Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36162473)

Sadly they don’t always give you a rental option. In fact these days it seems the rental option appears on the major services (Apple, Prime) between 4-8 months post theatrical release, pretty much in the time frame you would once have gone to PPV on Sky or VM, and after that it vanishes and the title becomes purchase only.

I wanted to watch M3gan with my youngest, who is a big horror movie fan but wasn’t quite 15 when it came out in the cinema. It eventually appeared to rent and to buy but by the time we had a Sunday afternoon free to actually watch it together the rental option had gone. So I had to purchase. I have purchased only once or twice in the past and would only ever do so via Apple or Prime because content delivery is at the heart of their business models. I’d never rely on any service delivered by an ISP other than the actual bandwidth itself.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36142746)

One of the big benefits of streaming that I detected was the amount of content and the lack of advertising. Consequently, it appeared disingenuous to dilute that model in the way that commercial pay-tv channels do.

However, I was not considering a possible tiered approach, and I do think it makes sense to either have a cheaper or a free service with ads as options for those who cannot afford to pay (or will not pay on principle) for their TV content.

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 36162806)

You only need to look at Netflix , Netflix Standard with ads is £4.99 they have withdrawn the standard one screen adfree option and the next option is ad free at £10.99 for two screens with the Premium going to £17.99 a month for ad free and 4 screens.

Basically Netflix is now saying we’ll gladly let you have an ad free experience but if so you’re going to pay a decent amount for that luxury.

Many of the analysts have said Netflix can easily start to make $10 on the ad tier add that to the money they are already charging for the subscription and you can already see why they are pushing prices for the other tiers higher.

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36162813)

All makes the BBC look incredibly good value.

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36162813)

All makes the BBC look incredibly good value.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36162879)

I think it depends on what you watch. The BBC output is only a small part of my own viewing experience, and my wife now watches it even less than me.

They have fewer dramas these days, their documentaries have been dumbed down, the comedies are banal and their news reporting is often biased.

It’s a shame, because we used to watch the BBC more than any other channel.

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36162890)

Quality not quantity OB. We're not all streaming 24/7 ;)

Fewer dramas, maybe true. But a Govt decision ( vendetta) to freeze the licence fee for years.

Biased news? Depends where you're starting from but they seem to get equal complaints from either side so probably about right. Is GB news unbiased in your opinion ?

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36162896)

So, unbiased? The hospital in the Gaza strip was bombed by Isreal? Only due a report from Hamas without fact checking. Turns out the hospital wasn't bombed but an errant Hamas missile hit the car park. Yep defintely unbiased!

For the record: Although I agree that Isreal, just like any other country has the right to respond to attacks does not mean I agree with the Isreali methods. I also do not agree with Hamas using Palastinian people as human shields.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36162899)

It was reported that way by almost every news outlet going at the time. Channel 4 and the New York Times are still questioning what we are being told by “intelligence services”.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/24/w...mas-video.html

I think it’s a stretch to imply that bias was the cause of the original reporting - rather than it was the most credible explanation based on the facts available and eyewitness reports at that time.

And for the record: my sole point of this post isn’t who did it but the reasonableness of the initial reporting in a fast moving and difficult environment.

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36162903)

So its the intelligence services fault? They sould have known a Hamas missile would misfire and explode in a Hosplital car park?!
The most credible information based of facts would be the fact that a hospital had not been bombed but an explosion happened in the car park, instead the BBC followed all the other media and relyed on a press release from Hamas only.

The hospital wasn't bombed and there weren't 300 causalties that is a FACT!
Instead of doing due dilligence on reporting they juat ran with what Hamas said (as did many others). Do you not think that show a bias.

Made good clickbait though.

I also think Russia is behind this to divert attention away from Ukraine. It stinls of it!!!

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36162813)

All makes the BBC look incredibly good value.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36162899)

It was reported that way by almost every news outlet going at the time. Channel 4 and the New York Times are still questioning what we are being told by “intelligence services”.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/24/w...mas-video.html

I think it’s a stretch to imply that bias was the cause of the original reporting - rather than it was the most credible explanation based on the facts available and eyewitness reports at that time.

And for the record: my sole point of this post isn’t who did it but the reasonableness of the initial reporting in a fast moving and difficult environment.