Re: The future for linear TV channels
Quote:
I have not 'changed my mind frequently' Harry. I have merely answered the 'what if' questions you have been posting. My central premise (again) is that as viewing habits change over the next couple of decades, more people will be streaming rather than watching scheduled TV and it will ultimately become uneconomic to continue to run conventional commercial channels. That is all I am saying, and I don't need to be able to answer all questions posted on here with chapter and verse. However, I think that most of them I have answered (although it is difficult to break down Chris's arguments that the problems he has identified will never be solved!). Why do you expect me to persuade you as to how streaming services are to work? I cannot predict accurately market developments over that time! However, what is happening in the US is one indicator of how things are starting to move. This link might be of interest to you. http://www.slate.com/articles/busine...alculator.html I think you misunderstand my views on this, as you have referred to 'cord cutting'. I think it is perfectly possible that Sky, Virgin Media, BT and other providers will offer packages of streaming services. I don't think I have ever mentioned cord cutting. I have no idea what the 'worldwide costs' would be Harry. In any case this is irrelevant. The point I was making is that it costs less per customer to buy the rights if you control a bigger network than that of a smaller network. So it stands to reason that the price per customer for a national operation will be much more than for a worldwide operation. So a worldwide company will be in a better position to pay out for rights to shows, games, etc than the likes of Sky (unless they expanded in the same way). I don't understand your train of thought on Netflix and others having cheaper packages. The way I see it, if we stick with Netflix as an example, the existing package with original material could be on offer as the cheaper option (the price will probably have to be about £11 per month to be viable), but there would be a more expensive option that would include a lot more premium material. I respect your view that linear TV services will still be running in 20 years. Maybe they will, but I don't know how they will be able to run their channels at a loss and I cannot think how they can come up with anything to draw people away from the freedom they gain through subscribing to streaming services. Only if those streaming services flood their programmes with commercials will there be less incentive to use them, but even then, you can watch the programmes you want to see at your convenience. I remain of the view that a decent selection of subscribed streaming services will be available in the years to come, as well as PPV and 'free unskippable ads' services. In short, there will be something for everybody. ---------- Post added at 12:03 ---------- Previous post was at 11:55 ---------- Quote:
In my view, there is no comparison to Netflix. |
Re: The future for linear TV channels
And yet you still have a traditional pay package.
Please enlighten us , give us a comprehensive list of the quality shows on Netflix. |
Re: The future for linear TV channels
Quote:
That's part of the offer available now, and I want to have access to as much as I can get. However, I would be wrong not to confess that I have been considering my options as the number of watchable shows on the non premier Sky TV channels has declined in recent times. If you want to view Netflix content, you will find it on their web site. |
Re: The future for linear TV channels
Quote:
|
Re: The future for linear TV channels
Quote:
My wishlist includes Better Call Saul, Narco, Sense 8, Marco Polo, The Bridge, The 4400, Continuum, Jessica Jones and House, to name but a few. But they keep adding stuff and I can't keep up with it all! |
Re: The future for linear TV channels
Quote:
You have changed your mind. You have been challenged since since you stated your first premise (which included all shows being on demand for people to watch at anytime they want) and how your thoughts will become reality. You have been unable to answer sensible questions and points by sticking to your original points. The only you answers you have been able to answer sensible questions with, is to change your thoughts. When you are then challenged, your thoughts then change. You also said there will be no adverts and have now changed your mind and acknowledge ad's will have to be used (albeit as a tiered level of payments.) I still disagree and think ad's will have to come to streaming services, at any price point. What has been the point of this thread if you have not been trying to persuade people how your thoughts will become reality? And how is thread not about cord cutting? It was only last week you mentioned about packaged deals. The link you have posted is about cord cutting.:confused: If you don't want to do the maths, then that's a shame. Just some basic figures will do I now see your point on Netflix, and do you seriously think people will be happy pay £11 (how do you get to that figure?) just for the non-premium original series? Where is the value in that? How are they going to market that?!? "Can't afford the good stuff? Well here is a load of average junk for £11 a month" Okay, I ask again what freedom will people get from streaming? Do you think companies will let people just drift in and out as they wish? Please answer again, as we have been here before. I agree there will be a selection of streaming services available in the future, it will just be alongside linear TV. |
Re: The future for linear TV channels
Quote:
My reasoning? Simple. There are large sections of the population all over the world that do not have good enough internet access for streaming to be a realistic proportion and without massive investment in infrastructure (which will take years, if it happens), they will not have adequate internet access for a long time. Even with adequate investment, it's going to take a long time. In the meantime, these people mostly have access to broadcast linear TV, so will be a potentially huge market for advertisers. |
Re: The future for linear TV channels
Quote:
You are taking what I have said in this thread out of context on many occasions. This time, you are saying that I have changed my mind about advertisements on streaming services - no I haven't! I said from the start that Netflix have confirmed that they will not take advertising on their service. You said they would have no choice, but this is ridiculous! The whole point of streaming services is that they provide a way of watching what you want, when you want, free of advertisements. My 'conceding' that adverts might appear on Netflix in the future was simply in answer to your persistent view that ads would indeed appear on Netflix. My view is this will only happen if they decided to attract an even bigger audience via a completely different option that included ads, such as happens on the ITV Hub, All4, etc. That doesn't mean I agree that ads will appear on Netflix. I simply suggest that this might be a way of getting even more money for the company, but you need to understand that this does not form part of their business plan. You say I keep changing my mind, but you are wrong. Sometimes someone may come up with an argument which deserves taking seriously and I don't discount those arguments, but my view of things remains the same. You may have forgotten that in my post 29 in January 2015, I clearly stated: 'Linear TV may survive, I agree, but I think new ways of watching TV will become prevalent over time and the way we view now will seem pretty primitive. The main issue will be how these programmes are funded in the future. To be clear, the discussion I am inviting is how the funding issue is going to work on the commercial broadcast channels when they face increasing competition from streaming services. That is the issue, but you have studiously avoided confronting this problem. Maybe there is an answer, but if so I don't know what it is. Only the BBC would not have that particular problem, but ultimately with more people watching their programmes via alternative means, they will be faced with a decision about whether they can justify the higher costs of broadcasting in this way. Picking up on various points you have made this time around, I have not mentioned Netflix being a 'best option'. I am merely saying that they have many programmes on there that appeal to me and it will take me an age to get through them, while additional original series keep being added. I accept that maybe Netflix is not your cup of tea, but there will be other streaming services popping up that may appeal more to you over time. This thread is not about cord cutting, but that is not to say that cord cutting may not result. I have said before that if Virgin Media and Sky embrace the change that is coming, they could offer bundles of streaming services in the same way as they currently offer bundles of channels. So that isn't cord cutting, is it? The link I gave you contained a list of steaming services available in the US that I thought would be useful in helping you to understand how streaming services would start to develop in earnest over here. You did ask, after all! ;) I have explained why your issue about 'the maths' is irrelevant. Everyone knows that when you purchase in bulk, you get it cheaper. I'm not going to compile a spreadsheet for you to prove this, Harry, I'm sorry, I have a life! My figure of £11 for Netflix I think is pretty accurate and it is based on what I think the existing choices on Netflix will cost us in a few short years. The price has already increased to £8.99 for new subscribers, so we are already half way there. The more basic package I was talking about would be cheaper than this (or as you seem to think, even free with ads, although I stress this is not what I think will happen). As for people drifting in and out of streaming services as they wish, yes, I think most of the streaming providers will allow this. Now TV does it now; in fact your subscription isn't even renewed at the end of the period unless you actively renew it. Only Amazon has so far insisted on annual subscriptions and I see no moves anywhere to follow their example. I hope this answers your questions, Harry, but please - I am not changing my mind at all! I could just sit here and say that all your assumptions are wrong, but I try and engage in a sensible debate. This thread is all about what might happen when broadcast TV audiences decline. I'm not trying to brainwash you at all. I am more interested in how the broadcasters will deal with it. There have been remarkably few responses to that central question. |
Re: The future for linear TV channels
Quote:
I am happy to just create my own viewing lists on the various streaming services and then let the various providers keep track of where I am in the series (at what point in the series I left off). Then I watch my chosen viewing whenever I want. No keeping track of episodes, no full hard drives, no missed programmes. Far easier and much less frustrating. Why the resistance? |
Re: The future for linear TV channels
My problems in our household is sometimes there are 4 or 5 things all on at the same time and thus we have to juggle it all around and that's why it would be nice to have more then 3 tuners and hopefully that will be rectified later this year.
|
Re: The future for linear TV channels
|
Re: The future for linear TV channels
Quote:
|
Re: The future for linear TV channels
Quote:
|
Re: The future for linear TV channels
Quote:
|
Re: The future for linear TV channels
Quote:
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:12. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.