Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36070501)

A darned sight :D

Old Boy it's you who have made absolutely definitive statements in ignorance of the evidence and, as I've pointed out on many occasions, the extreme difficulties in moving consumer behaviour in such a drastic manner without state intervention.

I've described a fairly accurate future in the past - customers will continue to enjoy a diverse range of content over IP and traditional broadcast, on demand and linear. I don't see huge amounts of people running to disagree me, I just see you moving the goalposts, over and over spinning the words of others in a desperate attempts to give yourself any credibility at all.



Old Boy if this is going to be another Saturday night where you are going to contradict yourself I'm tired of the contortions of your argument. In one paragraph linear is dead, in the next plucky upstarts Pluto TV will do what Sky (and others) can't - maintain a linear presence while moving 75, 80, 90+ per cent of their business to streaming.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36070513)

Honestly, jfman, listen to yourself! You have set the bar so high, that even if one linear channel remains in 15 years, you will claim that you have won the argument! I don’t think that many on here, even your supporters, would agree with that.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36070519)

Old Boy you can't have the end of linear television if there's even one channel. It is only you who has spoken in such absolute terms for years. Everyone accepts there will be less linear channels as more people move to streaming and internet based services. The two parts open to dispute are the extent and the timeline.



You'll find every one of those links is just an opinion!



As I've pointed out on many occasions I have 4 different streaming services. So there's no need to personalise this to my TV viewing habits. I'm happy to acknowledge I'm not representative of the average television viewer.

Old Boy far from being 'technical confusion' it's key to your argument. You conflate linear television and IPTV, scheduled television and on demand to obfuscate your point so often I genuinely believe it can only be deliberate and not the result of innocent confusion.

What distinguishes these "Pluto TV" type services from say, the viewing experience someone has using "TV from Sky" on a Playstation? Is someone watching "TV from Sky" on a Playstation, watching Sky Sports Main Event for example, watching 'linear television' in your scenario?

I've asked you for straightforward yes or no answers to broadly equivalent questions on numerous occasions and you evade and obfuscate.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36070523)

As for conflating linear channels with IPTV, you are the confused one here. I have consistently said that the existing broadcast scheduled TV channels will be replaced by IPTV, and that it will no longer make sense to present channels as ‘BBC1, BBC2’ and ‘ITV1, ITV2’ etc. Programmes will be categorised instead. That is all. Yes, it’s just TV, but TV will be presented differently.

I have acknowledged that there may be some minority IPTV channels as they exist on Pluto, and if you think that justifies your argument, so be it. I have never denied that these may exist in the future. However, the main broadcasters will not look at that as any kind of solution.

You may have four streaming services, and well done you. But that argument does not make the comments you have made any more relevant.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36070476)

Lifetime is the latest channel to bite the dust.

https://www.mediamole.co.uk/entertai...nd_434970.html


Lifetime will close down in the UK, Ireland and Malta on February 28, we can confirm.

They have been forced by sheer economics to admit that the future is the internet, not DTT broadcasting. I am sure that all forward looking forum members will see the wisdom of that assessment. I, however, could not possibly comment.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36070528)

To the best of my knowledge, Lifetime isn't going onto the internet or on-demand, it's going full stop. It looks to have been more a victim of a Comcast-owned Sky not wanting to duplicate Comcast's Hayu service. (Lifetime UK being co-owned by Sky and Hearst)

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36070532)

Yes, and because it no longer makes financial sense. That’s my point.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36070525)

I'm still at a loss here Old Boy - are these linear scheduled channels in the conventional sense and if so why will it work for minority interest channels and not the biggest names in the business and the state broadcaster?

On the contrary OB my having 4 streaming services demolishes your attempts to present my television preferences as outdated. I'm not talking about me - I'm talking about the television market as a whole.

I think it's easier rather than conflate your comments and throw in minority interest platforms that have 4 users like Pluto TV to answer questions as I present them with reference to popularly used products in the marketplace.

If someone was casting BT Sport 1 from the iOS app to a Chromecast would you describe them as watching linear television? Would they be streaming? Would they be both?

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36070535)

In which case you’ve shifted the goalposts - again.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36070535)

In which case you’ve shifted the goalposts - again.

Businesses ending a service because they’ve made acquisitions and have an opportunity to avoid duplication has been going on since forever. It never makes financial sense for one company to do the same thing twice over. That says nothing whatsoever about the viability of the service itself. You might have noticed that the channel owner isn’t getting out of broadcast tv. They’re just ending a product line.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36070537)

Question: If someone was casting BT Sport 1 from the iOS app to a Chromecast would you describe them as watching linear television? Would they be streaming? Would they be both?

I await your reply.[COLOR="Silver"]

-

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36070543)

Well, yes. But the fact remains that another channel has deactivated because on financial grounds it doesn’t make sense to continue to broadcast it. Despite the fact that, according to jfman, it only costs buttons to run a TV channel.

As streamers gain ascendency, you will see more channels go to the wall. It’s all finance driven, one way or the other. Watch and learn.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36070543)

Well, yes. But the fact remains that another channel has deactivated because on financial grounds it doesn’t make sense to continue to broadcast it. Despite the fact that, according to jfman, it only costs buttons to run a TV channel.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36070543)

Er, who cares? This has nothing to do with my argument, at all!

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36070546)

For someone who refuses to answer direct questions it’s funny that you misrepresent others when they clearly define technical aspects of their argument.

Nowhere, anywhere, do i state the above in the manner or with the intent you portray above.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36070547)

When Orange and T-Mobile merged to form EE, the combined company deactivated hundreds of base stations it no longer needed because they were duplicating effort.

By your bizarre logic this would be proof of the coming demise of mobile phones.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36070549)

Ok, present your direct questions, then. Presumably these direct questions will relate in a direct way to my direct arguments.

I have not refused anything! Are you hallucinating or just misunderstanding? I am seriously not understanding where you are coming from!

---------- Post added at 00:23 ---------- Previous post was at 00:21 ----------



No, it proves that these decisions are motivated by financial considerations. I have not argued anything else.