[harry_hitch]

Originally Posted by Mad Max

and i would suggest you took your head out of the sand! It's pretty easy to understand Harry, these young ppl, 18-34 year olds, of today, will carry on what they do now in 20 years time, so linear TV will defo still exist, but not as much as it does now.

Firstly, kudos for the first sentence, it made me chuckle.. At no stage have I denied things will change. I fail to see why my head is in the sand, if you actually bothered to read anything properly on this thread, you would see no-one has their head in the sand.

If you actually read, and digested, the link he posted, you will see it had no bearing to the statement he attached to it.
---------- Post added at 00:35 ---------- Previous post was at 00:34 ----------




Did you read that Harry?

lol, yes thanks.

---------- Post added 22-05-2016 at 00:33 ---------- Previous post was 21-05-2016 at 23:58 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Your point being...?

Yes, I did notice that the older generation was currently choosing to relate more to conventional TV. You are failing to grasp the point that, as the younger generation comes through into older age, they will be used to relating to the TV in a different way.

---------- Post added at 10:11 ---------- Previous post was at 10:03 ----------


To the older generation, all this is new and many either find it more difficult to understand or don't really know where to start. However, it will be familiar and much more straight forward to our younger generation as they move into more advanced years.

Perhaps you can tell me why you think that the younger generation, as they get older, would want to substitute their world of on demand without ads for the more conventional model of scheduled TV full of irritating commercial breaks in their busy lives? True, some will do this, but I am certain that the majority will not. This is certainly being borne out in my experience, seeing how my daughters' friends watch TV in an entirely different way to your way, Chris.

Why are you still continuing with this thread? I think we (now) all broadly agree that linear TV will continue for a long time, and no one denies linear TV will be streamed over the internet by more and more people in the future.

My point being, your statement, unsurprisingly, made no sense in relation to the article. The survey is deeply, deeply flawed. It forced a limited scenario on people and made them choose. What was the definition of a streaming service? Is Now TV a streaming service in this survey? If so, surely it can be classed as pay TV too? Where was the option for people to choose neither and stick with freeview? What were the price points of streaming services compared to pay tv? What happens if people can't afford either? (I know you won't be able to answer these, I am just highlighting how stupid the survey is.)