VOD : The future for linear TV channels

Originally Posted by harry_hitch

Well OB, you certainly expect others to serve up chapter and verse to counter your thoughts on the future.

OB's argument in favour of exclusive VOD is "it stands to reason", and his counter to the arguments against it is "something will turn up".

OB's view isn't really an argument. It's a statement of cheerful optimism. And ultimately, who can argue with that?

[theone2k10]

I guess this would come under the future of linear tv - BT to lose FOX from their tv service at end of this month.

[denphone]

No surprise there as we all know who Fox are owned by....

[harry_hitch]

Originally Posted by passingbat

Now TV offers catch up for 28 days on current shows and box sets of previous shows with longer viewing windows.

Sorry PB, I don't fully understand the post, or quite why you posted it. I have alluded to its on demand content by saying it is not an exclusive on demand provider.
It also follows a linear tv schedule, and will be for many years to come. Whilst it still uses linear tv, surely it can not be classed as a threat to the future for linear tv channels?

---------- Post added at 13:56 ---------- Previous post was at 13:52 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

OB's argument in favour of exclusive VOD is "it stands to reason", and his counter to the arguments against it is "something will turn up".

OB's view isn't really an argument. It's a statement of cheerful optimism. And ultimately, who can argue with that?

Who indeed can Chris. I dislike the fact I allow myself to be drawn back into this thread so often, but it is nice to have a discussion with OB, even if I would be better banging my against a wall😉

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by harry_hitch

Sorry PB, I don't fully understand the post, or quite why you posted it. I have alluded to its on demand content by saying it is not an exclusive on demand provider.
It also follows a linear tv schedule, and will be for many years to come. Whilst it still uses linear tv, surely it can not be classed as a threat to the future for linear tv channels?

It offers box sets and catchup TV content from Pay TV channels

This is where I see the real attack on linear TV; the Pay TV channels. Freeview linear TV channels have a long future. But it's content that is mainly shown on the pay TV channels that streaming services such as Netflix, Amazon and Now TV are catering for, and why people such as myself are well served by Freeview and the streaming services mentioned above.

This is why your statement:

Now TV is a linear based streaming service,

doesn't reflect the bigger picture with regard to the whole linear channel debate, which Now TV is playing a big part in regards to linear Pay TV.

This is why Sport is being held back in regards to fair price streaming options; it's to keep sports fans tied into high priced pay TV twelve month contracts.

[Mad Max]

This is why Sport is being held back in regards to fair price streaming options; it's to keep sports fans tied into high priced pay TV twelve month contracts.

Spot on PB......

[harry_hitch]

Originally Posted by passingbat

It offers box sets and catchup TV content from Pay TV channels

This is where I see the real attack on linear TV; the Pay TV channels. Freeview linear TV channels have a long future. But it's content that is mainly shown on the pay TV channels that streaming services such as Netflix, Amazon and Now TV are catering for, and why people such as myself are well served by Freeview and the streaming services mentioned above.

This is why your statement:

doesn't reflect the bigger picture with regard to the whole linear channel debate, which Now TV is playing a big part in regards to linear Pay TV.

This is why Sport is being held back in regards to fair price streaming options; it's to keep sports fans tied into high priced pay TV twelve month contracts.

Okay, but this is a debate about the future of linear tv channels, not just pay tv linear channels. Considering freeview shows the vast majority of the nation's favourite shows, I am not sure how your statement helps the case for the reasons as to why this debate is rumbling on, but I may be missing something in your statement.

I am probably wrong, but are you also saying Now tv is going to threaten Sky tv in the future, or (again) am I mis-reading your statement?

[Horizon]

CBS says 111.9 mln avg viewers watched CBS's coverage of Super Bowl 50.

More to say later....

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by harry_hitch

Okay, but this is a debate about the future of linear tv channels, not just pay tv linear channels. Considering freeview shows the vast majority of the nation's favourite shows, I am not sure how your statement helps the case for the reasons as to why this debate is rumbling on, but I may be missing something in your statement.

I am probably wrong, but are you also saying Now tv is going to threaten Sky tv in the future, or (again) am I mis-reading your statement?

Are not linear pay TV channels, still linear TV channels?

I am not sure how your statement helps the case for the reasons as to why this debate is rumbling on

I was simply explaining that you hadn't understood the full implications of Now TV in this debate, with your statement, "Now TV is a linear based streaming service," You failed to understand that it is much more than that. I have never used it as a linear TV channel. But I have used it in exactly the same way that I use Netflix and Amazon Prime and chosen when I wanted to watch a current TV show within the one month window.

I am not for or against the original premise of this debate.

My own personal view is that linear TV will exist for a long time (both pay and terrestrial), but streaming services will affect pay TV the most, and although they will in no way disappear, they will see a decline in subscriptions. If the sports 'screw over' ever gets sorted an sports becomes available at a reasonable price in decent quality, the pay TV linear channel subscriptions decline would be even greater.

[harry_hitch]

Originally Posted by passingbat

Are not linear pay TV channels, still linear TV channels?



I was simply explaining that you hadn't understood the full implications of Now TV in this debate, with your statement, "Now TV is a linear based streaming service," You failed to understand that it is much more than that. I have never used it as a linear TV channel. But I have used it in exactly the same way that I use Netflix and Amazon Prime and chosen when I wanted to watch a current TV show within the one month window.

I am not for or against the original premise of this debate.

My own personal view is that linear TV will exist for a long time (both pay and terrestrial), but streaming services will affect pay TV the most, and although they will in no way disappear, they will see a decline in subscriptions. If the sports 'screw over' ever gets sorted an sports becomes available at a reasonable price in decent quality, the pay TV linear channel subscriptions decline would be even greater.

Pay TV is, of course, still linear TV. In text you highlighted, it should have read "but this is a debate about the future of ALL linear TV channels"

Thanks for the clarification PB. You are correct, I had not factored in the catch up service. For me, that is no different than the recording option on the STB, and I can keep it longer than a month. For £18 a month, I am more that happy to stick with the Sky family HD package.

I do agree with your statement that Sky, VM etc will lose a fair few viewers over time, but they will still be around for a long time.

Not sure about the sports though. If Sky and BT ever stop paying over the odds for football rights, and the price of sport drops, I think people will want to watch it on the most stable platform and that will be via Sky, VM etc.

[Horizon]

I think if we look to the States and as with all things we follow at some point, I do agree with the earlier remark that it is pay tv linear channels most at threat here.

None of us care what channel broadcasts what show, the loyalty to a particular channel is long gone assuming it ever existed at all. But we all want good shows. The increasing cord cutting in the states has shown that Americans, at least for now, still watch the main broadcast channels but supplement them with a streaming service. This country will follow suit.

I believe Now TV is a defensive move by Sky to protect its business not threaten it. If people are going to cut the cord/ditch the dish, Now TV is positioned to pick up some of that business. A very clever move by Sky.

The Superbowl viewing figures show that if you have the right programme, linear viewing can still work. But I believe this will become ever more diminishing in the future. Linear tv viewing, that is.

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by harry_hitch

Pay TV is, of course, still linear TV. In text you highlighted, it should have read "but this is a debate about the future of ALL linear TV channels"

Pay TV channels and FTA channels are both linear, but the effects of streaming services, in my view, will affect them differently.

I may have missed it, but I've seen nothing to say that we can't discuss this difference, even though it seems to suit you to want to lump them all together.

Thanks for the clarification PB. You are correct, I had not factored in the catch up service. For me, that is no different than the recording option on the STB, and I can keep it longer than a month. For £18 a month, I am more that happy to stick with the Sky family HD package

And it seems as if you still don't get the full aspect of Now TV; it also contains many box sets. And it is not tied to a 12 month contract.

[harry_hitch]

Originally Posted by passingbat

Pay TV channels and FTA channels are both linear, but the effects of streaming services, in my view, will affect them differently.

I may have missed it, but I've seen nothing to say that we can't discuss this difference, even though it seems to suit you to want to lump them all together.



And it seems as if you still don't get the full aspect of Now TV; it also contains many box sets. And it is not tied to a 12 month contract.

Thank you PB, I do get the full aspect of Now Tv. Just because I did not envisage anyone using Now TV as an on demand service only, does not make me ignorant of all things Now TV. I am not sure why you are highlighting box sets, again. I alluded to them in my last reply to OB, and acknowledged them when you mentioned them a couple of posts ago. Just to be clear (for the third time), I am aware Now TV have on demand services available. I am also very aware you can cancel at anytime, but for me, the service I receive is better value for money. Perhaps you do not fully understand all the aspects of Sky. They have hundreds of box sets available for long periods, offer catch up tv, have many channels, and the ability to record whole series in full HD and keep them for as long as I want, without having to worry about buffering at anytime.

You are more than welcome to discuss the differences between linear pay TV and linear fta TV, but the discussion I, and many others have had, with OB were about linear tv as a whole, hence me posting as I have done. Whether or not I am person to discuss the differences between linear pay TV and linear fta tv with, is for you to decide. As I stated in my previous post, I agree with you that pay TV will lose subscriptions, but linear TV (both pay and fta) will still be here for many a long year. So on my part, there is very little discuss.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Horizon

I think if we look to the States and as with all things we follow at some point, I do agree with the earlier remark that it is pay tv linear channels most at threat here.

None of us care what channel broadcasts what show, the loyalty to a particular channel is long gone assuming it ever existed at all. But we all want good shows. The increasing cord cutting in the states has shown that Americans, at least for now, still watch the main broadcast channels but supplement them with a streaming service. This country will follow suit.

I believe Now TV is a defensive move by Sky to protect its business not threaten it. If people are going to cut the cord/ditch the dish, Now TV is positioned to pick up some of that business. A very clever move by Sky.

The Superbowl viewing figures show that if you have the right programme, linear viewing can still work. But I believe this will become ever more diminishing in the future. Linear tv viewing, that is.

Yes, basically I agree with this. Sky now seem to have taken stock and realised that the trend will be away from linear broadcast channels In favour of streaming. Although, as Harry said, Now TV allows viewers to watch the channels it offers live, I have never used that part of the service.

It is true that the Superbowl attracted a huge number of viewers for linear TV, but then, there was no alternative if you wanted to watch it as it happened. However, in time, the streaming of live events will be the norm.

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by harry_hitch

Thank you PB, I do get the full aspect of Now Tv. Just because I did not envisage anyone using Now TV as an on demand service only, does not make me ignorant of all things Now TV. I am not sure why you are highlighting box sets, again. I alluded to them in my last reply to OB, and acknowledged them when you mentioned them a couple of posts ago. Just to be clear (for the third time), I am aware Now TV have on demand services available. I am also very aware you can cancel at anytime, but for me, the service I receive is better value for money. Perhaps you do not fully understand all the aspects of Sky. They have hundreds of box sets available for long periods, offer catch up tv, have many channels, and the ability to record whole series in full HD and keep them for as long as I want, without having to worry about buffering at anytime.

You are more than welcome to discuss the differences between linear pay TV and linear fta TV, but the discussion I, and many others have had, with OB were about linear tv as a whole, hence me posting as I have done. Whether or not I am person to discuss the differences between linear pay TV and linear fta tv with, is for you to decide. As I stated in my previous post, I agree with you that pay TV will lose subscriptions, but linear TV (both pay and fta) will still be here for many a long year. So on my part, there is very little discuss.

I usually stay out of this debate. Mainly because I think linear TV is here for a very long time, but I also know streaming services are becoming more and more popular, especially for content normally exclusive to pay linear TV. And despite what you think, pay and FTA linear channels are being affected differently and to deny that in any discussion on this topic is artificially limiting it's scope.

I think it's far too soon to call on this whole linear/streaming debate, so I follow out of interest.

This time I just posted because you made an incorrect statement:

Originally Posted by harry_hitch
Also, don't forget Now TV is a linear based streaming service, and that can not be used to help your case, because it is, linear TV, not an exclusively On Demand provider.

Now TV is one of the services that in part could and is used as an alternative to linear TV. I use it that way. Are you saying I am wrong in the way I use it? Or I really don't understand how I'm really using it?

But I'd forgotten how much you like to pontificate rather than accept the case pointed out to you.