VOD : The future for linear TV channels

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by harry_hitch

I find enough stuff to watch on Netflix OB, as I have stated many times before. Amazon just does not appeal to me. They do have some stuff I would watch, but I will pay them per episode for something I would not fully own, I would rather buy the bluray. The trouble I have is, like many linear tv channels, they are also choc full of old shows. As I have also stated before, I don't care how many shows Netflix are releasing, it is the quality of them that matters. I have this about the quality of shows on SA before too. Let's not quibble about this though, again it is personal preference.

You have changed your mind frequently though. If you are not sure what will happen, we can stop our discussion on this and leave that you think linear TV will be dead in 20 years, and I don't. Equally, if you speculate what you think will happen, anyone has the right to challenge your thought process. It is for you to convince me how streaming services will work, and how it will work as well as it does for everyone now.

Surely, if Sky offer bundles, people are not cutting the cord. People will still be paying high monthly subscriptions to a company. Lets say there are 10 streaming services on Sky (is that a fair number) all in full HD/4k at the low, low price of £2.99 per service, that is still £29.90 a month. Pretty much what people pay now, so how will that work for cord cutting?

Again, how will HBO make more money, and why will they change their business model? Their content is already available PPV, the day after the seasons end on Sky. I believe they have already stated they make more money from Sky than they could through a streaming service.

I am no maths expert, but I still figured out some figures ad hoc as I wrote, and they were expensive costs. Please take the time to figure out the costs for worldwide exclusive rights for the number of films and tv shows, from all the different movie studios and content providers. I am genuinely interested to see how much you think this will cost.

You missed my point on the ripping off. The price VM etc charge their customers for the lower package, covers the cost for that package alone. M customers, do not pay for Fox etc, so there is no profit for VM from Fox etc for those customers on M package. You said Netflix will gain more profit to pay for more content by getting customers to take out lower packages. The customers on lower packages will not contribute to the cost of new content, because they are not paying to watch that content. The only way Netflix will make money for the new content off of the lower price tier, is to put the prices up with out those customers getting any extra content. Much like VM have done recently, and look at the comments about it on here.

No-one, myself included, have denied changes will happen. I simply don't think linear TV will be dead in 20 years.

---------- Post added at 15:37 ---------- Previous post was at 15:36 ----------



Indeed that is the case den, I await the next step of attempted brainwashing.

I agree that there is a certain amount of 'repeated' material on Netflix (the same as you get on broadcast channels really) but I can only say that there is so much on there that I have not yet seen, it is like a treasure trove for me. The shows I have picked out I am slowly plodding through, but there is so much yet to see, and so much being added, I will never be able to get through it, particularly with the shows I've recorded and those I can watch via Amazon and Now TV as well. I can assure you I'm watching only pretty good quality stuff, I cannot abide some of those tame run of the mill American dramas that fail to tax the grey matter.

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 ----------

Originally Posted by muppetman11

Why do you keep banging on to Harry about Sky's non premium channels.

Harry's Sky subscription offers him far more than just those channels for instance National Geographic , Discovery , History , W , Alibi , Gold , Fox , Comedy Central , SyFy , Universal , Eden and that's just the tip of the iceberg.

All the broadcasters available on pay tv combined put far more new content out than the streaming services you list.

A lot of the material is low grade, repeated stuff. Some of it is good, I don't deny that, but once you discount the amount of rubbish on these channels, this is not good value at all.

In my view, there is no comparison to Netflix.

[muppetman11]

And yet you still have a traditional pay package.

Please enlighten us , give us a comprehensive list of the quality shows on Netflix.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

And yet you still have a traditional pay package.

Please enlighten us , give us a comprehensive list of the quality shows on Netflix.

Why should I not have a traditional pay package?

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.

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Why should I not have a traditional pay package?

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.

So you can't tell me the high quality shows you've really enjoyed ? I'm not being critical of Netflix as you know I subscribe I'm just interested to understand what you consider high grade.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

So you can't tell me the high quality shows you've really enjoyed ? I'm not being critical of Netflix as you know I subscribe I'm just interested to understand what you consider high grade.

Oh, I see what you mean. Well, I've got a lot more lined up in my watch list than I'll ever watch, but the ones I have watched so far include House of Cards (US version with Kevin Spacey), Breaking Bad, Bloodline, Orange is the New Black (my wife enjoys that more than I do), Damages and Lily hammer.

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!

[harry_hitch]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I agree that there is a certain amount of 'repeated' material on Netflix (the same as you get on broadcast channels really) but I can only say that there is so much on there that I have not yet seen, it is like a treasure trove for me. The shows I have picked out I am slowly plodding through, but there is so much yet to see, and so much being added, I will never be able to get through it, particularly with the shows I've recorded and those I can watch via Amazon and Now TV as well. I can assure you I'm watching only pretty good quality stuff, I cannot abide some of those tame run of the mill American dramas that fail to tax the grey matter.

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 ----------

A lot of the material is low grade, repeated stuff. Some of it is good, I don't deny that, but once you discount the amount of rubbish on these channels, this is not good value at all.

In my view, there is no comparison to Netflix.

1st paragraph. So you because you missed the first run of shows, that makes Netflix the best option?!?. I have seen plenty of the shows they have on there (and Amazon too) so whilst it is still good value, it does not have appeal to me as it does to you. You seem to be unable to grasp this. Define "good quality stuff" though, I think GOT is utter tripe and the 1st series of True Detective is one of the best shows ever made, people at work think True Detective was rubbish but love GOT.

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.

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.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by harry_hitch

I agree there will be a selection of streaming services available in the future, it will just be alongside linear TV.

That's actually the same view I have.. I think the Linear channels are going to be around for at least a few more decades.

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.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by harry_hitch

1st paragraph. So you because you missed the first run of shows, that makes Netflix the best option?!?. I have seen plenty of the shows they have on there (and Amazon too) so whilst it is still good value, it does not have appeal to me as it does to you. You seem to be unable to grasp this. Define "good quality stuff" though, I think GOT is utter tripe and the 1st series of True Detective is one of the best shows ever made, people at work think True Detective was rubbish but love GOT.

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.

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.

My argument is based on the simple premise of a shift of linear TV viewers to a streaming preference and the impact of this on the broadcast TV channels. Why is this so difficult to understand, when ITV came so close to collapse when advertising started to decline a few years ago?

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.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by denphone

If people look a bit more there are far more drama series on then one imagines.

I agree, Den, but you have to scour the TV schedules over many different channels to find them. Then when you do find them, you find that they clash with the other dramas you have picked out so you end up having to record them.

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?

[denphone]

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.

[RobboEdin]

...or wouldn't it be good if Virgin Media's TiVo had these functions?

https://www.tivo.com/onepass

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by RobboEdin

...or wouldn't it be good if Virgin Media's TiVo had these functions?

https://www.tivo.com/onepass

Yes, that's the way to go with the current state of the art. It will be interesting to see how advanced the new Tivos from Virgin will be when they are launched later this year.

[RobboEdin]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Yes, that's the way to go with the current state of the art. It will be interesting to see how advanced the new Tivos from Virgin will be when they are launched later this year.

I was more thinking of those functions on the existing hardware.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by RobboEdin

I was more thinking of those functions on the existing hardware.

The link you posted was all about the 'One Pass', which is what I was referring to.

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The link you posted was all about the 'One Pass', which is what I was referring to.

One Pass could technically be added to the current Tivo, as it was added to the US Tivo Premier