Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36007028)

That's only a couple of quid more than Netflix. Whether people wil pay that or not will be down to the quantity and quality of their content. In the end, people will subscribe to those streamers who best cater for their tastes.

For example, Disney + looks like being good for families, but people in my household (Old Boy and Old Girl) will not subscribe because there are no children living in our house any more. We would perhaps be interested in the Hulu strand if it comes to the UK, provided we could get that on a standalone basis and the content warranted it.

Those who are saying that the new arrangements will be more expensive are ignoring the fact that people will only subscribe to those services that they want at that time. People will also shift between services from time to time as they won't be tied to contracts.

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 36007033)

Or perhaps your ignoring the fact it's just you and your wife living in the house and not a large family.;):D

You also don't watch Sport which is another key factor.

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 36007033)

Or perhaps your ignoring the fact it's just you and your wife living in the house and not a large family.;):D

You also don't watch Sport which is another key factor.

Originally Posted by Media Boy (Post 36006989)

That not right.

Warner Bros was took over by Turner in the late 1980s.

Turner is now own by AT&T.

All channels in UK are now run by Turner Broadcasting System Europe (WarnerMedia)

---------- Post added at 23:22 ---------- Previous post was at 22:11 ----------

It look like Star Wars is coming back to Sky Cinema from September 2nd on Virgin Channel 402 (Sky Cinema Select HD) [Source TiVo].

Originally Posted by Media Boy (Post 36006897)

It that October 2019 channel launches on Virgin Media I think it safe to say the other one will also launch on Virgin next year.

Look like Sky Two and Real Lives will be axe.

Sky Two > Sky Comedy
Real Lives > Sky Crime (Viewers will not see anything new bar the name of channel)

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36007045)

As far as sport is concerned, that is always going to be at a premium!

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36007182)

Glad that you now accept the, often stated, economic reality that even if streamers bought major sports rights the consumer wouldn't benefit from any low cost streaming options.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36007183)

I do think that it may turn out to be less expensive,

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36007183)

I think Amazon would provide a good deal for its subscribers.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36007183)

I do think that it may turn out to be less expensive, depending on which company wins the rights. I think Amazon would provide a good deal for its subscribers.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36007185)

Any proof of that? or is that just another of your way out predictions..

---------- Post added at 16:30 ---------- Previous post was at 16:27 ----------



You obviously must think Amazon are some charity who are going to provide a cheap as chips subscription.

Mind you seeing they won't bid for it in the first place that joins the other way out predictions you have repeatedly made.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36007215)

It’s going to take a lot of tat add on items to generate £6bn in profit.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36007225)

You need to take off the blinkers, jfman. Your vision is not the only vision.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36007236)

You are the one aggressively pushing a single vision, across multiple threads on the forum, often in the absence of any evidence at all.

I repeat once more: Amazon didn’t make a single meaningful bid in the last Premier League rights auction.

If the aim isn’t to make a profit on the football itself but instead hook more people onto Prime there’s far easier ways to do it without risking £6bn or more in the process.