It's a good, well-written article like most of WIRED's stuff. I'm not sure of its premise though... I don't think that a TV show distributed via the web, or delivered to mobile phones, is still really a TV show in the sense that it provides the same experience that television usually does. Can all audiovisual art be considered TV? Of course not.
Important aspects of TV that are not replicated on, for example, YouTube or iTunes:
- Inability to search for desired input (in a faster-than-linear fashion, that is... click click click click...)
- Inability to interact by leaving comments
- Unavoidable breaks for advertisements (that's right, I'm not sure a TiVo'ed show is TV anymore either; it's more like a short film IMO)
- Constant advertisement for whatever's on NEXT, trying to hold the viewer for longer than the length of the current offering
- The fact that on TV, money is made on advertising, not on the show content itself; when people download from iTunes they pay for the show.
That last one is a huge, changes-everything type shift! One that I applaud, as it happens, but definitely one that matters. It's weird that WIRED doesn't talk about it.