Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36006258)

They're in the business of making money, not harbouring a vendetta over something that happened nearly twenty years ago.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36006256)

It's interesting that TiVo are prepared to do business with Sky after Sky screwed them over all those years ago, but I suppose with the passage of time, there are now different people involved.

Do you know if this means that TiVo patented features such as Wishlists, Quickview & Thumbs up/down could now theoretically be utilised on Sky Q boxes? This is one of the things that would put me off from moving over to Sky.

I don't think that Series Link & the search capabilities can be patented as the V+ (and many other boxes) had/have these features.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36006265)

We agree on that one. Additionally, Sky seems not to be so aggressive against its competitors these days.

Originally Posted by fox35 (Post 36006246)

Indeed, in much the same way that Sky Q uses Tivo software, under license, buried deep within its own firmware operation. So, I'm guessing features which are similar on both VM and Sky boxes, such as Series Link and the Search facilities etc, are Tivo patented and used under agreement. Just a different branded UI.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36006258)

They're in the business of making money, not harbouring a vendetta over something that happened nearly twenty years ago.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36006303)

It's not about "harbouring a vendetta", but about trust. Not trusting another party makes it very difficult to do business with them. Perhaps Sky have signed something to make TiVo feel happier about the arrangement??

Anyone who uses Now TV passes and Shops at Tesco might be interested in a post that i've just made here:

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...php?t=33695779

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36006307)

Sky have different owners. Tivo have different owners. Anyone still at the company would be harbouring a vendetta if that was driving their decision making for what seems to be using their software on a non-exclusive basis anyway.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36006318)

True, new personnel is often the only way that matters can be settled. It's essentially how the VM disputes with Sky and ITV were settled so that all companies involved could move on.

Originally Posted by fox35 (Post 36006246)

Indeed, in much the same way that Sky Q uses Tivo software, under license, buried deep within its own firmware operation. So, I'm guessing features which are similar on both VM and Sky boxes, such as Series Link and the Search facilities etc, are Tivo patented and used under agreement. Just a different branded UI.

Originally Posted by epsilon (Post 36006346)

But is Sky actually licensing rights to intellectual property of the original Tivo Inc.?

Macrovision Solutions Corporation and, subsequently, Rovi Corporation licensed its own intellectual property to the industry long before it acquired Tivo Inc. renaming the merged company as Tivo Corporation.

Before assuming that Sky is using Tivo technology, it might be worth checking if Sky is actually licensing rights to the IP of the original Rovi Corporation (EPG software patents / copy protection etc).

Originally Posted by Richardr (Post 36006350)

Correct. Rovi bought Gemstar-TV-Guide, and Sky have licensed their EPG format patents since 2006.

Now it may be that these licences now include additional Rovi patents, but that wasn't the original deal.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36006324)

It wasn't really. The VM dispute was settled because of the sale of Virgin channels to Sky, in exchange for a fee and a long term carriage arrangement.

The ITV dispute settled because it wasn't viable to keep the largest commercial channel off of the largest TV platform. It's not rocket science.

You are massively overestimating personalities and massively underestimating cold hard cash.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36006381)

Personnel changes played a significant part too.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36006381)

Personnel changes played a significant part too.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36006324)

It wasn't really. The VM dispute was settled because of the sale of Virgin channels to Sky, in exchange for a fee and a long term carriage arrangement.

The ITV dispute settled because it wasn't viable to keep the largest commercial channel off of the largest TV platform. It's not rocket science.

You are massively overestimating personalities and massively underestimating cold hard cash.

Originally Posted by Legendkiller2k (Post 36006387)

VM and SKY were owned by the same people when the SKY dispute began and when the channels returned to SKY, there was no change in personell.
Money talked louder than handbags in the end.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36006417)

VM and Sky have never been owned by the same people; the Competition Commission would never allow it (and for good reason too).

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36006417)

The VM/Sky dispute was resolved in 2007, but the deal to sell the VM owned channels in return for most of the missing Sky material was done in 2010.

The information Re: The changes in key personell was reported on the internet, it should still be there.

---------- Post added at 13:02 ---------- Previous post was at 13:00 ----------



VM and Sky have never been owned by the same people; the Competition Commission would never allow it (and for good reason too).

Originally Posted by Legendkiller2k (Post 36006423)

I think you mis-read my post i said the same personell as in Murdochs for SKY, Telewest/NTL for vm.

Originally Posted by cheekyangus (Post 36006045)

Possibly nothing...but there are two HD streams on TSid104 (CO33) on DigitalBitRate. One currently with a screengrab of BBC News (or another BBC channel simulcasting it), that started on 13th according to my reading of the graph, the other with Ideal World, which has a graph line only starting today (15th).

The odd thing about all this is that TSid104 has now been removed from the whole VM network overnight according to, the much more knowledgeable than me on this subject, jj20x on Forumbox. He was saying the migration of services completed from that multiplex with the moving of two versions of ITV HD. So what DBR is showing doesn't make a lot of sense.

Looking further down the DBR page there is evidence of the changes jj20x mentions on Forumbox. There are now two versions of TSid 102 (CO57 & CO59). On one version there used to be two versions of ITV, ITV+1,ITV HD, C4, C4+1, C4 HD, C4 AD. Half of those have shut on the CO57 version, but a new ITV HD has been added.

All these removals on CO57 mentioned above have moved to CO59, along with a new version of ITV Wales HD. JJ20X had been talking recently about VM dealing with regional differences in the network in Manchester and Wrexham and this seems to be it. They both have been split into two separate versions of the same multiplex, where they both used to be mostly crammed onto the one multiplex, with another being used for the overspill.

Obviously this all only affects a few VM customers, those in those two regions, but they will have to re-add their Favourites presumably, though I'm guessing it's the mostly customers who get the Wrexham region.

Originally Posted by Media Boy (Post 36006434)

CO33 was broadcasting an channel named ITV HD (We forgot the name of the other one but that screengrab is BBC ONE) the last week until Virgin moved them to other streams (CO).

---------- Post added at 15:59 ---------- Previous post was at 15:56 ----------

(sans nom - PID10402) - Was ITV HD
(sans nom - PID10407) - Was BBC One HD

Originally Posted by cheekyangus (Post 36006445)

I know, I said that (or thought I was :) ) but used different words. My point was that that Tsid104 multiplex wasn't meant to be showing any more. And the graphs indicated the streams had just started on 13/15th. I just thought the whole thing was odd given none of it should have been showing up based on my understanding of the moves done.

Originally Posted by Media Boy (Post 36006454)

The channels did not appeared in one day (Info from JJ20X and Forum Box) it happen over three days (Tuesday to Thursday.

Due to ITV being an so called local channel is best to keep your eyes on Forum Box and JJ20X for info on ITV HD Channels as DRB is just lists BBC One North West area (Liverpool).

Originally Posted by cheekyangus (Post 36006540)

JJ20X on Forumbox has posted that Sky Select HD has swapped with Sky Premiere +1 on the EPG. I've not had a chance to check.

So channel numbers 402 and 412 are swapping places.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36006858)

l wonder if they will be two new channels just exclusive to Sky like Sky Atlantic?.

Originally Posted by cheekyangus (Post 36006859)

The article has said some have speculated they may be replacements for Sky2 and Real Lives.

I find it odd a new crime channel is starting, given the how multiple channels exist and have even closed, suggesting the fad has either passed or the market is saturated.

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 36006866)

I've not seen Universal channel mentioned which would suggest that could be on its way out.

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 36006866)

I've not seen Universal channel mentioned which would suggest that could be on its way out.

Originally Posted by cheekyangus (Post 36006855)

RXTVlog on Twitter is saying Sky is launching two new channels, Sky Crime in October 2019 and Sky Comedy in February 2020.

Literally just read this so I'll see if I can see more.

---------- Post added at 09:27 ---------- Previous post was at 09:12 ----------

They've posted the story to their website now.
https://www.rxtvlog.com/2019/08/sky-...rtainment.html

Originally Posted by Media Boy (Post 36006890)

Sky trying again with an comedy channel?

I was the big of the old one back in the early 1990.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Dt-UTkizr4

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 36006866)

I've not seen Universal channel mentioned which would suggest that could be on its way out.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36006899)

It was probably not mentioned because Universal is not a 'Sky branded channel' which is what the others listed in the press release were.

It is quite possible we will see some reorganisation of channels or channel names with the Comcast takeover, but I have not picked up that Universal are going anywhere yet.

Originally Posted by Legendkiller2k (Post 36006886)

I've seen some documents suggesting universal might be moving to a movie channel.
All speculation ofcourse at this point.

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 36006900)

From official press release


No mention of Universal.

Originally Posted by cheekyangus (Post 36006904)

Certainly possible, but would Sky want a film channel of that type?

There has been a "film" channel spun out of Universal Channel previously, Movies24 and Movies24+ started when Universal was still Hallmark-branded and broadcasts the romantic "TV movies" Hallmark used to show before the rebrand.

Given Sony's True Movies shows this type of thing but might not continue to after it is rebranded as Sony Movies Classic (their press release suggests it will be showing films that have been shown in cinemas) then Movies24/+ will have the market pretty much to itself.

Sony's upcoming Movies4Men and True Movies rebranding (due September 10th I think) suggest they both will be showing cinema releases, so any Universal movie channel would have quite a lot of competition (i.e. Sony Movies Classic and Sony Movies Action combined with original Sony Movie Channel and Film4), though obviously would be showing different films as they have access to different film libraries.

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 36006909)

I'm wondering if Universal would become a Film channel should the other movie studios remove their films from the Sky Cinema package.

In this scenario Sky could have a basic entertainment package and then one a few pounds more offering Universal movies.

Originally Posted by Legendkiller2k (Post 36006911)

This is my thinking too, with more and more studios seeming to want to go it alone.

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 36006900)

From official press release


No mention of Universal.

Originally Posted by Media Boy (Post 36006929)

Also no mention of Movies 24 and Sky Sports.

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 36006930)

The article was talking about Sky's entertainment portfolio so I'm not surprised Sky Sports wasn't mentioned.

Maybe a future Universal channel could show Movies 24 films in the daytime with Universals biggest box office movies at primetime.

Originally Posted by Media Boy (Post 36006931)

Sky Cinema was mention.

Originally Posted by cheekyangus (Post 36006925)

Every media company offering their own service is going to hurt the likes of Film4. They only have a tiny library of their own.

Originally Posted by Legendkiller2k (Post 36006939)

Agree with this and i think TCM will be affected too.

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 36006932)

I know it was but an earlier poster mentioned they'd something suggesting Universal could become a movie channel.

If Disney , Warner and the other studios take back their content in the future Universal would be the only movies available to Sky.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36006959)

And now, at last, it is becoming clear to everyone how the streamers will impact on the TV channels. It was being mooted, only a few weeks ago, that the streamers would 'of course' continue to allow TV channels the right to show their material.

Now you are having second thoughts. Glad to have you on board...;)

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36006959)

And now, at last, it is becoming clear to everyone how the streamers will impact on the TV channels. It was being mooted, only a few weeks ago, that the streamers would 'of course' continue to allow TV channels the right to show their material.

Now you are having second thoughts. Glad to have you on board...;)

Originally Posted by cheekyangus (Post 36006957)

Turner Classic Movies should be fine, it's owned by Warner Bros.

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 muppetman11 (Post 36006984)

I'm having no second thoughts whatsoever , I've never denied some of the big media companies will take their content exclusively onto their own services I still don't believe they all will however.

Look at the HBO service that's due in the USA people are speculating a price of over $15 how many are seriously going to subscribe ?

Originally Posted by cheekyangus (Post 36007007)

AT&T own Warner Bros.

Turner became part of Time Warner when they merged in 1996. AT&T in turn bought Time Warner in 2018.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turner_Classic_Movies

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/WarnerMedia

The whole point is that TCM ultimately is owned by a company that owns a movie studio and it's library, which was the point I was making a few posts ago, that movie channels run by companies without studios or film libraries will have a problem in the future as film studios are cutting out the middle man.

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 muppetman11 (Post 36006984)

I'm having no second thoughts whatsoever , I've never denied some of the big media companies will take their content exclusively onto their own services I still don't believe they all will however.

Look at the HBO service that's due in the USA people are speculating a price of over $15 how many are seriously going to subscribe ?

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.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36007256)

This is no argument at all. And where did you get a figure of £6bn?

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36007258)

The rights are £5bn. Of course Amazon will want to blow Sky out the water in a blind auction. Plus return a profit to shareholders. Six is the least they'd require in revenue, not accounting for VAT.

Far from being no argument at all it's proof that Amazon don't believe the economic model exists where they can make profits on it! They're experts in business after all as you keep reminding me.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36007271)

Exactly, the rights are £5bn. I never said Amazon would offer Premiership football for free if they won the rights. Yet again, you have twisted what I have said.

I had in mind a discount for Prime subscribers, say, a tenner a month. They would make that money up through increased retail sales, selling on the rights to show certain matches on other outlets, etc.. I am really surprised that you cannot see the opportunities here.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36007272)

I'm surprised that they don't, to be honest, if you and your back of cigarette paper calculations (that you haven't revealed) make it such a no-brainer.

How many million existing Prime subscribers will qualify for your offer with negligible, if any, increased retail sales as a result?

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36007276)

There must be many people out there who do not subscribe to Prime. Adding the football to their offering would be an incentive with discounted footie.

I would imagine that there would also be football only options as well for those who did not take Prime, but without the discount.

There are various ways this could work. You just need to think about it rather than employ that knee-jerk reaction of yours.;)

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36007276)

There must be many people out there who do not subscribe to Prime. Adding the football to their offering would be an incentive with discounted footie.

I would imagine that there would also be football only options as well for those who did not take Prime, but without the discount.

There are various ways this could work. You just need to think about it rather than employ that knee-jerk reaction of yours.;)

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36007279)

Not in a month of Sundays...

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36007283)

Amazon Prime uptake is at 6 million homes in the UK.

With their bargain bucket Premiership rights I'm very confident this will rise, however by gaining all the low hanging fruit for relatively little it makes £5bn higher risk and lower reward in 2022-2025 if they will be relying on upselling tat.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36007278)

There's various ways this could work but none that Amazon (or any other streamer for that matter) felt incentivised enough to pay £5bn, or more, in order to test out. I fail to see why you consider this point as somewhat irrelevant.

What's the point in a football only option without Prime? and if it did exist will it cost more than the Now TV pass - if so there will be less demand for it. So there will be no 'new' customers to Amazon's football service it'll entirely be a subset of those that Sky presently monetise.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36007290)

Well, Sky and BT think it's worth it, don't they?

A football only option would be provided at the price Amazon thought was appropriate, but with Prime, they could get the football subsription cheaper The point, of course, would be to make money, either directly from the football subscription, or both directly and by encouraging sales with Prime.

Just to clarify, the reduced football subscription would be paid on top of the £79pa Prime subscription, just in case you are under any misapprehension about that.

And I repeat, the fact that Amazon haven't taken the plunge into Premiership rights so far does not mean they never will. Broadband coverage is improving and has been given a further boost by the Johnson government. I haven't a clue why you don't find that to be significant.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36007293)

Ah back to the Sky/BT can do it... anyone can line. Again - despite the value of the rights dropping last time Amazon felt they couldn't.

Superfast broadband coverage is already at 95%, as I've asked before, is the Amazon business model going to be so precarious that the 5% will make or break it? If so, we won't see a bid blowing anyone out the water. Boris Johnson has made a statement, with no financial commitment at this stage, and no solutions offered to the letter ISPA sent him.

If the reduced football price is for those who already have Prime, who exactly are they football only to? Everyone would opt for the Prime version. I'm not convinced you've thought this through, but then again, I doubt that surprises you.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36007307)

It's because fast broadband coverage is improving that streamers will be more interested in providing sports by that method. That should be self evident...

'Amazon felt they couldn't'! I did not see that reported anywhere. What Amazon did was to purchase those 'bargain basement rights' to test it out first. I'm sure that they will be pawing over the results with great interest.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36007310)

Amazon didn't bid more than Sky did for 2016-19, that's self evident from the fact they didn't win. I don't need a digital marketing blogger to explain that to me, it's observable fact on it's own.

So you're accepting that the Amazon business model is 'make or break' on the 5% of the country that don't yet have the option of superfast speeds? I'm not convinced that's going to give the returns on £6bn of investment that they would want to see.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36007317)

I think you are missing something somewhere, jfman.

The fact that our fast broadband coverage has improved and continues to improve is adequate reason for the streamers to become interested.

Amazon decided to bid for the least attractive package to test the waters.

The returns on investment would be made the same way as Sky and BT are making them. They recoup the money from football subscriptions but also by drawing more people into the Prime service. Selling on selected matches to other channels will also add to the financial yield.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36007321)

On the contrary - you are missing something. If it's that easy - why didn't they do it in the first round of bidding? :confused:

Sky/BT are selling products alongside - basic TV packages, landline, broadband, mobile which are all revenue generators and must have products that ensures they retain a significant market share. Products that millions of households are paying for month in, month out. So it's far from clean cut that Amazon could do the same, indeed their own business strategists appear to have doubted it for 2019-22.

I'm not convinced the 5% of households who can't yet get superfast broadband will make any difference. Indeed - we don't know how many of these could get the baseline for Amazon video through ADSL2+ or 3/4G.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36007326)

It’s not really helping that you are not addressing my answers. I’ve already explained that Amazon is most likely to have been testing the waters this time around. This makes perfect sense. Why would they invest all that money without doing a trial run first?

I acknowledge what you have said about Sky’s additional services, but you haven’t commented on the fact that Amazon is essentially a retail business, so there is an opportunity there to link football subscriptions with sales and takeup of Amazon Prime.

As for broadband, is your comment actually admitting that the distribution of super-fast broadband actually has a way to go yet?

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36007329)

No, it's actually the vast majority of the way there - 95%.

I have acknowledged that Amazon could try to link it with their retail operation and pointed out it's a massive ask to turn that into hundreds of millions/billions in profits on the additional items. I've also pointed out that the rights they've got for next to nothing will let them hit the low hanging fruit negating the need for, and impact of, any future investment.

I think by "Why would they invest all that money without doing a trial run first?" what you mean to say is that £5bn or more is a huge amount of money to try out a fundamentally high risk and untested business model. If that is what you meant by that:walk: question then I'm happy to agree. It's a massive risk.

Originally Posted by Raider999 (Post 36007365)

The facts are that Amazon secured a trivial package of 2 riunds of matches that first round bids were not deemed sufficient for.

The fact no one has ever supplied details of this after sale suggests they didn't pay what EPL originally wanted.

If it were a minor game each week, I could accept they would get some idea how viable it would be. Unfortunately for them it is saturation coverage in 2 December mid-weeks, proving very little.

I for one will take a months free subs to get an idea (and watch for nothing) if I would subscribe if they did bid & get better packages next time round.

I will not subscribe to Amazon because of this, but I will get a better idea of if streaming is for me at no extra cost.

A win-win solution I would suggest.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36007348)

I'm quite confident everything will change. However not as suddenly, or in the direction, you may think.