.

Before the year is halfway over, we'll have another test of Internet TV's mainstream appeal when Arrested Development's fourth season lands on Netflix. Like the soap operas, Arrested Development is making the leap from TV to online, but in this case the show is backed by eight years of anticipation and the same data-driven smarts that all but ensured House of Cards would be a hit. 

Again, we won't know how many people will actually tune in to the new season of Arrested Development unless Netflix decides to share that data. In the meantime, we'll have only limited, largely anecdotal clues to go from. Perhaps the most important: Are people talking about this? I don't mean on Twitter, but at the bar. That's how we'll really know that a new era in television's history is underway. 

Futurama, the animated comedy from Simpsons creator Matt Groening and writer David X. Cohen, is unparalleled in its ability to mix lowbrow humor with high concept science and technology. But after an initial run on Fox from 1999 to 2003 and a glorious revival six years later, Comedy Central has pulled the plug and will end the show with its seventh season this summer.

In keeping with ReadWrite's mission to map the programmable universe, we figured that a roundup of some of the greatest inventions from the year 3000 was most definitely called for. Futurama, after all, was always at its best turning some recent technological development or scientific notion into farce.

Did we miss any? Let us know in the comments.

Disclaimer: We decided to keep it light-hearted, so we apologize in advance to any fans of the infamous suicide booth.

1. Smell-O-Scope

In the show's first season episode "A Big Piece Of Garbage," the Smell-O-Scope was Professor Farnsworth's seemingly useless space smelling invention. As he explained, "If a dog craps anywhere in the universe, you can bet I won't be out of the loop." It certainly came in handy when it detected a giant ball of garbage — a last-ditch effort by New York in the year 2020 to stave off overflowing landfills — that was hurling towards the Earth. The ensuing antics involved continuous spoofs on the 1998 film Armageddon. 

Turns out that in 2011, a small company actually invented a handheld Smell-O-Scope, although it dubbed it  the Nasal Ranger Field Olfactometer. Killjoys.

2. Scooty-Puff, Jr.

When Fry was tasked with saving the universe from the Brainspawn in season four, he had to infiltrate their secret base, the Infosphere. Fry's allies against the brains, the highly intelligent yet adorable Niblonians, gave him the Scooty-Puff, Jr. for the task. A wind-up contraption resembling a children's toy, the Scooty-Puff, Jr. ended up falling apart when Fry tried to escape, leading him to request a more advanced vehicle — the larger, more impressive Scooty-Puff, Sr.

3. Fing-Longer

Invented by Professor Farnsworth in an alternative timeline — one he detected via the What-If Machine in the season two episode "Anthology of Interest I," the Fing-Longer allowed the wearer to reach farther than normal — say, to press buttons. Not exactly groundbreaking, but who couldn't love a name like the Fing-Longer? 

Not only does this device now actually exist as a Wii mote accessory, the idea of the Professor getting inspiration from himself provided an interesting philosophical conundrum. Can you be said to have invented something if the initial inspiration came from some external source, even if that external source is an alternate version of yourself? Yeah, we'll get back to you on that.

4. Mind-Switcher

The season six episode "The Prisoner of Benda" introduced this invention of Professor Farnsworth and Amy, the Mind-Switcher. After a dizzying number of mind switches, the whole crew is in disarray with everyone in someone else's body. 

This episode generated what was apparently the first mathematical theorem created for a television show. Futurama writer Ken Keeler, who holds a doctorate in mathematics, wrote the Futurama Theorem as both a real-world theorem and the solution used in the show that proves "that regardless of how many mind switches between two bodies have been made, they can still all be restored to their original bodies using only two extra people, provided these two people have not had any mind switches prior."

5. What-If Machine

The What-If Machine was a Professor Farnsworth device that could predict a scenario based on any "what if" question it was asked. After a series of events that pertain to each character on the crew and their respective "what if" questions, the Professor tosses the machine in the garbage, declaring it a failure due to the preposterous scenarios it generated. The whole episode turns on its head when everything is revealed to be one huge, layered simulation from the What-If Machine, generated when the Professor asks what if he had invented the Fing-Longer.

6. eyePhone

One of the few times Futurama took a swipe at real-world companies and products, the season six episode "Attack of the Killer App" introduced an obvious parody of a well-known Apple device. The writers envisioned a 31st Century eyePhone as an actual eye implant that projects a holographic screen in front of the user's face. 

7. Forwards Time Machine

Featured in one of the show's best episodes, "The Late Philip J. Fry," the Forwards Time Machine is a Professor Farnsworth invention that only lets you move through time in one direction, specifically to avoid temporal paradoxes (a topic the show has explored in past episodes). Fry joins Bender and the Professor to take the machine one minute into the future, though of course they screw up and get thrown thousands of years forward. Ultimately, they have nowhere to go except the end of time. 

In true high-low concept fashion, Bender, Fry and the Professor couch it on lawn chairs, crack some beers and proceed to watch the universe end, only to realize that a new Big Bang begins to happen all over again. Turns out that idea is an actual scientific model, called the Big Bounce, that posits that the universe is forever oscillating through a cosmic boom-bust cycle.

8. The Electronium Hat

Invented by the Professor to give animals super intelligence, the Electronium Hat was a wearable device introduced in the season one episode "Mars University." It used sunspots to produce "cognitive radiation," whatever that means. The monkey Guenter gets uplifted by the hat and spends much of the episode quarrelling with Fry and lamenting the fact that he can't live his natural life due to his unnatural super-smarts.

9. The Clone-O-Mat

In the season two episode "A Clone Of Mine Own," the Professor introduces his own 12-year-old clone, named Cubert. Created via the Professor's Clone-O-Mat, Cubert gets named as the Professor's heir.

The Clone-O-Mat makes a return in the season four episode "Jurassic Bark," one of the rare but emotionally powerful moments when Futurama shifted from comedy to animated drama. Nominated for an Emmy, the episode explores Fry's anguish after discovering his former dog Seymour's fossilized 21st century remains, a find that prompts Fry to agonize over whether or not to clone his long-lost animal companion.

10. The Spheroboom

Of all the Professor's many doomsday devices, the Spheroboom was his favorite and the one device that he couldn't part with when selling his stash to Hedonismbot in "Bender's Big Score," the straight-to-DVD film that became part one of season five. The Spheroboom appears to bend an object around its center until it implodes in an explosion of "doom radiation."

In a not-so-subtle jab at the National Rifle Association, the episode introduced the National Ray-Gun Association, which protested a three-day waiting period for mad scientists to purchase doomsday devices.

Over time, great cities tend to inspire their own iconic comedies: New York's Seinfeld. Boston's Cheers. It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia. Now Betas is the show that could put Silicon Valley on the comedy map - but only if you help.

Betas is one of the eight comedy pilots that Amazon has been featuring on its Instant Video page. If enough voters back Betas - or any of the other comedies - then Amazon will greenlight its development into a full-fledged original series, taking on shows like House of Cards and Lilyhammer on Netflix.

Betas = Heart, Surrealism And Desperation

To its credit, Betas integrates much of what made 1980s comedies great - heart, a touch of implausibility that borders on surrealism - and swirls it all together with the desperation and ambition of the Silicon Valley feeding frenzy. For many entrepreneurs, the right handshake seems to be all that separates them from poverty or untold riches, a cruelty that can instantly reduce months of work to ashes. Chasing that dream is frustrating. And funny.

Betas reminds us that Silicon Valley has become high school writ large: geeks may be the new jocks, but the popular kids still have all the money and dweebs are still dweebs. And owning all the toys is still the high score.

Betas begins in the sort of community workspace many techies could imagine working in, if they weren't, you know, working: Employees chase each other around with Nerf guns, others grind Cheetos into their keyboards. "Nash," the neurotic, socially inhibited engineer played by Karan Soni, can't take it. He freaks out and hides in one of the telephone booths the workspace has put against the wall, a quasi-ironic homage to older technology. Nash, despondent, tells his company's founder, Trey (Joe Dinicol), that the latest build of their Highlight-like social discovery app, BRB, bricked the phone.

"Who cares? Investors are making investments from napkin sketches made by high school dropouts!" Trey responds.

"I don't make napkin sketches!" Nash wails. 

The plot of the pilot revolves around a meeting that Trey is convinced BRB needs with George Murchison (Ed Begley, Jr.), who plays electric flute with Moby and slices his own "Ferrari of trout" with an Asian shortsword. Part of the reason is one-upping the team behind "Valet Me," a parking app whose sudden success makes the douche bag developers instant stars. Trey is convinced that the when Murchison hears BRB's pitch, he'll invest - and talks his way into Murchison's home using "Larry Page" as an alias.

The other members of the BRB team include Hobbes (Jonathan C. Daly), a bearded, jaded developer whose idea of relaxing is watching Webcam porn at a local laundromat, and Mitchell (Charlie Saxton) a pudgy dweeb whose biggest goal is to talk to Mikki (Maya Erskine), the cool Asian chick who's looking for just about anything to spark her empty life. "I would never say damp," Mikki muses. "It makes my vaj seem like the Dagobah system." 

Betas Brings Silicon Valley To Life

Betas may be a scripted comedy, but it feels a hell of a lot more real than Randi Zuckerberg's reality TV fiasco, Startups: Silicon Valley that debuted last year. Then, a cast of pretty wannabes partied their way from meetup to meeting to hangout to loft party, leaving everyone in Silicon Valley muttering, "What the hell is this?" Startups' worst crime, however, wasn't that it was vapid; it was just boring, and we'd seen all the tricks that reality series could throw at us before. It's hard to fathom how anyone got beyond an episode or two.

(See also Startups Silicon Valley: The Painful Truth Behind A Caricature Of Excess.)

The Big Bang Theory may hold the crown of TV's geekiest show. But BBT mocks geeky science culture - Star Trek, Iron Man and the ins and outs of academic life - without really touching on what makes a life in technology so great. Betas tosses you in the deep end; it assumes you know what "Series A" funding is, and who Mark Zuckerberg and Page are. Little touches - bumping phones to swap digits, for example - lend the series the "oh yeah, people really do do that" feeling. Silicon Valley will hit the big screen this summer, when The Internship looks inside life at Google - but do you really think a sanctioned look inside the Googleplex is going to end up all that funny?

(See also Geek Movies: The Top 10 Most Inspirational Films For Techies.)

Think Scrubs: Silicon Valley

Think of Betas as Scrubs Silicon Valley: the four members of BRB are starting at the bottom, hoping to climb to the top. In Scrubs, there's a natural progression: the young residents must earn their way up the medical ladder to become full-fledged doctors. What makes Betas so compelling is that Silicon Valley isn't like that. Instead, it's a roller-coaster ride: This week it's a funding deal, next week it's a show-stopping bug. What happens if Trey and the team accidentally leak their user information? What if they're hacked? Do they attract the attention of Anonymous? Does Microsoft make a pitch to buy them? Does IBM?

Look, crazy stuff happens in Silicon Valley every day. But there's no reason why we can't watch it on our TVs at night, too. So watch Betas. Vote for it. Let's make this happen, people.

Whether we want one or not, Amazon is building a connected TV set top box for us, according to BusinessWeek. The so-called Amazon TV device will stream Internet video to our televisions, presumably with a bias towards the company's own Instant Video selections. It may not be something consumers are clamoring for, but then again, neither was Amazon's Kindle Fire. 

Indeed, Amazon's tablets offer a useful analogy for what we should expect from Amazon TV: an affordable device that mimics  existing offerings with direct connections into Amazons products and services. The idea is to provide just enough value to carve out a respectable slice of the market. In the process, Amazon sets up another entryway into its universe of content and goods. As The Verge smartly put it, it's all about the ecosystem. 

See Also: What The New Kindle Means To Amazon

The Kindle Fire didn't turn out to be the "iPad killer" some predicted, but it appears to be selling fairly well. The class of 7-inch tablets it helped popularize were popular enough to induce Apple to release the iPad Mini. For Amazon, the Kindle Fire isn't a huge money maker, but it plugs millions of people (and their credit cards) into Amazon's storefront. Expect the Amazon TV to do the same. 

Another Streaming TV Box? Really? 

This makes total sense for Amazon as a business, but why do we, the buyers, need another set top box?

Each of the devices on the market has its own benefits, but none of them are a slam dunk. Boxee's buzz has given way to an identity crisis, while Google has yet to apply the proper amount of polish to Google TV. The Roku has tons of content, but Apple TV's AirPlay feature offers even more, letting iPhone and iPad users stream anything from their devices onto the big screen. It's really the Apple TV that Amazon is taking aim at here. And the Apple TV, it's worth noting, has not generated iPad levels of popularity or excitement. 

Maybe that's the point. This could be a preemptive strike on Amazon's part. Whether Apple launches an HDTV set or not, the company is widely expected to make a splash in the Internet TV market sometime this year. By launching something with a TV app store, or at least an AirPlay equivalent, Amazon could beat Apple to the punch. That sounds a lot better than launching an inferior (albeit still good and, crucially, cheaper) competitor after the fact, as Amazon did with the Kindle Fire. 

How Amazon Can Nail This - And Apple 

In that sense, this is a huge opportunity for Amazon. A super-cheap device with a bulletproof user experience (this is TV, after all) that taps into a rich app development ecosystem could blow away the Rokus, Boxees and Apple TVs of the world. For consumers, the goal is to get as much content as possible on the new device, including a Web browser. If Aereo survives, Amazon should have an app for that, right alongside Hulu, Netflix and all the little guys building innovative video apps with awesome user interfaces.

See Also: The Internet Assault On Traditional TV Is Working

Whatever shows it plays, the Amazon TV box has to be absolutely painless to operate. Television has been dead-simple to use for decades, a fact that the makers of many Internet TV products seem to forget. None of these boxes will truly take off TV watchers find them the slightest bit confusing or intimidating.

Don't Mess This Up, Amazon

Here's what we don't want: A half-decent piece of hardware that pushes you toward Amazon's content but doesn't let you stream Hulu Plus or YouTube videos. The things most people want to watch are fractured across these devices as it is. The reason Apple's AirPlay is so promising is that I can get almost everything I want to see on my iPad - and then beam it to my TV. 

You know what doesn't work with AirPlay though? The Amazon Prime iPad app. There's no good reason for that other than the fact that Apple and Amazon are rivals. We consumers shouldn't get caught in the middle of a corporate spitting match and get stuck with a crappier experience as a result (I'm talking to you, Apple Maps). 

It's clear why Amazon is working on a device like this. It makes total sense from the company's perspective. As long as Amazon also takes the consumer's perspective into account ours, this could be huge.  

Compared to the music and news industries, the television business has so far managed to avoid being upended by the disruptive forces of the Internet. That's about to change.

Despite the industry's furious efforts to starve or shut down its online rivals, the Internet is starting to carve out a respectable slice of TV's future. The good news is that while the coming transistion is likely to be rough on many established networks and providers, it's going to be great for consumers and developers. Here's how.

Netflix Bounces Back, Surpasses HBO 

Case in point: Netflix. The video subscription service has bounced back from its 2011 faux pas to not only regain members, but surpass HBO in U.S. subscribers for the first time ever. As Quartz's Zach Seward points out, Netflix now commands more daily attention than any cable channel in the United States. 

See Also: Do We Really Need Amazon TV? No, But Amazon Does

Netflix's dominance over HBO in particular makes for some pretty symbolic future-of-TV discussion fodder. It is, after all, HBO that refuses to offer its programming as a stand alone subscription service, despite growing demand for such a option. It is precisely its old media business relationships and norms that are holding HBO back from letting non-cable subscribers use its HBO Go app, a fact that seems worth recalling at this particular moment in history. It's no wonder that the company's CEO is publicly rethinking that strategy and admitting to reporters that cable-free access to HBO Go may be an inevitability.

It's also interesting to note, as Seward does, that HBO started out much like Netflix did, by first making out-of-theater movies available to subscribers, and then moving into original programming. 

The Internet Masters What Matters: Programming

For the last few years, it was the hardware, distribution and overall experience of watching TV that started to change at the hands of the Internet and mobile tech. Now, crucially, we're getting down to what matters most: the stuff that actually draws viewers. 

The trend toward original, Internet-only, TV-style programming is something we tech blogs have watched and opined about for the better part of a year. In the first half of 2013, the theoretical promise of original Internet TV has morphed into a confirmation that it is, in fact, something normal, non-techie people care about.

Netflix's Lilyhammer may not have changed the landscape, but it was an important precursor to House of Cards, which appears to be doing exactly that. Meanwhile, Hulu, Amazon and YouTube continue to make their own investments in original programming to compete with cable and network TV. 

The success of House of Cards has led to a great deal of discussion about the rise of data-driven TV programming and what it means for TV's future. Unlike the people who have traditionally made TV programming decisions, Netflix is sitting on a mountain of data about its users. That includes 30 million plays and 4 million ratings per day, in addition to details about when people watch, from which devices, which parts they rewind and more.

By looking at this trove of data, Netflix was able to place a pretty safe bet on the notion that a remake of this particular BBC show starring Kevin Spacey and directed by David Fincher would do well. 

Netflix isn't the only company tapping its users to help with video programming decisions. This weekend, Amazon asked viewers to rate the pilot episodes of 14 different Web series, which apparently resulted in quite a few views for the original programs. The company hasn't launched a stand-alone Netflix competitor, but Amazon Prime appears poised to evolve into such an offering. There's even an Amazon TV set top box rumor, hot off of the presses.

Aereo: Please Excuse This Interruption

Next month, people living in and around Boston will be able to join New York's early adopters in subscribing to Aereo, an innovative and controversial Internet TV service. Since its launch, Aereo has under assault by much of the TV industry, which claims its antenna-renting and re-broadcasting model of mobile and Web TV amounts to copyright infringement. That may or may not be true, but it's certainly threatening their business model, which is why they wasted no time in trying to sue Aereo out of existence. 

So far, Aereo has prevailed. That is, early court rulings have sided with the startup's claims of fair use and thus declined to shut it down before the lawsuit goes to trial, which will undoubtedly be an interesting affair to follow. 

If Aereo survives this litigious onslaught, it's poised to be one of the most disruptive forces the industry has seen in awhile. And while that would be bad news for network executives, it's actually pretty great for consumers, who will be able to tune into broadcast TV online without dealing with rabbit ears or a cable provider. It would also be a huge win for the Internet in the battle for TV's future.

The Original Web Programming Revolution Continues

The next big test for Internet-only TV will be the return of cult classic Arrested Development, a new season of which will land on Netflix next month, eight years after Fox dropped the original. If the show's enduring popularity and House of Cards' recent success are any indication, May will be a good month for Netflix. 

We won't actually know how well Arrested Development does, though. That's because like House of Cards and everything else on Netflix, it isn't tracked by the same TV ratings system that has measured TV viewership in the U.S. for six decades. The only numbers we get from Netflix are the ones it chooses to share. The company isn't typically generous with that data, which is somewhat ironic considering how much its users willingly hand over.

That all might be about to change, as Nielsen gets ready to update its TV audience measuring methodology to include Internet sources. It's not clear whether the long-overdue update will track views on Netflix when it gets rolled out this fall, but the normalization of TV measurement should help paint a clearer picture of what's getting watched, regardless of the distribution channel. 

If nothing else, the Nielsen update further illustrates the extent to which TV is changing in the age of streaming services and mobile devices. 

Sprint is turning out to be the prettiest girl at the ball. Or at least the most available, anyway.

Following Japanese mobile carrier Softbank's bid to acquire Sprint, the No. 3 mobile operator in the United States now has a new suitor looking to dance: Dish Network. The satellite TV operator has come up with a bid to buy Sprint that is several billion dollars higher than Softbank's offer - and cliams that it can provide a better experience for consumers and a better return for investors.

(See also What's The Real Impact Of Sprint's Japanese Lifeline?)

According to The Wall Street Journal, Dish is offering Sprint $25.5 billion, about 13% more than the Softbank offer, which is for only 70% of the company. The business dynamics of the merger are fairly complex (with a fair amount of spectrum up for grabs, especially through spectrum wholesale operator Clearwire, which Sprint is the primary owner and Dish tried to acquire earlier this year).

But to us, there is just one truly pertinent question: Would this deal be good for consumers?

The Dynamic Of A Sprint-Dish Network

Sprint is a mobile carrier. As such, it owns and operates wireless spectrum, builds infrastructure, distributes hardware (such as smartphones) and dabbles in media, applications and entertainment. Sprint is in the same situation as the rest of the U.S. carriers: watching its market position turn into “dumb pipe.” Thats why it wants to expand its revenue sources into areas like video and audio, application ecosystems and services. The broader its product portfolio, the more attractive Sprint might be to consumers choosing a carrier.

On the other side, Dish is a satellite pay-television operator. That is about it. It offers programming, television hardware and subscriber packages to consumers and businesses. The problem with Dish is that the pay television market is growing slowly (and could soon begin contracting if cord-cutting becomes rampant) and highly competitive. 

What would you get if you combined the two?

• A mobile network that can push premium video to smartphones, tablets, televisions and computers.
• The ability to, perhaps, give consumers the ability to use satellite connectivity for their data connections (in addition to terrestrial-based mobile networks based on GSM or CDMA technologies).
• A full range of consumer and business services, opening up opportunities for other companies and entrepreneurs to build on top of.

The combination would also look a lot like Sprint's two biggest competitors, AT&T and Verizon.

Both Ma Bell and Big Red have television capabilities to the home. AT&T has U-Verse for television, which it bundles with its Internet and landline voice offerings. Verizon has its fiber-based FiOS network, which it has been building for most of the last decade. In one fell swoop, Dish could create a similar company profile and market it aggressively. 

Let’s Not Forget Who We Are Dealing With

Dish Network does not have the most sterling of corporate reputations when it comes to dealing with consumers. This is the company that dropped AMC and other prominent cable channels (through AMC’s former owner Cablevision) from its roster - the subsequent lawsuit led to four years of litigation that concluded in October 2012. Dish Network is also locked in a battle with CBS over its Hopper DVR's ad-skipping capabilities.

Dish is the kind of company that doesn't shy away from lawsuits with other media heavyweights, consumers be damned. Sprint, meanwhile, is seen as relatively consumer-friendly (at least compared to the other major U.S. mobile carriers). It offers some of the most competitive wireless plans with (almost) truly unlimited data for smartphones and tablets. It's hard to say what kind of company Sprint-Dish might turn into, but Dish Network would be the surviving company in this deal, so you might expect its corporate culture to dominate.

A third major player in the mobile/television market could be a good thing for consumers. Despite its pugnacious reputation, Dish shares Sprint's commitment to being a low-cost leader. If that adds up to lower prices for consumers, great. Unless it all gets tangled up in endless lawsuits. 

With two major deals now on the table, it seems clear that Sprint is going to bought by someone relatively soon. Both suitors claim to have big plans for the carrier, but it's too soon to be sure which one will win out and how the successful bidder will change the carrier.  

Images courtesy Shutterstock.

The first time you launch Aereo, you start to see why TV network executives are losing their minds. It's not because the service feels like it's doing anything wrong. Quite the opposite. For the consumer, it's doing almost everything right.

When you log in, you're shown a TV Guide-style listing of shows that are currently airing. It's not just the four or five obvious options, either. In the New York market, there are 30 broadcast channels that Aereo grabs and rebroadcasts to your account via the tiny antenna you're effectively renting from the company when you sign up.

See Also: To Truly Stop Aereo, Broadcasters Need To Innovate Like Hell

It's mostly typical broadcast fare: local news, daytime soap operas, people having meltdowns on Maury, prime time sitcoms, PBS and so forth. All the standard broadcast networks are augmented with local channels, foreign language networks and an inordinate amount of religious programming. The selection may not be as robust as that of cable, but some of the most popular shows on TV are waiting there, ready to be watched or DVR'ed to the cloud for later.

TV On Any Device, Second Screen And All

Aereo doesn't have native mobile apps yet, but it makes up for that with a very capable, cross-platform Web app. It works in the browser on my iPad and iPhone, from which it can be AirPlayed directly to my television via Apple TV. I didn't get the chance to test it, but I'm presuming Aereo works on most other modern browsers and platforms.

Thanks to iOS multitasking, I can close the browser and do other things like check email, browse the Web and tweet. You know, the second screen stuff we all do anyway. It all still works, even if we use our second screens to feed content to the first screen. The only drawback is that the transition from video to video is not entirely smooth with AirPlay. That experience should get better once Aereo develops native mobile apps and, eventually, lands on smart TV platforms. 

I am admittedly not a huge TV person. Still, as I use Aereo's Web app from device to device, its value starts to feel more and more obvious. I can watch my favorite PBS shows, tune into the local news (for whatever reason) and watch popular prime time shows like 30 Rock and Parks and Recreation, all using the Internet, which is what I use for just about all other media consumption. 

Indeed, after a few days of testing Aereo, I'm left with the distinct impression that this is not only a useful service, but something that needs to exist. I understand why it frightens the TV execs, but I wholeheartedly disagree with them. This is a hugely innovative service that hands control back to the TV-viewing consumer in a way that wasn't possible before. I'm not a legal scholar, but the copyright infringement claims made by the big media conglomerates against Aereo seem like a stretch. So far, the courts have agreed. 

The TV Antenna Of The Future

Since Aereo launched, the television industry has been hoping to sue it out of existence. Early attempts to have the service shut down have been unsuccessful, thanks to legal logic that may well wind up saving Aereo in the end. Meanwhile, the networks are clamoring for a plan B, which, if you believe the claims of network execs, includes threats to pull out of broadcast TV all together. (Said threats are, of course, unbelievably stupid.)

Aereo does not disrupt the core broadcast business model. When I'm watching TV shows on my iPad using Aereo, I'm still seeing all the commercials, just like I would if I tuned in via an antenna on my television set. The problem is, my antenna sucks. On a good day, I can get four or five channels to display clearly on my TV, and even that involves some finagling. It feels decidedly old-fashioned to be tinkering with an antenna just to watch NBC. 

By contrast, Aereo feels right at home in the 21st century. When you watch it, it doesn't feel like you're stealing anything. Instead, it feels like the service has restored your ability to conveniently tune into broadcast TV — an ability that's atrophied for years thanks to changing viewer habits and, consequently, expectations for picture and sound quality.

Broadcasters and TV service providers didn't come up with a good solution, so Aereo rose to the challenge. Aereo isn't stealing anything. It just wants to sell you the TV antenna of the future.

Why Broadcasters Hate Aereo

This infuriates broadcasters because it could eventually threaten the lucrative fees they get from cable providers, whose all-or-nothing, bloated content bundles suddenly look a little less attractive once a service like Aereo is available for $13 per month. Combined with Netflix and Hulu, Aereo makes cable look less necessary than ever and all three combined are still cheaper than most cable bills. 

I have no interest in subscribing to cable. It's expensive and the vast majority of what I'd be paying for is, so far as I can tell, complete garbage. Instead, I catch up with favorite shows via the Internet, where I can also find a growing selection of perfectly worthwhile non-TV video. Aereo is perfect for people like me.

More importantly, it could be an easy sell to many in the upcoming generation of "cord never getters" who are now totally accustomed to getting their TV online. We like to think about what the future of TV might look like. If it survives, Aereo seems very well positioned to be a part of that picture.

An ongoing court battle may decide the fate of an upstart programming provider that could prove to be disruptive to broadcasters and even other services that provide ways for cable cutters to obtain the shows they want.

Aereo, the controversial startup that provides subscribers with access to local TV programming on tablets and smartphones, will live to fight another day after a decision handed down from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York, affirming an earlier ruling blocking an injunction on the service.

The preliminary injunction was requested by the plaintiffs in the copyright infringement lawsuit brought against Aereo by local New York broadcasters and their corporate parents.

Aereo uses tiny antennas to rebroadcast over-the-air channels to each of its subscribers' mobile devices, even recording broadcasts using DVR-like functionality.

The problem for broadcasters, which include CBS Corporation, Comcast, News Corporation, PBS and the Walt Disney Company, is that none of Aereo's $8/month fee goes to the local TV stations. This is not the case when programming is carried over cable and satellite services, which have to pay the stations rebroadcast fees - fees the TV stations are increasingly depending on in a time when advertising revenue is on the decline thanks to competition from Internet ad services.

(See also To Truly Stop Aereo, TV Broadcasters Need To Innovate Like Hell.)

The initial injunction against Aereo was spiked in July 2012, and the broadcasters in the lawsuit vowed to appeal. Yesterday's ruling from the Second Circuit is the result of that appeal.

Because each customer controls one and only one antenna in Aereo's antenna farm, the judges felt that this did not constitute public performance of TV programming. And the DVR service seemed to be in line with an earlier ruling in a case against Cablevision that found DVRs to be perfectly fine.

For cable cutters, particularly those in the larger cities when antenna use is not always practical, services like Aereo will serve as an effective tool for customers seeking to bypass cable and satellite fees.

But Aereo could also be a source of disruption for the first generation of alternative broadcast sources, such as Hulu, Apple's iTunes, and Amazon.

For example, today, if I don't catch a network show over the air (which happens a lot on my schedule), and it's not available on Hulu Plus, I will have to buy that episode from Amazon. But if an Aereo-like service ever comes to my city, I can DVR that episode and hold it to watch it when I want… even without waiting the usual one day later for the episode to be available on one of these services.

If reliable, then now I would have to re-balance my entire cable cutting budget. Hulu Plus provides my primary network TV programming with Amazon as backup. An Aereo-like service would enable me to skip the Hulu Plus subscription fee and buy less programming from Amazon, thus saving me even more money, which is the whole point of this exercise.

That's just in my situation, of course, but I would imagine anyone that's taken an Apple-centric approach would find similar savings with buying less programming from iTunes.

Aereo and similar services won't completely replace Amazon/iTunes content, because there's content on basic cable channels I like to watch, and more esoteric channels like BBC America for Doctor Who. Not to mention that right now Aereo works best for tablets and other mobile devices, not the big-screen television.

Aereo itself is not done yet - the plaintiff broadcasters can still appeal the injunction decision up the legal ladder. Even if they don't, there's still the actual court case that must be to be held. But for now, it looks like the startup has found a way to successfully dodge copyright restrictions to keep its service going.

If ultimately successful, Aereo and similar services will prove to be disruptive to many forms of programming providers, not just broadcasters. Expect a lot of companies to be tuning in to this trial.

Image courtesy of Aereo.

Out of all the lines the press uses to describe Google’s interests in funding better content on its biggest social platform, the dominant one by far is: “YouTube is trying to compete with television.”

Right.

Yes, Google in all its infinite wisdom wants to compete with the decades-old giant that is the multi-billion dollar television industry with paltry investments of $100 million or so every couple of months.  /sarcasm

YouTube Cannot Replace TV

The notion is just plain silly - it even made Time Warner’s CEO laugh. But this motif, if you will, continues to dominate the discussion - much to the chagrin of YouTube itself. Whenever YouTube invests in networks or lures mainstream celebrities (or almost celebrities) to start “channels,” which it has been doing with increasing frequency over the last two years, that same line pops up. I am officially sick of it, and YouTube is too.  

2011 was the year marking Google’s biggest investments into video content, and it was this same year that the “YouTube competing with TV” meme was born. Media outlets everywhere served up some derivative of this sentence, including Reuters, which wrote “the Google-owned site is issuing a direct challenge to the television industry.” A direct challenge!  

Can you blame Reuters though, when everyone from the Wall Street Journal to the Hollywood Reporter, was doing the same thing? Hell, I am guilty of it, too.

And it isn't going away. Canada's The Star printed the headline just yesterday: “YouTube aims to compete with TV.” 

No, Canada, YouTube does not aim to compete with TV. How could it?

TV Still Rules

YouTube doesn't want anyone to think it has any intention of replacing television. The company hews to the sentiment first expressed by Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes not so long ago - namely, that it's ludicrous to think YouTube's relatively tiny content budgets, ad rolls, and Internet infrastructure could really compete with the giant television industry.

YouTube — realistically — views its place in the entertainment industry as complementaryto television and Hollywood. If you consider things in light of the Life is Like a Jar of Rocks analogy, here the rocks are Hollywood, the pebbles are television, and the sand is YouTube and Web content. There’s plenty of room in the jar for everyone, and no one is trying to replace the others.  

YouTube wants to be the sand to TV’s pebbles in the entertainment jar, everyone. Let’s all write it together so we remember: YouTube is the sand to TV’s pebbles in the glass jar of entertainment.

There's only one problem. No matter how accurate the analogy, rocks, pebbles and sand make for far less interesting copy than the threat of taking down TV. No matter how ridiculous that might be.

Updated: I've rewritten the last section in light of new information. 

Image via YouTube. 

It's been 63 years since Nielsen started measuring what we're watching on TV. For most of that time, the concept of "TV" has  pretty much remained the same. But in the last half decade, the old model has been blown wide open by the Internet as more people go online to catch their favorite shows. To stay relevant, Nielsen is being forced to change its methodology. 

By the time the 2013 fall season begins, the 23,000 homes Nielsen uses to sample TV viewership will be equipped with a new system that takes Internet content into consideration, according to a scoop by the Hollywood Reporter. 

Piecing Together Fractured Viewing Habits

The report was short on details, but from the looks of it, Nielsen is going to start tracking select online video sources like Amazon, Netflix and Hulu as well as streaming devices like Xbox 360 and other gaming consoles. By the end of the year, TV viewership from iPads will be counted as well. That's good, considering the rising popularity of iPad apps like YouTube, Netflix and Hulu Plus and the ongoing push by cable operators and networks to make shows available on tablets. 

It's not clear which online content sources will be tracked at launch, since participating in Nielsen's ratings measurement system will require opt-in technical changes to the way those videos are encoded and streamed. 

"On the path to capturing all viewing in all homes, this foundational change addresses the lion’s share of viewing, in effect including any home with a TV that can receive video via an external source," Pat McDonough, Nielsen's SVP of Insights and Analysis told ReadWrite via email. "In collaboration with clients, we will continue to expand the reach of television audience measurement."

This isn't the first Internet-inspired change Nielsen has made to its methodology. In December, it announced a partnership with Twitter to launch a new social TV metric that will take into account the social chatter about popular shows. 

It's all part of Nielsen's larger plan to more accurately track media consumption habits that are increasingly fractured across time, devices and sources. Since the advent of TV, there's never been a change this dramatic in how people consume it. The seismic shift that's happening now calls for an equally significant retooling of how various aspects of the industry function. In a business fueled in large part by advertising, there are few moving parts more crucial than accurate audience metrics.  

Perfect Timing: Internet TV Is Growing Up 

The ratings updates come at a pivotal time for Internet TV. Online video has more than 182 million unique viewers watching 38.7 billion videos, according to ComScore's U.S. Digital Future in Focus 2013 report. The most popular video service remains YouTube, followed by Hulu, Vevo, Yahoo and AOL, in that order.

And we're not just talking about Justin Bieber songs and viral kitten videos anymore, either. In the last few years, YouTube, Netflix and Hulu have all been investing heavily in the production of their own TV-quality content. 

2012 saw a few Web original shows amass a notable amount of buzz online. This year, shows like Netflix's House of Cards are finally starting to grab the attention of everyday, non-cord-cutting viewers and generating almost as much discussion as popular shows airing on A&E or HBO. In May, Netflix will exclusively stream the fourth season of Arrested Development, a cult classic show whose low ratings got it booted from Fox a decade ago. Like House of Cards, the show is expected to draw plenty of attention, not to mention more new media pundits pontificating about the future of TV.

Online TV Ratings Could Help Fuel The Future

How many people will watch Arrested Development? We won't know, unless Netflix decides to tell us. And if it doesn't perform as well as hoped, why would it bother? The company declined to release viewership numbers for House of Cards, saying it had "no motivation" as a non-advertising based business to do so. 

That's true, but without an integrated, cross-platform method for tracking viewership, nobody inside or outside the industry has any way of knowing how popular a given show truly is. That's chiefly useful for advertisers, but such insight is valuable to plenty of others. 

There could hardly be an example more illustrative of the need for such a system than Arrested Development. The show got its start on broadcast television. As a Netflix exclusive, season four will be different only in how the episodes are released - all at once, rather than sequentially. Other than that, it will be very much the same show: Same dysfunctional family played by the same actors, presumably picking up the story line (or at least general premise) of the original. It's still a TV show, so why not measure it like one? 

As a journalist, I would love to know how well the new season does compared to the original three. Hell, I'd be curious to see how many views those first few seasons have racked up on Netflix since they've been available to stream. 

It's not just reporters, researchers and media nerds who could benefit from those insights. This is the first time a television show has made the transition to an online-only service. Will it work? Plenty of other content producers and streaming providers would love to know, and sharing such data could help inform future decisions about premium video content, potentially helping to shape TV's future.

Unless you're Tim Cook, you probably don't have a front row seat lined up for President Obama's State of the Union (SOTU) address on Tuesday night. That's okay though, because the ever-more-interactive speech is best experienced online, where it will be accompanied by more context and conversation than in any other medium. 

When it comes to tuning in online, this won't be anything like the Summer Olympics. There will be plenty of free livestreaming options across a variety of devices, as well as any number of social chats, on-camera analyses and interactive features from media outlets, journalists and the White House itself. 

Livestreaming The State Of The Union Address

The White House will not only be live-streaming President Obama's speech Tuesday night, but it will be displaying relevant charts and data in sync with whatever the President happens to be talking about. The White House's "enhanced livestream" begins at 9pm Eastern Time (6pm Pacific Time) and will be followed by a live panel discussion with policy experts. All of this will be available on the White House's website, as well as its official iOS and Android apps. 

If the White House stream freezes up right as your SOTU drinking game is just getting rowdy, you can always jump over to C-SPAN.com, which will be streaming the speech as well. On C-SPAN, you can also compare Obama's fourth State of the Union with archived addresses from the past. The C-SPAN folks have written transcripts dating back to Franklin Delano Roosevelet and archived videos as far back as Ronald Reagan's fourth State of the Union address in 1984. For even more historical analysis, check out Al Jazeera's interactive tool comparing Obama's past State of the Union speeches. 

And if all of those options aren't enough, CNN, Wall Street Journal, YouTube and HuffPost Live will also be live streaming the speech. 

The State Of The Union Is… Interactive

These days, it's pretty much a given that any big news or entertainment event is the "most interactive" instance of that event that's ever happened. That's what progress is all about.

The State of the Union is no exception, and not just because people are increasingly connected and more prone to live-tweet TV events in general. The famously tech-savvy Obama administration has been proactive about baking interactive elements into the speech and encouraging online participation. 

On Twitter, the White House has officially endorsed the #SOTU hashtag and is encouraging users to use #WHChat to submit questions to on-air policy experts after Obama's speech. The administration will also be actively maintaining conversations with citizens on Facebook and Google+. 

Meanwhile, Republicans will be live-critiquing Obama's speech on the official GOP website and encouraging rank-and-file conservatives to do the same over various social channels. 

Media outlets are running their own interactive features during the speech as well. Huffpost Live, for example, will be doing its usual thing, live-streaming the speech and post-speech reactions while inviting viewers to join on-air discussions and live chats. 

Top YouTuber Ray William Johnson has been dethroned as the most popular YouTuber by Smosh, the manic comedy duo comprised of Ian Hecox and Anthony Padilla.  It took 6.8 million subscribers grab the crown, which Smosh achieved over the weekend.

Skewing Younger!

The secret to Smosh's success? Make content for viewers under 18. 

Like every YouTube act that has owned the coveted #1 spot, Smosh's YouTube content is decidedly aimed at a younger teen and tween audience. 

Johnson, who riffs jokes on viral videos pre-Tosh.0 and also runs the popular animated channel Your Favorite Martian, has held the title of most-subscribed YouTuber since June 28, 2011.  Johnson’s content is less teen friendly than that of Smosh or Asian vlogger Ryan Higa (Higa held the top YouTube spot before Johnson) but his audience is still decidedly underage.  

Reclaiming Their Throne

Smosh’s ascent to the top is actually a reclaiming of the throne -  the duo held the #1 spot back in 2006, before YouTube became the do-it-yourself micro-Hollywood it is today.

“[C]ongrats to SMOSH for being #1 on youtube” tweeted longtime YouTuber Shane Dawson over the weekend. “[T]hey prove that being a youtuber doesn’t mean you have a short shelf life & thats very inspiring!"

Besides their signature channel Smosh, which averages 4 million views per video (be it a skit or them joking while driving), the 25-year-old Hecox and Padilla operate seven other YouTube channels including the insanely fast-growing Smosh Games (focused on - you guess it - video games), the news and entertainment show SmoshPit Weekly, El Smosh, which is SmoshPit Weekly in Spanish, and Shut Up! Cartoons, which was partially funded by Google as part of its original content initiative. The duo even has their own bobble-head dolls - so you know they must be big time.

Padilla began building Smosh'a new-media empire back in 2002 with the creation of Smosh.com, a Huffington Post-style aggregator of funny Internet stuff. The first video featuring the duo hit YouTube in 2005 and happened to be a lip dub of the Pokemon theme song Gotta Catch ‘Em All. It went viral, with 24 million views (which was huge in 2005) before it was removed for “copyright infringement.”

It's All About The Underwear

Part of Padilla and Hecox’s long standing success on YouTube - besides making content for minors - is heavily related to how they pander to young teen girls, aka fangirls. (Higa and Shane Dawson also appeal to this demographic.) The YouTube community often reacts negatively to women and girls who flaunt their sex appeal, but seems to approve of men dancing around topless in their briefs.

At last year’s unofficial YouTuber's conference - VidCon - Padilla and Hecox’s booth featured them in their underwear. The crowd of girls they attracted was in serious danger of hyperventilating. 

Despite corporate YouTube’s best efforts, viewers under 18 still rule the video-sharing site, relying on it not just for entertainment and music, but for news as well.  Hence, Smosh's dominance.  

Smosh was acquired by new media network Alloy Digital in 2011.

Photo courtesy of Wikipedia Commons.

Which generation rules the Internet? Conventional wisdom has it that the Millennials are the most connected cohort in history. The only problem is that the conventional wisdom may not be true. 

The inter-generational habits of Internet denizens have been revealed in a numbers-rich infographic posted this week, which reveals that among Baby Boomers, Generation X and the Millennial generations, it's the GenXers that spend more time online and produce more data than their children and their parents. (More analysis below the infographic...)

Wikibon's infographic pulls together a rich collection of stats, including the total data footprints of the three generations. Generation X leads the way, consuming 59.6GB of data per month, with Millennials close behind at 54.GB and Baby Boomers trailing with 44.8GBb.

TV vs. Work

Wikibon is not just counting computer and mobile surfing habits in its estimates… it's also added television watching to the tally. While Baby Boomers watch more traditional television than do the other two generations, the combination of traditional and online viewing still pushes the GenXers over the top for the video viewing data footprint.

Generation X, defined as those born between 1965-1983, also has a higher percentage of desktop computer owners and spends more time online. But their Millennial kids, born 1984-2002, have a higher percentage of Internet users, and dominate the mobile surfing habits.

One reason why Millennials have the lower footprint online than their parents is clearly the lack of television the kids are watching on TV sets (110 hours to their folks' 145 hours). Much of their video consumption happens online, where Millenials watch nearly 23.5 hours of video a month, compared to the less than 15 hours GenXers watch online.

But even taking TV out of the equation, Generation X and even Baby Boomers spend more time surfing on computers than do the young ones. One reason may lie in device preference, because kids are much more likely to use a mobile device than a computer to surf.

Another reason may be due to work: many Millennials are still in college, or just entering the workplace, and therefore aren't online for professional reasons as much as their parents and even their grandparents - who either haven't retired yet or are working a part-time job.

Data Generation Is Exploding!

But perhaps the most telling stat in this infographic can be be found at the very top: from the beginning of time until 2003, humans generated 5 billion gigabytes of data. That's 4.9 million terabytes, or 4.66 exabytes. Right now, we generate that much data every two days… and by 2014, we'll be creating that much data every 10 minutes. You think data is big now? This is the kind of stat that gets database engineers reaching for the nearest bottle (aspirin, vodka, it doesn't matter...).

As generations continue to adapt to new technologies and create this mega-data, their online habits could change, of course. And that evolution will remain of overwhelming interest to the marketers and entertainment companies who need to know where their intended audiences are hanging out online and what they are doing there.

Cisco grabbed some of the limelight at the Consumer Electronics Show by unveiling a cloud-based video platform for service providers like cable TV companies. A lot of hubbub was made over technology, which would deliver movies and TV shows on any device at any time. But in all the oohing and aahing over the new product, Cisco and partners left out one important detail: TV lovers will be paying a lot more for these services.

Videoscape Unity

Cisco's Videoscape Unity is a content-delivery platform for the living room. Software embedded in a set-top box would enable subscribers to watch content from a TV, tablet and smartphone. Cable operators would be able to deliver, for example, a Major League Baseball game on the TV and provide simultaneously stats on the players on an iPad.

In addition, the technology would be able to recommend movies and programming based on a person's TV habits, and a cloud-based digital video recorder (DVR) would let subscribers record content for viewing later from any device. The platform would also have a social media element. Viewers will be able to chat with friends on Facebook and Twitter.

For the pay TV industry, Cisco's platform provides a much better business model for squeezing more money from subscribers. In general, cable operators today charge more by adding channels to packages. However, the cost of content is high and good programming is scarce. Just think of how many times you've searched dozens of channels and found nothing you really want to watch.

Changing Business Models

With technology like Cisco's, cable operators will have to worry less about the number of channels they offer and focus instead on charging more for the services they provide. For example, European cable operator Liberty Global rolled out last year its Horizon platform that provides similar services to Cisco's product. Horizon represents a "whole brand new revenue stream," Balan Nair, chief technology officer for Liberty, says.

"With our Horizon product when we launched it, we didn't have anymore-new channels, but we charged quite a bit more for that product," Nair said during a panel discussion following Cisco's announcement. "And it was just based on the fact that you got a whole bunch of new features and some ancillary services."

Using technology to sell more products to subscribers is behind much of the excitement over products like Videoscape Unity. But whatever money comes in won't go only to the cable operators. Deals will have to be made with movie studios and TV networks, and possibly Apple, which currently dominates the tablet market.

With Apple, Nair made it clear that Liberty Global prefers not to offer its service through an app sold in Apple's App Store. "There's a whole bunch of other ramifications associated with that, especially in the economics of delivering that content," he said. Liberty would rather use a browser plug-in to deliver programming via the web.

New Content Deals

Content providers have already put cable operators on notice that they will need to sign licensing deals to let people watch on multiple devices. New contracts will also be needed, if cable operators plan to let people view programming on a tablet outside of the home.

Another issue is whose customer is the viewer? Is it the cable company, the content provider or the TV network? Also, who gets access to valuable information, such as TV habits, and how is revenue from services and advertising shared?

"Part of the challenge is how does this stuff get glued together so that it's intuitive and seamless to the user, understanding the fact that there are business models that are very important that need to exist or change or evolve," panelist Joe Inzerillo, senior vice president for multimedia and distribution for MLB.com, said. "This content, this professional content, is not created for free and that's sort of the elephant in the room. How do you get there?"

Until new revenue sharing and licensing agreements are made, it's unlikely cable operators and content providers will sign up for Cisco's or any other new platform for TV. For example, Cox is committed to Videoscape Unity, but it hasn't said whether it would include a cloud-based DVR, according to CNET.

Indeed, the use of such a service has been challenged before. In 2007, the TV and movie industry sued Cablevision for launching what it called a "networked DVR." Instead of having the video recorder functionality within the set-top box, the cable operator stored recorded programming on a remote server, reducing Cablevision's hardware cost by taking the DVR out of the box.

Cablevision won the suit on appeal in 2008, but that has made movie studios and TV networks even more cautious in letting cable operators use the cloud to provide content to subscribers.

In time, deals will get made as the home entertainment center evolves from static viewing to a more interactive experience. But as business models are built around services, as well as programming, consumers will have to look at their current cable TV bill and decide how much more they are willing to pay.

Image courtesy of Shutterstock.

Aereo, Barry Diller's uber-controversial Internet TV service currently available only in New York, is expanding. This spring, consumers in 22 more U.S. cities will get the ability to tune into broadcast TV channels via desktops, tablets and smartphones. And the TV networks are not happy. 

Aereo uses tiny, remote antennas to grab broadcast signals and convert them into video formats that can be transmitted over the Internet and watched from any device and recorded for later viewing. It's a brilliant idea, but one that immediately won the ire of the TV industry, who responded with a lawsuit. In July, a federal court ruled that Aereo did not violate copyright law in the way broadcasters alleged, allowing the service to continue operating as a larger legal battle looms. 

In its corporate rhetoric, Aereo very deliberately positions itself alongside the VHS tape and DVR, two technologies whose core functionality was challenged by the content industry on copyright grounds. The company and its supporters are hoping that the courts see the similarities as well. (For more insight, see Is Barry Diller Stealing Broadcasters' Content? Patent Application Says Maybe Not.)

Aereo's fate is far from firmed up, but that's not stopping the company from pushing forward with its expansion into new markets. Specifically, it will launch later 2013 in Boston, Miami, Austin, Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Washington, DC, Baltimore, Detroit, Denver, Minneapolis, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Tampa, Cleveland, Kansas City, Raleigh-Durham (NC), Salt Lake City, Birmingham (AL), Providence (RI), and Madison (WI).

For $8 per month - the price of a Hulu Plus subscription - users can tune into whichever over-the-air broadcast channels are available in their area. It's the same stuff you can get with a digital antenna affixed to your TV, but Aereo makes it available across devices and has built-in DVR recording functionality. 

Will people really want to drop $8 monthly to access broadcast TV more conveniently? Aereo is banking on it. Even combined with a Hulu Plus subscription, users would pay only $16 per month for access to a huge selection of content, some of which is live - including many live sporting events. That beats cable's hefty monthly bill, but it still won't get you Game of Thrones or the latest episode of Breaking Bad. 

If Aereo manages to survive its legal challenges (and the company just raised $38 million to fund its expansion and pay its legal bills), it's yet another step toward making the cord-cutting lifestyle a viable alternative. Of course the Cable/Satellite industry isn't sitting still: on Monday Time Warner Cable announced a limited deal to make some of TWC content available on Roku set-top boxes - although users will still have to have a cable subscription.

See Is Cable TV Tuning In Its Own Obsolescence?

Since there weren't already enough strangely shaped, wireless computers to plug into your television, Asus on Monday announced a new one at CES called the Qube. It's a Google TV-powered device, but instead of bringing clarity to the Google TV product line, it adds even more confusion - if such a thing is possible.

The Qube has a custom Asus interface, and it uses Asus' own cloud storage service instead of Google's. Just what the brutally low-margin TV business needs: more infighting with itself.

From Q to Qube

First, Google made something called a Nexus Q. It was the most inscrutable computer-like object of 2012 - a heavy, glowing orb that does the same things as every other decent smart TV box. Except for the TV part, which is what Google TV is for.

The Q was supposed to cost three hundred freaking dollars until Google un-launched it because no one understood what it was, and there's still no word on if or when it will re-launch. (I have been trying to give mine away since Google I/O, and no one will take it.)

What About Google TV?

The obvious question about the Nexus Q was, what about Google TV? Google TV has been a failure so far. Would there be an official Nexus-branded Google TV box to set things right by standardizing and streamlining the interface?

Well, not yet. There's just this mythical CES beast called a Qube by Asus. No Nexus brand, no price, no release date. It has a "rotating on-screen cube" interface for a motion-sensitive remote or smartphone, which sounds insane to use, and it's backed by 50GB of Asus's own WebStorage service. So this thing actually competes with Google, even though Google approved it.

Sure. Sounds like a slam dunk.

I'm sure this contraption is very exciting to everyone at the Consumer Electronics Show, which is known for being attended by zero consumers. As for real "consumers," it's probably fine that they would have no idea what a Qube is or what to do with it. After all, plenty of CES gadgets never get released - what difference will one more make?

As the annual Consumer Electronics Show grows away from its humble roots as, you know, a consumer electronics show, its focus increasingly turns to things altogether unrelated to technology - like celebrities!

Last year I recall spending three hours chasing down Justin Bieber with my telephoto lens - he made a brief, grumpy appearance promoting some entirely forgettable robotics company that I have since entirely forgotten. This year, the celeb safari is back on.  Here's who is showing up to CES this year and why you should - or shouldn't - care.

Get your bingo cards ready. No really... why not make a bingo card? Fill one up, find me and I'll buy you a shot. (Just don't blame me for knowing more about smartphones than pop culture - this is who I think these people are, anyway.)   

Felicia Day

This year's "CES Celebrity Ambassador," you might know Felicia day from the World of Warcraft spoof web series The Guild, or just from being generally cool and having preternaturally perfect skin. She tends to appear at every geek-adjacent event known to man, and we imagine that she'll spend most of the week in a cocktail lounge in an ivory tower somewhere in the South Hall. She's the CES celeb bingo equivalent of a doubleword score.

Maroon 5

Qualcomm Incoporated Preshow Keynote / 6:30-7:30pm, Monday, January 7, The Venetian, Palazzo Ballroom

This is a band, I think. I'm honesty not totally sure. It sounds like a racecar. Or a craft beer.

will.i.am

The Next Generation of Innovators Keynote / 11am-12pm, Tuesday, January 8, LVH Theater

This dude is from The Black Eyed Peas and has the cojones to downstyle his name like an Apple product. He's A+ in my book.

Curtis "50 Cent" Jackson

SMS Audio (LVCC, South Hall 1, #20206) / 3pm, Wednesday, January 9

Isn't this guy blatantly sexist and homophobic? Surprise! He's at CES 2013 representing SMS Audio, a brand that I will now ardently choose to not give a shit about. 

Travis Barker

Pioneer Electronics (USA) Inc. (LVCC, North Hall Booth #1101) / 12-1pm and 1:30-2:30pm, Tuesday, January 8

The Blink 182 dude? Really? Don't make me make the "what's my age again" joke.

Dana Cohen

Haier America (LVCC, Central Hall, #10939)

I have zero idea who this woman is, but apparently she was dubbed the “Scallop Queen” on season 10 of Hell’s Kitchen, which is the best title I've ever heard of. All hail the bivalve queen!

I Fight Dragons

Bém Wireless / 7pm, Wednesday, January 9, Luxor, Flight Lounge

This is probably an indie band. Okay, yeah, I looked it up and it is definitely an indie band. I hated them at first based on their name alone, but apparently they are into the chiptune retro video game sound thing, so now I'm totally into it.

Lil Twist

Nikura (LVCC, South Hall 4, #37134) / 1pm, Thursday, January 10

A young rapper of sorts, I imagine. And apparently Justin Bieber's BFF.

LL Cool J

CNET (LVCC, South Hall 3, CNET Booth) / 4:30pm, Tuesday, January 8

This guy is kind of actually famous! All these years and he never changed his name to something more pretentious or with fewer vowels - props to you, Mr. J.

Rohan Marley

House of Marley (LVCC, Central Hall, #10544) / 11am-3pm, Tuesday, January 8 - Thursday, January 9

Bob Marley's son is here every year with his crazy bamboo headphones and a big smile on his face. He's a super nice guy and he'll take a picture with you and you can almost pretend you met the "real" Marley instead of Lauryn Hill's ex boyfriend.

Nicole "Snooki" Polizzi

Zeikos/iHip (LVCC, South Hall 1, #21142) / 1-3pm, Wednesday, January 9

Yep, Snooki.

Tim Tebow

SOUL Electronics (Venetian Tower, #31-234) / 9am, Thursday, January 10

Isn't this that sanctimonious football player guy who never actually gets to play? We geeks come to these events to get away from you people. Whatever.

Chris “Ludacris” Bridges

SOUL Electronics / 10pm, Thursday, January 10, TAO Nightclub

Rapper turned actor Ludacris seems like a nice dude. I count this as a real celeb.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta

Digital Health Summitt (LVCC, North Hall, Room N250) / 9-10:15am, Wednesday, January 9

CNN's overexposed rockstar doctor guy. If he had accepted the job as Surgeon General, that would be one thing.

Dr. Oz

Digital Health Summitt (LVCC, North Hall, Room N250) / 10-10:50am, Thursday, January 10

Maybe Dr. Oz can tell you what that weird growth is on your foot. If not, try Sanjay Gupta.

Carrot Top

Gibson Guitar Corp. (LVCC, CES Central Plaza, CP-30)

We all know that the obnoxious comedian Carrot Top is just hanging out here in Vegas anyway. I don't know what he brings to Gibson's brand, but now that CES celebs are like trading cards, you might as well collect 'em all.

Danny DeVito

Panasonic (LVCC, Central Hall, Booth #9406) / 2:30pm, Wednesday, January 9

Okay, Danny DeVito is actually kind of awesome. If he's anything like his character on It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia, I'd like to commit a misdemeanor or drink stale beer with him. 

Ryan Vogelsong

JVC Americas Corp. (LVCC, North Hall, Booth #1810) / 11am and 2pm, Wednesday, January 9

A pitcher for the World Series Champion San Francisco Giants. Who let all these athletes in here?!

Brian Singer

Private Event, Parnassus Group / 5:30-7:30pm, Thursday, January 10, Cili's at Bali Hai

Singer directed the first two X-Men movies, which were awesome. But I'm still mad that he bailed on the trilogy to make a Superman movie. If you see him, ask him about that.

Want to track down even more weirdo celebs? Check out the full list.

ReadWrite's Taylor Hatmaker is right about one thing: 2013 should indeed be a unusual year for the Consumer Electronics Show (CES), as the industry struggles to find the next big thing.

(Read CES 2013: 5 Things You Won't See.)

Rattled by declining prices and lingering worries over the "fiscal cliff," gadget makers are likely to be more conservative than ever, focusing on extending tried-and-true trends rather than breaking out brand new ideas.

In fact, it's likely that CES 2013 is going to be, well, boring. As a 20-year veteran of the show, here's what I am expecting to see in Vegas this year:

1. Microsoft

No, I'm not totally disagreeing with Taylor here. As she correctly notes, 2012 was the last year that Microsoft plans to appear at the Consumer Electronics Show, although Consumer Electronics Association chief Gary Shapiro portrayed the company's absence as a "hiatus." Right.

Microsoft may not have bought booth space, but it will be represented by its manufacturing partners, which plan to show off Windows 8 PCs, tablets, all-in-ones and convertibles. The personal computer is simply too big to ignore, but I hear that the number of pitches for Windows 8 PC unveilings at CES is down, and that many companies are focusing on trivial matters, such as new colors. (Colors!?) Even the Surface Pro isn't expected to show up at CES, even though it's due out soon.

2. Tablets - From Off Brands

Yes, Taylor's right that a veritable flood of tablets were launched at the 2012 CES, but history tells us that where the big names tread, the smaller names are sure to follow. Amazon and Google, as well as Apple, have shown that there's a market for smaller, more manageable tablet form factors, and second- and third-tier providers are likely to try and bleed cost further out of the equation. You'll still see a number of Android tablets, mostly from by manufacturers you've never heard of.

Plus, I think we'll see more purpose-built tablets and peripherals. Last year, Razer showed off Project Fiona, a gaming tablet that ended up being vaporware. But I still believe that some manufacturer will throw out a Nexus 7-sized tablet with a Microsoft-style touch keyboard cover attached to it, and see if anyone will bite. Also look for tablet makers to try and shoehorn their products into some sort of software/hardware ecosystem.

By the way, Taylor's right: most major smartphone announcements are being delayed until Barcelona's Mobile World Congress in February.

3. TVs That People Will Actually Buy

People aren't buying 3D televisions. And while manufacturers will likely show off 4K, UltraHD TV technology, Taylor correctly points out that high prices and a lack of content make UltraHD pointless for most people right now. UltraHD doesn't make sense until cameras, cable and TVs all support it. (Still, while I may not buy the mammoth 110-inch UHDTV Westinghouse will show off at CES, that doesn't mean I don't want it.)

What people will buy, however, are connected televisions - and ways to connect their TVs - especially if they're cheap. Westinghouse just announced a television that supports its Streaming Stick, a $100 plastic stick that plugs into compliant televisions. There's still too much confusion here, which is why peripheral manufacturers like Roku and the small Google TV ecosystem just won't go away.

4. Connected Content

This is a catch-all category, encompassing everything from connected cars to second-screen apps that fling content to TVs and other devices, as well as peripherals that stream audio from Pandora and other services. This may sound like old news, but connected services creeping into more and more mundane devices is actually a game changer.

I'm hoping for more on the automotive front, but everything I've heard points to more autonomous automotive safety features, rather than suites of connected services. Blame the carriers' data caps for this: Streaming high-bandwidth media into your car might quickly blow through your data plan. Sending maps and other low-bandwidth data services makes more sense .

5. Digital Health/Fitness

They will never equal the splash of a new big-screen TV or smartphone, but digital fitness products should have an, er, healthy presence at CES. Consumers want things to both track their progress and distract them while exercising, and technology manufacturers are stepping up.

6. Crap

Seriously, I've seen enough smartphone cases to last a lifetime. USB keys, external hard drives, notebook sleeves, USB lights, fans, stickers and the like dominate huge swaths of CES's show floor. Sure there's a market for some of this stuff, but there's a fine line between junk and innovation. 

You know what I'm really hoping to see? Personal drones. Yes, the ones that we'd otherwise use to spy on enemy soldiers. I'd like to see a whole corner of the show floor devoted to those things, as a tool for tracking game, scouting inaccessible locations, and otherwise just having fun.

Would it be controversial? Absolutely. And that's just what CES needs. Otherwise, I'm afraid this year's show may end up being the dullest one in years.

For more, check out CES 2013: 5 Things You Won't See.

Image source: Flickr/PrimeImageMedia.com.