Originally Posted by Hom3r (Post 36080816)

I hope Fox doesn't close as I watch Fox HD every Friday for my NCIS fix.

Originally Posted by cheekyangus (Post 36082183)

There will always be Live content so there will always be a need for an EPG, or equivalent of, even if it's just for a handful of Live-content-only channels.

Virtually all prerecorded programming will eventually be on-demand, possibly maybe a few shows will be used to fill short gaps in Live channels.

There might even be a few genre-themed and/or provider-authored channels for trailers. My argument is that some people might find it helpful to have something they can turn to to know what's available on the various on-demand services. These would likely be automatically compiled streams rather than broadcast. The Live-content channels will remain broadcast until lag is sorted, possibly longer as there will probably be reasons that aren't obvious to us end-users for broadcast continuing.

Something being streamed rather than broadcast doesn't mean channels will disappear, it doesn't stop being a channel because it's delivered differently, Live-content will require navigating, and comparing side-by-side so the viewer can decide which, if any, Live content to watch, so a grid guide system of some sort for Live content will likely continue. But awful navigation has never stopped stopped a service being a success, just look at Facebook.

Given EPG stands for Electronic Programme Guide and those words could describe the interface to every existing VOD service, maybe the term EPG will simply be redefined. If we were looking for a more accurate name for what is currently called an EPG we would probably call it an Electronic Channel Schedule instead.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36082279)

We’ll see, cheekyangus. My view is that all content will be IPTV, and so TV channels (and therefore EPGs) will be unnecessary.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36082401)

:D

IPTV services have EPGs. That's how people view what's available to them now, alongside other menus that make available lists of what is available on demand.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36082414)

This won’t please the diehards

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36082401)

:D


Well no, OB.

Even if you use the BT Sport app, or Sky Sports on "TV from Sky" on a PlayStation despite neither of them being broadcast "over the air" they present what is available live now and what is available "later" in a chronological fashion.

Do you think the average consumer wants to fire up these apps and see a jumble sale of content from the next 7 days with what is available now appearing on page 4 or 5 of a menu?

I think such a concept is palpably ridiculous.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36082417)

It makes sense to list the times of PPV events, of course it does. But these aren’t really EPGs in the same sense. Currently, EPGs set out programmes on TV channels, one programme following another in a continuous schedule.

With PPV events, you may well get live events set out in time order, but they need not be sequential in the same way as a channel is - they will either be displayed in order of times or they could be displayed by event type (eg football, concerts, etc). Some of these events will overlap rather than be back to back.

But the concept of TV channels will not generally exist because it would not be a popular choice in an OTT environment.

I would be very interested to know what proportion of Now’s audience watch programmes on their live channels via the EPG rather than from the on demand section of the streamer.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36082416)

There’s one user, and one only, of this forum who can be described as a die hard around this subject.

I note you ignored the bad news:

As each SVoD player has started to see mature markets, their growth curve declines.

We expect to see those big services requiring to be closer, embedded into our billing and our subscriber relationships

Sounds like he is closer to my view that these fledgling streaming services need Sky and Virgin Media more than the other way around.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36082418)

I’m not sure why it’d be any more interesting than how many people watch Line of Duty as broadcast on BBC 1 than on iPlayer.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36082419)

I didn’t ignore it, jfman. Nor did I take the meaning the way you took it, but I don’t find that at all surprising.

Originally Posted by Hom3r (Post 36080816)

I hope Fox doesn't close as I watch Fox HD every Friday for my NCIS fix.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36082421)

I appreciate that you’ve now accepted what I’ve been saying for some time. End users do not have unlimited disposable income - in particular due to the pandemic - and this creates an increasingly precarious situation for new entrants who are fundamentally trying to squeeze into an already well developed market.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36082421)

His words are there in black and white - how else could he mean it?


.

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36082422)

My 87 year old Mother is obsessed with NCIS, never has anything else on. Mind you it could be because she's lost or forgotten how to use the remote...

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36082423)

What do you mean, ‘now accepted’? I have always accepted that people don’t have unlimited disposable income. Why would you think otherwise? Yet again, you are attributing an argument to me that I have never made.

The number of new subscribers will grow less fast, and eventually flatten out over time because that’s the limit of interest in the streamer.