Quote:
Originally Posted by harry_hitch
lol, yes thanks.
---------- Post added 22-05-2016 at 00:33 ---------- Previous post was 21-05-2016 at 23:58 ----------
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.)
|
This is exactly why I proposed that we use this thread to post how things are actually moving in relation to on demand/streaming tv. There are to sides to the argument about whether or not our conventional broadcast channels will eventually disappear and after all this time there is no sign of an agreement on this. However, this thread has (at the time of writing) enjoyed over 65,000 hits, and it continues to rise, so there is not an inconsiderable amount of interest in this subject.
As you say, I think we do all agree that linear TV will continue, because without it, we couldn't watch live events. However, and as you well know, my proposition is that linear TV will eventually come into our living rooms via streaming rather than broadcast on channels such as ITV.
The article was not 'deeply flawed'. Yes, it was based on forced choices, but the article was very clear about that. It was intended to draw out the way people thought about how they would prefer to watch TV. If you want actual viewing figures, and how they are split between broadcast channels and on demand/ streaming, there are plenty of articles on that.
As for my statement 'not making sense in relation to the article', I will leave others to judge. If you read my statement and then read the article as intended, it makes perfect sense.
As for this obsession with definitions, I have already pointed out that in common parlence, on demand and streaming tend to be regarded as one and the same, and linear TV is taken to mean conventional broadcast channels. Technically, there are differences, of course, but the way I have been referring to methods of viewing is no different from the very many articles that have been written about it or the way the average man in the street sees it.
You reckon the survey is 'deeply flawed' but you are not really in a position to say that at all. To the best of my knowledge, you have not actually seen this survey or read the definitions attached to it, you have just read the article which summarises this work. And you accuse me of jumping to conclusions, Harry!
Pots and kettles come to mind....!
