[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by harry_hitch

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 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.

I thought it better to answer your post paragraph by paragraph, Harry, it saves flitting backwards and forwards with these very long posts.

---------- Post added at 12:20 ---------- Previous post was at 12:18 ----------

Originally Posted by harry_hitch

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?

So that makes his view less valid than yours? I don't think so.