VOD : Netflix/Streaming Services

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by denphone

l think you know what l mean Old Boy.

[Horizon]

Originally Posted by Chad

Finally a box that supports Netflix, Now TV and Amazon not to mention catch up TV for the main terrestrial channels. Let the cord cutting commence

But I think "cord cutting" is a misnomer. You still need a "cord", aka broadband to get streaming services.

If anything will be "cut" in the future, it will be the likes of Netflix, Amazon et all...

The last time I checked Netflix/Amazon etc don't own any cablecos, satellite tv cos, broadband ISPs. I don't think their position is as strong as everyone hypes them up to be.

[RichardCoulter]

http://m.groupon.co.uk/deals/bt-sport

Half price BT Sport in HD & no activation fee.

[toady]

Originally Posted by Horizon

But I think "cord cutting" is a misnomer. You still need a "cord", aka broadband to get streaming services.

What about a 4G dongle?

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I'm sure they've done the math,

I think the maths went something like no Amazon Prime on Roku=no sales via Amazon.

[Chad]

Originally Posted by Horizon

But I think "cord cutting" is a misnomer. You still need a "cord", aka broadband to get streaming services.

If anything will be "cut" in the future, it will be the likes of Netflix, Amazon et all...

The last time I checked Netflix/Amazon etc don't own any cablecos, satellite tv cos, broadband ISPs. I don't think their position is as strong as everyone hypes them up to be.

Of course your right, for the vast majority there will still be a cord of sorts involved to deliver their broadband to allow them to stream video. I think most people use the term "cord cutting" to describe the act of moving away from cable and satellite TV. It's one of these hip urban dictionary type terms used by teens and adults in their late 20's. I'm 36 and should be ashamed of myself using such terminology

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by Chad

It's one of these hip urban dictionary type terms used by teens and adults in their late 20's. I'm 36 and should be ashamed of myself using such terminology

I think it originated in the US and I suspect was coined by an older age group than you suggest.

Given that it actually does refer to cutting the cord from traditional yearly pay TV subscriptions, proportionately few in their teens and even late twenties will have had those subscriptions.

Therefore no need to feel ashamed

[Horizon]

Originally Posted by toady

What about a 4G dongle?

There still needs to be a network for any wireless device to connect to. So, although no "cord", it ain't cord-less either. (excuse the pun)

---------- Post added at 17:03 ---------- Previous post was at 16:52 ----------

Originally Posted by Chad

Of course your right, for the vast majority there will still be a cord of sorts involved to deliver their broadband to allow them to stream video. I think most people use the term "cord cutting" to describe the act of moving away from cable and satellite TV. It's one of these hip urban dictionary type terms used by teens and adults in their late 20's. I'm 36 and should be ashamed of myself using such terminology

With the imminent price rises, I'm thinking of cord cutting too, so I have no problem with the term and I'm older than you.

But, clearly there is a technological change underway. TV was delivered one way for generations (over the air using tv aerials), then Murdoch came along and changed that and with the advent of fast internet, it's changing again. But, I do not think traditional tv will die and even if it does, there still needs to be a company that provides internet access which Netflix, Amazon do not.

I just think we're hearing a lot about Netflix/Amazon/Hulu etc now, but I question whether they will still be around in ten years especially if the likes of Time Warner, Disney, Fox, AT&T, Comcast etc all launch their own versions of Netflix to prevent cord cutting from their own channels/networks.

Time Warner is already making grumbling noises about providing content to Netflix which is in direct competition to its own HBO channel. Others will start grumbling too soon...

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by Horizon

There still needs to be a network for any wireless device to connect to. So, although no "cord", it ain't cord-less either. (excuse the pun)

---------- Post added at 17:03 ---------- Previous post was at 16:52 ----------

With the imminent price rises, I'm thinking of cord cutting too, so I have no problem with the term and I'm older than you.

But, clearly there is a technological change underway. TV was delivered one way for generations (over the air using tv aerials), then Murdoch came along and changed that and with the advent of fast internet, it's changing again. But, I do not think traditional tv will die and even if it does, there still needs to be a company that provides internet access which Netflix, Amazon do not.

I just think we're hearing a lot about Netflix/Amazon/Hulu etc now, but I question whether they will still be around in ten years especially if the likes of Time Warner, Disney, Fox, AT&T, Comcast etc all launch their own versions of Netflix to prevent cord cutting from their own channels/networks.

Time Warner is already making grumbling noises about providing content to Netflix which is in direct competition to its own HBO channel. Others will start grumbling too soon...

Personal opinion of course but I wouldn't at all be surprised to see Netflix get snapped up in the future , Apple have long mooted a video streaming service , in Netflix they already have a service with a huge footprint and probably the best streaming experience in the market.

[zantarous]

I just think we're hearing a lot about Netflix/Amazon/Hulu etc now, but I question whether they will still be around in ten years especially if the likes of Time Warner, Disney, Fox, AT&T, Comcast etc all launch their own versions of Netflix to prevent cord cutting from their own channels/networks.

Time Warner is already making grumbling noises about providing content to Netflix which is in direct competition to its own HBO channel. Others will start grumbling too soon...

The networks will fail, they will try and impalement old business practices in the new world and they don't seem to realise it is not just the content but the way netflix delivers content. Plus Netflix has shown that they can produce original shows that are as good as the best out there while the networks continue to water down their shows, make them more tweeny and go after the cheap reality market.

[Horizon]

The problem with the US networks is the amount of adverts. A programme starts, then it goes into adverts within a few minutes of the show starting, then the opening credits start when the first batch of ads end - crazy!

As an addendum to my earlier post, US cableco Charter Communications (controlled by John Malone) is trialling a streaming service and Time Warner has taken a stake in Hulu.

So the US cablecos are getting into the streaming game after all.

Originally Posted by muppetman11

Personal opinion of course but I wouldn't at all be surprised to see Netflix get snapped up in the future , Apple have long mooted a video streaming service , in Netflix they already have a service with a huge footprint and probably the best streaming experience in the market.

All the people in the "know" are buying shares in Netflix, so you may be right. A bunfight may be coming about who gets to snap up Netflix first.

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by Horizon

The problem with the US networks is the amount of adverts. A programme starts, then it goes into adverts within a few minutes of the show starting, then the opening credits start when the first batch of ads end - crazy!

.

There are more adverts in the US... but they are shorter. The UK has less adverts, but each block lasts longer.

With regards to total timing, there is no difference between watching a US show in the US or the UK. They both run on hourly schedules and the total show run time of a US 'hour long show' is around 42 minutes.

[steveh]

Although US broadcasters are now cutting the amount of advertising in order to better compete with the streaming services.

http://variety.com/2015/tv/news/viac...ts-1201598646/

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by Horizon

The problem with the US networks is the amount of adverts. A programme starts, then it goes into adverts within a few minutes of the show starting, then the opening credits start when the first batch of ads end - crazy!

Pretty sure Sky used to follow that model at one point years ago. Have a vague memory of watching Star Trek where they used to show the teaser, then the title and then immediately go for a break.

[steveh]

That was probably before (mostly) EU legislation came in revising how advertising could be included in programmes and setting new limits.

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/bro...de/ad-minutage
http://ec.europa.eu/archives/informa...p/index_en.htm