The future of television

[jfman]

I’m not sure why it requires Government instruction the clue is in the name. Ad supported.

I’m yet to see a credible explanation why large, established television companies with back catalogues would be incapable of this yet “Pluto” can do it.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

I’m not sure why it requires Government instruction the clue is in the name. Ad supported.

I’m yet to see a credible explanation why large, established television companies with back catalogues would be incapable of this yet “Pluto” can do it.

My suggestion is that the big broadcasters will move to on demand and will only continue to run their TV channels if the government or regulator tell them they have to.

Obviously, the bigger broadcasters have a considerable amount of expenditure which the FAST channels don’t have to bear. Why would they spend extra money on channels, with all the associated expenditure when they could simply put all their programmes on a streamer?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

My suggestion is that the big broadcasters will move to on demand and will only continue to run their TV channels if the government or regulator tell them they have to.

Obviously, the bigger broadcasters have a considerable amount of expenditure which the FAST channels don’t have to bear. Why would they spend extra money on channels, with all the associated expenditure when they could simply put all their programmes on a streamer?

What additional expenditure?

The why is because people watch, and enough people to support the minimal additional expenditure involved. Why would “ad supported” work for some fledgeling operation and not the most successful free to air channels in the UK?

I can’t think of any rational capitalist enterprise that would cannibalise a revenue stream for such frivolous reasons and those you put forward. The idea that they would only do so under the threat of Government regulation and not their own profit seeking motive is flawed.

[OLD BOY]

This article presumes that the FAST channels will really catch on. It’ll be interesting to see. It is not difficult to envisage poorer households without the money to fork out for the streamers latching on to this, and if that is the case, perhaps the quality of the output will improve.

Interesting times.

https://www.theverge.com/2023/4/29/2...ubi-pluto-roku

[EXTRACT]

Free ad-supported platforms are the fastest-growing part of the streaming business right now, and services like Tubi, Pluto, and The Roku Channel are starting to assert themselves as power players in their own right. Many of these platforms have been around for years, quietly amassing big content libraries and millions of users. And now, as users look for cheaper ways to get their entertainment and studios look for better ways to monetize, they’re starting to make more noise.

The future of TV is free, it has ads, and it involves a lot of channel surfing. It’s a lot like the TV business of old, really. That’s actually kind of the point.

[jfman]

Once again you’re fundamentally misunderstanding that the pay-tv market is well developed, as is the free to air market. Television isn’t new. Delivering it over IP - if we actually get there - changes very little.

I’m not sure “poorer households” is anything other than a deliberate slur against people who consider the multitude of streaming services a large waste of money, just as around half of households in the UK didn’t have Sky or cable services when those peaked.

Streaming services don’t have an automatic right to the hard earned cash that makes up household disposable income. As they get increasingly more expensive as quality content gets ever more fragmented the bubble will burst for many.


---------- Post added at 18:33 ---------- Previous post was at 18:32 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The future of TV is free, it has ads, and it involves a lot of channel surfing. It’s a lot like the TV business of old, really. That’s actually kind of the point.[/I]

Long live linear television.

[Dude111]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Chris, you are just being deliberately argumentative. I am disappointed with you, really I am.

I think he meant well.... People always make stupid/un-needed changes and stuff ends up worse.....

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

Once again you’re fundamentally misunderstanding that the pay-tv market is well developed, as is the free to air market. Television isn’t new. Delivering it over IP - if we actually get there - changes very little.

I’m not sure “poorer households” is anything other than a deliberate slur against people who consider the multitude of streaming services a large waste of money, just as around half of households in the UK didn’t have Sky or cable services when those peaked.

Streaming services don’t have an automatic right to the hard earned cash that makes up household disposable income. As they get increasingly more expensive as quality content gets ever more fragmented the bubble will burst for many.


---------- Post added at 18:33 ---------- Previous post was at 18:32 ----------



Long live linear television.

I’m misunderstanding nothing, we just have different views.

My reference to poorer households was not a slur at all, just a recognition that such households won’t be forking out for streamers.

I recognise also that there is a sizeable contingent of the population that steadfastly refuse to pay any more than the licence fee to watch TV.

With regard to your last paragraph, I’ve always believed that the streaming option will become less expensive with more choice over time. You can be reassured that the streamers are now considering the bundling of content with rival streamers. That should make streamers more accessible and bring us lower prices than paying for each streamer separately.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I’m misunderstanding nothing, we just have different views.

Whether you recognise your own misunderstand or not is irrelevant to whether you are or not.

My reference to poorer households was not a slur at all, just a recognition that such households won’t be forking out for streamers.

I guess I should at least accept your recognition of the low cost streaming future being a myth as progress.

I recognise also that there is a sizeable contingent of the population that steadfastly refuse to pay any more than the licence fee to watch TV.

And quite right too if they feel that the ever increasing number of products in the marketplace offer poor value relative to other forms of entertainment.

With regard to your last paragraph, I’ve always believed that the streaming option will become less expensive with more choice over time. You can be reassured that the streamers are now considering the bundling of content with rival streamers. That should make streamers more accessible and bring us lower prices than paying for each streamer separately.

There’s no basis for this prophecy any more than your 2035 one so forgive me for scoffing at your so-called “reassurance”.

Bundling of content - another benefit of “streamers” bites the dust as you need to buy content that you don’t want in order to get the content you do. Linear channels and bundles of content. Where have I seen that before.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by jfman

Once again you’re fundamentally misunderstanding that the pay-tv market is well developed, as is the free to air market. Television isn’t new. Delivering it over IP - if we actually get there - changes very little.

I’m not sure “poorer households” is anything other than a deliberate slur against people who consider the multitude of streaming services a large waste of money, just as around half of households in the UK didn’t have Sky or cable services when those peaked.

Streaming services don’t have an automatic right to the hard earned cash that makes up household disposable income. As they get increasingly more expensive as quality content gets ever more fragmented the bubble will burst for many.


---------- Post added at 18:33 ---------- Previous post was at 18:32 ----------



Long live linear television.

The golden age of streaming was when a Netflix & Amazon sub
combination was pretty much an all you can eat streaming buffet. Sadly, as with so many disruptive technologies, they start off as as something cheaper or better than the competition but then capitalism has its way and years later we're left with worse service or pricing than before it started.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

The golden age of streaming was when a Netflix & Amazon sub
combination was pretty much an all you can eat streaming buffet. Sadly, as with so many disruptive technologies, they start off as as something cheaper or better than the competition but then capitalism has its way and years later we're left with worse service or pricing than before it started.

The process is known as enshitification, and it occurs when the product designers who invented the thing, and formed the company to sell the thing, are replaced in the boardroom by your standard CEO with one eye on his bonus and the corporate accountant sitting on his shoulder.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

The golden age of streaming was when a Netflix & Amazon sub
combination was pretty much an all you can eat streaming buffet. Sadly, as with so many disruptive technologies, they start off as as something cheaper or better than the competition but then capitalism has its way and years later we're left with worse service or pricing than before it started.

That's pretty much how Sky Sports and BT Sport started off. Charge a modest fee at first to get lots of people on board. Then keep on hiking the price until you reach the sweet spot of subscriber numbers x subscription price giving you the maximum income.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

That's pretty much how Sky Sports and BT Sport started off. Charge a modest fee at first to get lots of people on board. Then keep on hiking the price until you reach the sweet spot of subscriber numbers x subscription price giving you the maximum income.

At first Sky Sports was free, then became £5.99 with a half price offer for 3 months.

Adjusted for inflation Sky Sports would now be £12.75!