Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36045229)

It makes little difference, Chris. I can't see Pluto getting much of an audience. Don't be surprised if they ditch the live TV bit, although I do acknowledge that with their system, as with the BBC i-Player, you can at least watch these 'live' programmes from the start.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36045230)

And yet they launched a whole pile of scheduled channels anyway. And they’re not the only ones launching new channels according to a linear schedule. It’s almost as if those who actually do TV for a living have a different view of the future than you do.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36045229)

It makes little difference, Chris. I can't see Pluto getting much of an audience. Don't be surprised if they ditch the live TV bit, although I do acknowledge that with their system, as with the BBC i-Player, you can at least watch these 'live' programmes from the start.

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 36045236)

:D Sky better get on the phone to OB as I bet they haven't realised the terrible mistake it made launching it's recent new linear channels.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36045230)

And yet they launched a whole pile of scheduled channels anyway. And they’re not the only ones launching new channels according to a linear schedule. It’s almost as if those who actually do TV for a living have a different view of the future than you do.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36045206)

All I ever meant to put across was that watching linear channels the way we do now will cease to be. The terrestrial transmitters will not be used and all viewing in the future will be IPTV and - let's say - the vast majority will be streaming or watching by VOD.

I confess that I did not foresee Pluto's way of presenting linear TV, and that may still keep going for the foreseeable future, but I have to say that the BBC i-Player does much the same thing - select a channel and you can opt to watch live or from the beginning, as well as select from the VOD library. Having said that, I think few will use the live version of Pluto by then; most will have already opted to watch their fayre via the on demand section of the site.

The main thrust is this. In my view, BBC1, 2 and the rest, ITV, ITV2 and the rest... and so on, will no longer exist in that form. Instead, the BBC will have one streamer for all their channels, as will ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5 and Sky. The terrestrials may all come together under one umbrella, such as Britbox. All Sky material will be in one place as well, and presented in 'on demand' or 'streaming' forms via IPTV. I think Peacock, rather than Now TV will be used for this purpose, but Sky could choose to keep Now TV going as their cheap and cheerful service.

Linear TV in future will be streamed TV, and of course, the technical issues including latency will be overcome by then.

I do hear what people say about flopping into their armchairs and just watching what's on, but I'm sure that the various streaming services will find ways to address that - for example with lots of previews playing on full screen or in PIP while you gather your thoughts or search, or perhaps a programme could be automatically selected randomly from the library.

I hope that gives a sense of what I think will happen.

---------- Post added at 14:14 ---------- Previous post was at 14:09 ----------



Maybe not cable, but why would Sky continue to pay out for satellites when they have IPTV? Of course satellites will exist for the time being, but once broadband is rolled out at appropriate speeds all over the country, prepare for major change.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36045251)

Something magic will happen... :D

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36045274)

Like a realisation that IPTV will reduce costs?

I'm sure they have worked that out for themselves, to be frank. :erm:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36045245)

How long is it until 2035, MM, remind me...?!

Yes, and this is 2020. I don't get it with you guys. There is a clear trend developing here and you refuse absolutely to consider where this will lead.

Well, you've made your mind up, so I guess there's nothing I can do about that. You will see in time that Pluto will conclude that it is safe to rely solely on the on demand aspect of their service, although it really doesn't bother me either way. It's still IPTV. And it's still of minority interest. No-one I speak to, and I have a wide circle, have ever heard of Pluto anyway.

Originally Posted by Phunkenstein (Post 36045240)

Well ViacomCBS reported Pluto TV had around 22 million active users some months back so it’s doing something right... and they wouldn’t be adding more and more linear channels if viewers were not engaging with them.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36045286)

There is indeed a clear trend that nobody has disputed. The point, that you never adequately address, is how that trend reaches zero?

You’ve conceded that you think what you consider “low value” linear content will now exist. My point has always been that major content providers will maintain a linear presence and if linear television does exist why would they not want to be there? A 24 hour advert for their streaming service using content they already own?

For context broadband penetration went from 94% to 95% between 2014 and 2019. Trends fo 100 (or 0) are extremely hard to achieve by market forces.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36045285)

like defying the laws of physics to reduce latency to what you forecast, unless there is a huge investment in infrastructure and technology advances...

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36045296)

Worldwide, of course.

---------- Post added at 23:53 ---------- Previous post was at 23:47 ----------



Agreed, but when audience levels get to neglible proportions (won't even get that far!),why would any commercial operation be arsed to provide a service to a small minority of viewers who are probably not raking in any significant interest advertising wise?

You are describing some sort of romantic vision that is never going to come to pass. Think economics. It should be easy for you. One would have thought.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36045296)

Agreed, but when audience levels get to neglible proportions (won't even get that far!),why would any commercial operation be arsed to provide a service to a small minority of viewers who are probably not raking in any significant interest advertising wise?

You are describing some sort of romantic vision that is never going to come to pass. Think economics. It should be easy for you. One would have thought.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36045296)

Worldwide, of course.

---------- Post added at 23:53 ---------- Previous post was at 23:47 ----------



Agreed, but when audience levels get to neglible proportions (won't even get that far!),why would any commercial operation be arsed to provide a service to a small minority of viewers who are probably not raking in any significant interest advertising wise?

You are describing some sort of romantic vision that is never going to come to pass. Think economics. It should be easy for you. One would have thought.[COLOR="Silver"]

---------- Post added at 23:54 ---------- Previous post was at 23:53 ----------

[/Sun-seekers had to be turned away as thousands descended on Bournemouth and Poole to visit the towns' beaches on the UK's hottest day of the year.
By 09:00 BST roads were gridlocked and a mobile app to aid social distancing was showing red in three areas - meaning "avoid".
Police and council officers patrolled the seafronts in both towns.
Brighton and Hove City Council, said crowds were making it "impossible to maintain physical distancing" there.
And in Kent, Thanet District Council said some of its most popular beaches were full.


Yes, Hugh, but some of us seek solutions to problems. The BBC is working on it.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36045310)

OB, really? I didn’t know that...

(Except for the fact, as mentioned before, that one of my best friends is a Lead Technical Architect at the BBC, working specifically on the Telecomms area, who speaks at International conferences on the impact of 5G on broadcasting, and who is a member of a National 5G Working Group advising the UK Government, and my comments are informed by discussions with him - which highly experienced technical resource at the BBC are your comments informed by?).

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36045300)

Like all good armchair experts, you pose questions and insert caveats (‘probably’), demanding evidence and answers from others while all you ever do is promote your speculation. You’ve been at it for years, yet all we ever see are new linear channels popping up and streamers racking up massive debts trying to chase an audience that’s a fraction of the size.

Netflix is presently trumpeting the success of The Umbrella academy, whose first season was viewed in 45 million households - worldwide. The Umbrella Academy is great TV and a big success for Netflix, but even now it’s still niche. Pay-TV, regardless of how it’s delivered, always will be.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36045301)

I’m not describing a romantic vision of anything. I’m stating facts.

Yes economics is something I understand. You’ve not demonstrated how streaming gets to 100%. Even if it only got to 99% I can find you dozens of channels with that kind of audience.

Streamers won’t be ideological (as you are). Free advertising is free advertising.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36045323)

Well, how do you explain this, then, Hugh?

https://www.radiotimes.com/news/on-d...streaming-lag/

---------- Post added at 11:15 ---------- Previous post was at 11:06 ----------



I seem to recall that Rupert Murdoch had similar problems when he launched satellite TV.

You say 'pay tv' will always be niche, which is a questionable statement, particularly if the BBC licence fee is converted into a subscription. Then there is AVOD, which will attract those who don't want to pay for their TV.

I am not sure why you are so satisfied about a small number of new channels launching in 2020. Once again, some seem to be having difficulty understanding the difference between the present and the future.

---------- Post added at 11:22 ---------- Previous post was at 11:15 ----------



Advertisers will not be interested in paying good money to advertise their products to a small and probably not very wealthy audience.

As I've said before, audience levels do not have to reach anywhere near as low as 1% before traditional linear TV is ended. If we waited for everyone to convert voluntarily to digital TV, we would still have analogue as a choice.