Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36005643)

Various sources that are fundamentally opinion pieces.

I linked only last week at how linear remains the most popular viewing type in the UK, despite the vast, vast majority of homes never having to view television in this way if they choose to not.

Originally Posted by Horizon (Post 36005650)

Besides, even the media companies themselves don't know how things will play out over the next few years, but at least it gives us something to talk about, as media has been pretty static until the rise of Netflix.

As I see things currently, with the (old) media companies, it's still usiness as usual apart from they're all trying to get bigger. They don't seem to understand how to "do" streaming yet.

Netflix has shown them how to "do" streaming, so my assumption was everyone else was going to copy them. I assumed wrong. All the old media cos are trying to replicate in the streaming world what they've always had, which is mulitple services, mulitple prices and a whole spaghetti western of third party licensing deals. Weren't we meant to be in a new age of doing things?

They shouldn't all be launching mulitple streamers each, but they are. They also should be keeping all their own new content on their own services, but it looks like in many cases, that won't be the case either. A good example is the Jack Ryan series. It's been great for Amazon, but its made by Viacom. It should be on Viacom's service.

CBS and Viacom will likely announce their re-merger on Monday (or soon afterwards) and then find someone else to join up with, so the original Hollywood Big 6 companies will probably be no more than four in the end, but they still don't seem to understand how Netflix has changed their industry or what they need to do to adapt to the new reality.

So, until they figure it out, I think we're quite entitled to debate the ins and outs of it too because no one can predict what will happen over the next few years, but we can all take take a good guess though. :)

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36005651)

No actually, I don't.

If streaming content doesn't appeal that's a problem for the streamer - not the viewer. Trying to apply arguments in favour, that are fundamentally incorrect, isn't helpful to the debate.

---------- Post added at 18:17 ---------- Previous post was at 18:14 ----------



You have now resorted to baseless insults.

I don't know how in any capitalist system challenging you to justify your arguments based on economics and consumer behaviour is flawed.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36005654)

They probably want to find out how to do it without $20bn of debt though.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36005653)

You did indeed, but I don't see how that is pertinent to 2035. We are not in dispute about what is happening now. Linear TV reducing rapidly, on demand viewing increasing rapidly....

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36005643)

Fundamentally people want to watch content and care little for the delivery model. It's a radical transition for the low cost streamers to take the step up - indeed as I've often pointed out Amazon made no meaningful bids in the first round of Premier League rights last time around.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36005657)

Yes, and as I said above if you applied that logic to iPhone sales 2007-11 every single person on the planet would have bought one in 2017.

That's not how consumer behaviour works in practice.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36005655)

You just cannot see beyond that, can you?

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36005654)

They probably want to find out how to do it without $20bn of debt though.

Originally Posted by Horizon (Post 36005658)

Ah, back to that old chestnut again.;)

As said before, they're testing the waters and if the waters are warm, I think they'll jump in, but we won't know for a couple of years until various rights come up for renewal. As an aside, I noticed Amazon has yet another Twitter account:

https://twitter.com/primevideosport?lang=en-gb

I think Amazon will get very serious about sports, but we'll see.

Originally Posted by Horizon (Post 36005661)

As you know full well, the old media cos don't need to fuel their growth with debt, because they have massive archives of content that they can monetise in the streaming world.

Netflix doesn't have that option.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36005660)

I fail to see how that is not pertinent - you yourself see a glorious future of multiple streaming options, consumers opting in for a month at a time, binging on content and moving on.

$20bn is a lot of £8.99s a month. Especially when they're having to heavily increase their spend on content due to the studios planning their own options and keeping their own content.

You portray this as a threat to Sky, but bizarrely not Netflix?

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36005662)

It's hardly an 'old chestnut'. Funding £5bn of rights and making a profit on it is a challenging task for anyone.

If you're the biggest retail company in the world that being the most effective use of £5bn in terms of a return on investment is another question altogether.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36005662)

I do know this, which is why the incumbents aren't in as bad a position as some would portray on this forum.

Netflix on the other hand has to pay for it's content and service the debt. A higher price point than similar services will leave it a soft target in the market.

Originally Posted by Horizon (Post 36005664)

And if Amazon, Apple, Microsoft or even the Chinese (they're starting, Tencent bought some of Universal Music Group the other day) if these companies get serious about streaming whether it be drama or sport or everything, that is a major threat to the incumbents.

Originally Posted by Raider999 (Post 36005629)

Might try it in December (using the free month offer) - assuming they don't want a card to pay for further subs which I have no intention of taking up.

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 36005667)

YouTube Premium , Apple TV bet the incumbents are worried sick.

Originally Posted by Horizon (Post 36005664)

On the maths, you work out what 151 million customers paying $10 is worth. A lot of wonga.