Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35829625)

There will always be newspapers my dear chap because as you might not have realised yet and that is not everybody wants to read their content online plus there are millions who also don't have any access to the online world and never will and thus buy newspapers.

A good example is my Mum as she likes to buy her daily papers everyday even though she knows she can read it all online.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35829615)

Newspapers are not a good example, Chris. The sale of printed newspapers are declining badly and won't be around in years to come. They will be available only on the Internet in time, just as broadcast channels will survive only on the Internet players before long.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35829625)

There will always be newspapers my dear chap because as you might not have realised yet and that is not everybody wants to read their content online plus there are millions who also don't have any access to the online world and never will and thus buy newspapers.

A good example is my Mum as she likes to buy her daily papers everyday even though she knows she can read it all online.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35829455)

The latest views expressed by the CEO of Netflix Reed Hastings, which clarifies some of the budget and advertising questions that have been debated in this thread.

Interesting that he does not want a direct fight with the TV broadcasters but he fails to see that the more viewers turn to streaming services, the less they will be watching traditional channels, leading to a downward spiral in their advertising revenue.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...rst-global-tv/

Over the last year, the company’s international audience has been the biggest driver of user growth – more than 35 pc of subscribers are currently non-US, and the percentage is going up. In 2015, it brought in $6.7bn in revenue, with a slim net profit of $122m – less than half of net profits in 2014.

Netflix’s big bet for the future of internet TV is pure storytelling – in 2016, it will reportedly spend $5bn on content, compared to HBO’s $2bn budget, launching 31 new and returning original series, two dozen original feature films and documentaries, stand-up comedy specials, and 30 kids' series.

(CEO Reed Hastings) seems unperturbed by critics’ concerns about Netflix’s rising costs, responding facetiously: “We have been profitable every quarter for 15 years. So the plan is the same for the last 15 years, grow a little bit every quarter.”

Upon being pressed further, he allows: “You improve the service, it gets more members, a bigger budget and we use that to get more content and do more R&D. That’s the virtuous cycle we have been on for the last 15 years. We are only 75m members still – relative to the global footprint of the internet that is small.”

Meanwhile, it beat its own expectations of international growth, adding 4m new users outside the US. If it can genuinely become the world’s preferred internet TV network, its subscription revenue will eventually subsidise its spending spree.

Hastings insists they will never rely on advertisements as a business model, and have no interest in doing live television like sports or news. So why bother arm-wrestling TV networks?

---------- Post added at 13:07 ---------- Previous post was at 13:06 ----------

I just find the subject so interesting, old chap!

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35829615)

Newspapers are not a good example, Chris. The sale of printed newspapers are declining badly and won't be around in years to come. They will be available only on the Internet in time, just as broadcast channels will survive only on the Internet players before long.

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 35829731)

Is Netflix taking over ? Not according to BARB but what do they know.:D

http://www.barb.co.uk/tv-landscape-r...x-taking-over/

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35829686)

Newspapers are a terrific example OB, because cinema and radio began competing with them a century ago, then TV, and then Internet, and it has only been in the last 5 years that they have come under serious pressure (and the major titles are actually still doing ok).

This does not sit well with your fanciful prediction of Internet delivery of tv content causing the abolition of broadcast delivery in 10 years (or even in 20 years).

Originally Posted by harry_hitch (Post 35829538)

Come, come now OB. No-one else has been trying to convince me, just yoiur goodself. I don't doubt more people are watching more streaming, but as I have said that will be largely down to youngsters probably not having tv's at home anymore. It has also been well documented that linear TV is in very good health at the minute. You are also right, that I don't think linear TV will be dead in 20 years. My posts will never address your "fact" (I thought it was just a premise of yours?) because, again, I don't believe linear will be dead in 20 years. I am not sure why it seems you are so desperate to agree with you?

If you truly believe that increased video streaming is all down to youngsters, you are so truly mistaken. All age groups, to varying degrees, are embracing video streaming. And just to make the point yet again, I have not denied that linear TV is currently in good health, in fact I have pointed this out myself. Remember, we are looking to the future. I have already worked out that you are not going to agree with me, but that doesn't mean to say that I won't correct you when I think you are wrong, or put an alternative view to you where appropriate.

With regards the questions I have asked of you, if you do not know the answers as to how the future will look, why have you been trying to convince me, and others, for such a long time? It seems now you have no more answers to the questions I posed on your theories, you just want to tell me it's impossible to predict how it will all work. I trust this means we won't hear anymore theories from you, and you will just continue to stick to your premise?

You are taking this to extremes, Harry. You can have a view on something without fitting every single piece of the jigsaw into the exact place that it will be in 20 years' time! We can all see that video streaming is becoming more popular, and we should look to the US to see how things will be here in a few years. My only premise is this. Commercial TV will not survive once a given number of viewers cease to watch by that method. I really don't have to give chapter and verse, it should be obvious. The only way I can see that you will be proved right in your view is if this increase in video streaming slows and ultimately finds its own level. I don't think that will happen because people will get so used to using streaming that they will see normal linear broadcast TV as very antiquated, frustrating and time consuming.

I have never refused to believe that companies will not let people flit in and out of the streaming services, I just don't think it will be a viable way to fund a TV channel without ad's. Every company needs guaranteed money, and if it does not come from ad's or guaranteed monthly income, where will it come from? Yes, Now TV let's people do this, but they have a substantial big brother to support them. Their big brother ties people into annual contracts and fights tooth and nail to keep customers by offering deals when out of contratc, thus contracting people again and keeping the income flooding in.

And yet you ignore the fact that Netflix also operates on this basis. You are not adding any evidence to support your views either, Harry!

With regards netflix, I don't think Netflix will still be available at an acsessable and affordable price in 20 years, without ads. I know CEO says they won't take ad's, but I just don't see it. They too, allow people to drop out at any time, because they are still growing and can afford too. In 20 years time I have now doubt they will be nearing saturation point in terms of subscribers. When this happens, they will need to ensure they keep this income to continue to keep the service at the level it will be operating at by then. I don't now how that will happen without contracts.

So they can afford to let people drop in and out now, but won't be able to do so in the future :confused::confused: I think you underestimate the amount of revenue that will be coming in when Netflix reaches a truly worldwide audience, and people in other countries become wealthier and able to afford such services. Netflix may decide to have annual contracts as Amazon Prime do, but this will simply be to lock people in and make even more money. However, I don't think they will see this as unavoidable - it will be their choice.

Equally, you are right, you never know who might come out in the future and bring game changing ideas, perhaps, just perhaps that will work for linear TV (not that it will be needed.)

Yes it might, and I have never denied that. What I am saying is that I cannot think what it would be that would save broadcast TV and make it commercially viable when the maths no longer adds up with a declining audience.

I have never denied streaming won't be popular, it is a great addition to pay TV currently, but it won't kill off linear TV in 20 years time. Too many streaming service will simply become too expensive and if that happens, people will just go back to Sky or VM. Also, Sky will do their utmost to stop the streaming services launching, like they have done with showtime. As you said previously, wholesale deals are great for everyone, so if Sky keep paying HBO a wholesale fee which is more than HBO could get from launching HBO GO, why would HBO change it? Also as it stands over here currently, they get money from Sky, plus money from sales on Amazon and dvds. I think they would lose income if they launched HBO GO here.

I note your view, but disagree with it, I'm afraid. You say streaming services will become to expensive, but I think it will be cheaper than having bundles of unwanted channels as we have now. If the TV licence is abolished in favour of subscriptions, this will only encourage people to shop around for what suits them.

Sky originally showed a reluctance to get involved with On Demand and streaming but now seems to have embraced the idea. Now TV and Sky Q provide evidence of this.

As for HBO, I think you will find that if they keep the Sky exclusivity going after 2020, they will specify that it is only the first run shows that will be exclusive. I think they are likely to launch their own site in the UK within the next few years.

Also, you fail to realize a number of people can not afford any pay TV and more simply don't care for pay tv and are happy with freeview. I have asked before why these people should be denied a basic TV right, but again, you had no substantial answer for me.

You are certainly correct to say that there is a proportion of the population that cannot afford streaming TV services. However, they will have a choice when the TV licence becomes a subscription, which it will eventually in my view. I do have answers for you, Harry, you just don't like them.

Lol, you are changing the use of this thread again. Last post you wanted to use this to discuss how linear TV will survive with less viewership, now you want to use it to post links and info on how the way we watch tv in future may or may not change. What exactly do you want to talk about? Your original premise, or either of your two new thoughts?

Harry, I am very happy to discuss these issues on this thread, but I am conscious firstly that you have been teetering on the brink of not participating and also I don't want everyone else to be bored! These posts get longer and longer. However, given those, including yourself, who seem to want proof of everything and won't entertain opinions, I have suggested that we could introduce some variety into this thread to keep everyone's interest and to keep people informed. I think if you go back to the first post of this thread, you will find that what I am suggesting is completely in keeping with my original intention.

Originally Posted by harry_hitch (Post 35829660)

BIB, clearly he does see the same future you do, and he owns the blooming company. How much more indication do you need that your premise is unlikely to come true?

Originally Posted by telegramsam (Post 35830213)

I can`t rely on on demand from virgin as they are often very slow to add recent content to their choice. This morning i looked and the following latest episodes still hadn`t been added to the list Grimm,Arrow,Sleepy Hollow and Granchester. i think someone at virgin must of fallen asleep or something!

Originally Posted by RobboEdin (Post 35830216)

I have the answer to that issue.

Use your TiVo as it was designed to be used - record those programs.

I have all of those programs, and more, because I recorded them.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35829753)

Clearly, newspapers still exist in printed form, but they are under increasing pressure.

Things are more precarious for broadcast TV due to the economics of running commercial TV channels. They can only survive if they can attract sufficient viewers, so everything is down to viewer behaviour.

Originally Posted by toady (Post 35830223)

Revenue from printed Newspapers still exceeds the revenue from the online versions by a massive amount with no signs of it changing, I expect the same is for linear TV compared to Streaming. Linear TV isn't going to be replaced in our lifetime