Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35999729)

I’m very curious to see what Disney’s offering looks like when it launches in the UK. If it’s as clean and all-you-can-eat as Netflix they could come to dominate very quickly.

Originally Posted by cheekyangus (Post 35999757)

Disney has a UK service already, it's just not particularly well advertised and doesn't quite have the range of the new services in the US will. Disney Life was estimated by the person who told me it existed to have around 80% of what Disney+ will likely have.

Originally Posted by Horizon (Post 35999763)

I'm sure the actual Disney+ service will be as you describe, the problem is that Disney has, or will have, several streaming services at least in the States.

All of the Hollywood companies appear to be trying to replicate in the streaming world what they had in the linear channels world, ie multiple services. They haven't quite learned yet what made Netflix so successful.

---------- Post added at 17:55 ---------- Previous post was at 17:51 ----------

Sky hold the rights for all new Disney films, so our Disney+ service will have less content to begin with.

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 35999809)

Imagine the cost increase for those who like to watch a lot of movies..........not good.

Originally Posted by vincerooney (Post 35999817)

My thoughts are people are going to go back to streams and VPNs again. I find it quite funny since i started on the internet in 1996 just as the boom was occurring. The first few years were fairly laid back with only the hardcore IT guru knowing how to share stuff.

Then we got to 2001 and the likes of napster, kazaa and limewire exploded onto the scene. By 2004 these were either shut down or just a haven for viruses. Then the world of torrents became main stream and tv companies and music companies went on a war against them. shutting sites down and tracking users through the ISPs and fining people etc.

At that point spotify came more high profile. For a small amount you get millions of songs to listen to rather than 99p a song. Bargain. Netflix trotted on with a gaggle of different tv shows and movies for a cheap price with a rotating library. No longer did you need to stream! Everything was a reasonable price for once which people were prepared to pay! 16.99 gave you unlimited music and netflix.

But now the big companies lick their lips as they want a piece of the pie. So expect a tornado of streaming companies to launch meaning if you want everything.....you'll have to pay A LOT.

Its like the companies dont understand that there is a limit to what people are prepared to pay for. Less content on netflix will make netflix less appealing but it wont make new streaming providers more appealing as they'll have less of a library too. its fragmenting the entire services.

I can envision a world of VPNs becoming more popular again and rather than people paying 15-20 quid on spotify or apple music or amazon prime or netflix they'll pay a lot less and watch all these services via streaming websites or torrents again completing a full circle.

Originally Posted by vincerooney (Post 35999817)

My thoughts are people are going to go back to streams and VPNs again. I find it quite funny since i started on the internet in 1996 just as the boom was occurring. The first few years were fairly laid back with only the hardcore IT guru knowing how to share stuff.

Then we got to 2001 and the likes of napster, kazaa and limewire exploded onto the scene. By 2004 these were either shut down or just a haven for viruses. Then the world of torrents became main stream and tv companies and music companies went on a war against them. shutting sites down and tracking users through the ISPs and fining people etc.

At that point spotify came more high profile. For a small amount you get millions of songs to listen to rather than 99p a song. Bargain. Netflix trotted on with a gaggle of different tv shows and movies for a cheap price with a rotating library. No longer did you need to stream! Everything was a reasonable price for once which people were prepared to pay! 16.99 gave you unlimited music and netflix.

But now the big companies lick their lips as they want a piece of the pie. So expect a tornado of streaming companies to launch meaning if you want everything.....you'll have to pay A LOT.

Its like the companies dont understand that there is a limit to what people are prepared to pay for. Less content on netflix will make netflix less appealing but it wont make new streaming providers more appealing as they'll have less of a library too. its fragmenting the entire services.

I can envision a world of VPNs becoming more popular again and rather than people paying 15-20 quid on spotify or apple music or amazon prime or netflix they'll pay a lot less and watch all these services via streaming websites or torrents again completing a full circle.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35999831)

On the other hand, maybe people will ditch their conventional subscriptions and go streaming only.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35999831)

On the other hand, maybe people will ditch their conventional subscriptions and go streaming only.

Originally Posted by vincerooney (Post 35999863)

Don't get me wrong OB i think we are heading there. But i still think the majority of people in this country still follow a sort of 7-10pm tv schedule. I think things are changing but not as quick as predicted. My mum who is 67 now "binge" watches tv shows over several nights which is astonishing. But my dad (if he was alive) wouldn't even know how to do that and would be running back from the pub for a certain tv show at 10pm or something.

Will tv companies try to stop the move to streaming only? Surely virgin media would cease to exist as a tv provider?

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 35999837)

The point being made is a film lover who watches lots of films can now get a Now TV cinema pass for around £10 if you look around for offers.

Going forward you'll need a sub to Comcast , Warner , Hulu and Disney how much will that lot cost because it will certainly be more than a tenner.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35999927)

Well, those are the big questions, and contributors to this forum have different views.

Clearly, no-one can be certain, because all of this is dependent on human ingenuity in making things work. My own opinion is that the economics of it all will shift the existing content providers to streaming. Advertising revenue from the TV channels will fall the more people shift to streaming, ultimately rendering our TV channels unprofitable. None of us know how long that process will take, but you can safely bet that the younger generation will be streaming away in the near future and hardly bothering with scheduled TV, which is very restrictive compared with streaming.

As you will see from the posts on this forum, there are some who vehemently protest that our TV channels will never die, because they feel that they themselves will always watch this way. I understand that, but I'm afraid that progress is likely to prove them wrong. The truth is, no-one can be completely sure. I just look at the viewing trends and technological advances and draw my own conclusions.

As for VM, I don't think that this change will mean that they cease to exist as a provider of TV content. Liberty Global see themselves as content aggregators now, so instead of having bouquets of channels in the future, we will have bundles of streaming services. Hopefully, there will be a system in place whereby if you take them all, you will get a discount, just as we do with bundles of TV channels. That would be attractive to most people, I think.

---------- Post added at 11:38 ---------- Previous post was at 11:32 ----------



I completely understand your concerns about that, muppetman. My view, as you know, is that viewers will migrate to these services and ditch the scheduled pay tv channels. Therefore, if that happens, you can deduct the cost of Sky channels from your calculation, which means you would end up paying about the same for much better content, both in quantitative and qualitative terms.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35999927)

Well, those are the big questions, and contributors to this forum have different views.

Clearly, no-one can be certain, because all of this is dependent on human ingenuity in making things work. My own opinion is that the economics of it all will shift the existing content providers to streaming. Advertising revenue from the TV channels will fall the more people shift to streaming, ultimately rendering our TV channels unprofitable. None of us know how long that process will take, but you can safely bet that the younger generation will be streaming away in the near future and hardly bothering with scheduled TV, which is very restrictive compared with streaming.

As you will see from the posts on this forum, there are some who vehemently protest that our TV channels will never die, because they feel that they themselves will always watch this way. I understand that, but I'm afraid that progress is likely to prove them wrong. The truth is, no-one can be completely sure. I just look at the viewing trends and technological advances and draw my own conclusions.

As for VM, I don't think that this change will mean that they cease to exist as a provider of TV content. Liberty Global see themselves as content aggregators now, so instead of having bouquets of channels in the future, we will have bundles of streaming services. Hopefully, there will be a system in place whereby if you take them all, you will get a discount, just as we do with bundles of TV channels. That would be attractive to most people, I think.

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 35999931)

With a Now TV Cinema pass there is no cost for any other channels unless you specifically want them , so my point still stands.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35999933)

Strange that as Global pay TV is still set for growth adding 81 million additional subscribers between 2018 and 2024, translating to growth of 8%, according to Digital TV Research.

https://www.digitaltveurope.com/2019...-cord-cutting/

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35999937)

Indeed, and there's no doubt that global pay tv will keep expanding for the foreseeable future. However, the picture is quite different in developed countries such as the UK. The article mentions the 'alarming' amount of cord cutting in the US, which is similar to what we will be facing in the coming years.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35998805)

A project destined to fail...

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35999946)

As one has told you before OB we are not America and British people behave far more differently then our American cousins.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35999956)

The US trend is ahead of us, but then they have more streaming services to choose from. So will we over the next few years.

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 35999951)

Just look how many key ITV or BBC shows neither own the rights to , Downton Abbey (Carnival Films) owned by NBC Universal and Broadchurch (EndemolShineGroup) are two examples.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35999946)

As one has told you before OB we are not America and British people behave far more differently then our American cousins.

Originally Posted by Stephen (Post 35999969)

I know far more people that use streaming services rather than broadcast TV now.

Originally Posted by Stephen (Post 35999969)

I know far more people that use streaming services rather than broadcast TV now.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35999965)

As usual OB is in perpetual denial...[COLOR="Silver"]

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 35999974)

I know many who use streaming services myself included that said they generally watch linear TV as well.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35999975)

You've just described yourself there, Den!

Nothing will ever change..your constant refrain! ;)

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35999979)

Exactly as many use the streaming services as a nice add on to their main linear TV viewing.[COLOR="Silver"]

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35999988)

“Obvious”.

Originally Posted by oliver1948uk (Post 35999998)

Exactly. Let's enjoy a bit of each that modern media makes available. Even the big advocate of streaming has said before he still records linear channels both onto his V6 (does he have 2 now?) and another recorder as well

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35999997)

You still haven’t demonstrated this, across seven different threads, despite being invited to do so on many different occasions.

Linear television continues to be hugely popular, in addition to time shifting, on demand and yes even streaming. There’s nothing to support the vast majority wanting to lose all this flexibility.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36000002)

None of it worth watching, obviously.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36000010)

Scheduled TV has been old fashioned and inflexible since the invention of the VCR and subsequently the DVR. It’s still here.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36000013)

And then came streaming...:D

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36000039)

The original prediction that linear TV channels would reduce in number within five years has not happened.

I don't think anyone disputes that the number of linear channels may be at its peak. The dispute has always been over the timescales.

Originally Posted by Horizon (Post 36000068)

Indeed.

It will take several more years for the old model of doing things to unravel. Currently, the Hollywood companies have deals with each other to share content on each other's services and with broadcasters all over the world. Those deals will take time to run their course and then we'll see what happens next.

If each company keeps its own content on its own services and with the rise of the streamers, it should mean a lot less complicated media landscape in the future as each company turns in on itself and shuts out all the others.

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 36000071)

Resulting in many going to the wall or being absorbed by the larger broadcasters.

Britbox is one example that will struggle in my opinion.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36000074)

By a less complicated media landscape we mean less competition and less choice?

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36000039)

The original prediction that linear TV channels would reduce in number within five years has not happened.

I don't think anyone disputes that the number of linear channels may be at its peak. The dispute has always been over the timescales.

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 36000081)

My biggest gripe with Netflix and Amazon is the fact the bulk of their content is US based so I'm glad we still have the likes of BBC and ITV linear channels and their respective catch up services.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36000082)

The launch of new streaming services next year may see the start of that decline.

---------- Post added at 10:58 ---------- Previous post was at 10:50 ----------



British made shows won't disappear when linear channels close down. They will simply be available in another place.

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 36000098)

And how many of those streaming subs still watch either terrestrial TV or sub to a pay TV platform I'd say the majority in my opinion.

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 36000098)

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36000099)

And this is the rub. There's almost no reason, for anyone, anywhere in the UK to have to rely on watching actual BBC1. Virgin have iPlayer, Sky have iPlayer, almost every smart television, Apple TV, Chromecast and Fire Stick has iPlayer.

Yet - people sit down and watch linear TV.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/la...19/lod-ratings

Originally Posted by ozsat (Post 36000101)

Sky have a download from iPlayer option - you can not stream anything.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36000102)

To the end user with a decent internet connection the outcome is the same even if it’s technically not “streaming”.

Originally Posted by ozsat (Post 36000107)

Not really - iPlayer now has live sport streaming which will include every Wimbledon court in HD and the centre in UHD/HDR.

There will be Glastonbury stuff too.

None of that will be available via Sky boxes.

Originally Posted by ozsat (Post 36000107)

Not really - iPlayer now has live sport streaming which will include every Wimbledon court in HD and the centre in UHD/HDR.

There will be Glastonbury stuff too.

None of that will be available via Sky boxes.

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 36000111)

He wasn't referring to Sport we were talking about catch-up.

Originally Posted by ozsat (Post 36000113)

It a "streaming thread" and I was talking about the differences - and Glastonbury isn't a sport.

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 36000114)

Agreed it does help though if you generally follow the conversation.;):D

Originally Posted by ozsat (Post 36000116)

It takes a while to catch up on 364 pages. :)

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36000099)

And this is the rub. There's almost no reason, for anyone, anywhere in the UK to have to rely on watching actual BBC1. Virgin have iPlayer, Sky have iPlayer, almost every smart television, Apple TV, Chromecast and Fire Stick has iPlayer.

Yet - people sit down and watch linear TV.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/la...19/lod-ratings

Originally Posted by Horizon (Post 36000137)

Out of 60+ million people in this country, a maximum of 8.3m people watched one of those episodes as it was screened.

No, linear is not dead, but an average Neighbours episode used to get more than double those numbers in the late 80s and that show wasn't even shown in prime time, then Sky arrived and that's when things changed and streaming is just the next step in how we watch tv.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36000148)

The 60 million people figure is a red herring - it's simply unrealistic all will sit down and watch the same thing at the same time. It stands to reason that more choice will lead to lower viewing figures - nobody has disputed that but the threshold at which content providers completely abandon linear is extremely low. Millions of people do still look at their EPGs to see what is on.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36000148)

The 60 million people figure is a red herring - it's simply unrealistic all will sit down and watch the same thing at the same time. It stands to reason that more choice will lead to lower viewing figures - nobody has disputed that but the threshold at which content providers completely abandon linear is extremely low. Millions of people do still look at their EPGs to see what is on.

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 35997892)

As I recall , it was you telling us Netflix would never have ads

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36000239)

Confirmation here that Netflix is still saying that they will not carry commercials.No sport, either.

https://www.digitaltveurope.com/2019...rt-commitment/

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36000240)

That will change in time...

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36000239)

Confirmation here that Netflix is still saying that they will not carry commercials.No sport, either.

https://www.digitaltveurope.com/2019...rt-commitment/

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36000240)

That will change in time...

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36000256)

Link...?

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36000258)

https://www.insidehook.com/daily_bri...ually-show-ads

https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/...r-netflix.aspx

https://www.emarketer.com/content/ne...ion-inevitable

https://medium.com/swlh/is-netflix-w...s-8e24b3f38454

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 36000480)

Which clearly shows how watched some of Netflix's third party content is , they paid $100 million a year for Friends and offered $90 million a year for The Office.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36000496)

This is why I don't understand why so many people are so convinced that Britbox will fail.The popularity of archive material should not be underestimated.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36000496)

This is why I don't understand why so many people are so convinced that Britbox will fail.The popularity of archive material should not be underestimated.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36000496)

This is why I don't understand why so many people are so convinced that Britbox will fail.The popularity of archive material should not be underestimated.

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 36000502)

UKTv and iPlayer availability for a year after broadcast would be my guess.

Originally Posted by Raider999 (Post 36000503)

Whilst archive material is popular with some, I wonder how much they will be prepared to pay for it?

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36000504)

Archive material is great for pulling punters in, but there are limits to its appeal. When I first got Netflix I dug straight in to Star Trek; the kids love Friends and Fawlty Towers. But much of the archive material is stuff I wasn’t interested in when it was broadcast and I’m still not interested in it now. The only reason we’re still subscribing 2 years later is that they keep adding new material.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36000637)

Some interesting thoughts about Streaming TV here..

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-r...box=1561631633

Originally Posted by oliver1948uk (Post 36000657)

In view of the money we are told Netflix was paying to screen these shows, it seems a big risk foregoing that to set up your own streaming service, not knowing how many people (apart from Old Boy) will pay for your service with so many others entering the market too

Originally Posted by oliver1948uk (Post 36000657)

In view of the money we are told Netflix was paying to screen these shows, it seems a big risk foregoing that to set up your own streaming service, not knowing how many people (apart from Old Boy) will pay for your service with so many others entering the market too

Originally Posted by Horizon (Post 36000672)

That's what the discussion about streaming is all about.

The existing Hollywood companies currently have guaranteed revenue streams from all the existing deals they have with broadcasters all around the world and streamers like Netflix. But if they withhold their content from other channels and streamers and keep the stuff exclusively on their own streaming services, they lose the guaranteed income with no certainly that they will get enough people to sign up for their own streamers.

If they don't do it, Netflix will destroy them, if they do do it, Netflix might still destroy them. A catch 22 scenario which is why Rupert Murdoch threw in the towel and sold out. That's how big a deal it is. One of the world's largest media companies doesn't exist now because of the threat posed from Netflix and the other tech giants.

Originally Posted by Horizon (Post 36000672)

That's what the discussion about streaming is all about.

The existing Hollywood companies currently have guaranteed revenue streams from all the existing deals they have with broadcasters all around the world and streamers like Netflix. But if they withhold their content from other channels and streamers and keep the stuff exclusively on their own streaming services, they lose the guaranteed income with no certainly that they will get enough people to sign up for their own streamers.

If they don't do it, Netflix will destroy them, if they do do it, Netflix might still destroy them. A catch 22 scenario which is why Rupert Murdoch threw in the towel and sold out. That's how big a deal it is. One of the world's largest media companies doesn't exist now because of the threat posed from Netflix and the other tech giants.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36000680)

A

---------- Post added at 19:00 ---------- Previous post was at 18:50 ----------

[/COLOR]

Eleven Sports is an example of what happens when you can't get onto a major platform, although other factors were also at play in that example.

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 36000676)

I don't buy into Netflix destroying them , let's see what happens when Netflix has its third party content pulled and it's starts feeling the competition from the other new entrants.

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 36000676)

I don't buy into Netflix destroying them , let's see what happens when Netflix has its third party content pulled and it's starts feeling the competition from the other new entrants.

Originally Posted by vincerooney (Post 36000691)

I just hope Eleven Sports completely disappears. I'd be okay if Amazon want to get Serie A and La Liga mind. Should be fairly cheap for Amazon too and can add more to their sports selections

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36000717)

Smells of desperation to me...

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36000718)

Its not the first time they have had it..

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36000720)

What, more desperate than Now TV, where the deals even for existing customers are permanently available?

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36000720)

What, more desperate than Now TV, where the deals even for existing customers are permanently available?

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 36000676)

I don't buy into Netflix destroying them , let's see what happens when Netflix has its third party content pulled and it's starts feeling the competition from the other new entrants.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36000680)

Although many of the new streaming companies may choose at first to make their content exclusive to their own streamers, I think that in the end, they will be forced to allow their shows to be screened on other TV channels and streamers like Netflix to make up for lost income. The more streamers there are competing against one another, the more likely this becomes. Good news for the linear TV channels if the content drought for them is eased or comes to an end.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36000680)

As far as I am concerned as a consumer, an ideal situation would be for all content to be loaded up into the cloud, and for a subscription, to be permitted to watch up to a certain number of hours of content over the month (say 80 hours). After that, a further subscription for the month or PPV would be the option. The studios would get the appropriate cut of that subscription according to the number of views.

Whether that ever comes to pass or not, I have no idea, but it would be a good solution for punters.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36000680)

I don't see Netflix as a kind of internet monster. Netflix is not specifically out to destroy the competition and I don't see any predatory signs as I did with Sky in the darkest Murdoch days.

The success of each streamer will depend on the quality and genre(s) of its content, the amount of it and value for money compared with the alternatives. Other factors will also come into it, such as whether an AVOD alternative is available for those who do not wish to subscribe, whether they are accessible on all major platforms and whether they agree to being part of bundled services on these platforms.

Eleven Sports is an example of what happens when you can't get onto a major platform, although other factors were also at play in that example.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36000722)

We were actually talking about Amazon Prime and some of their Prime Video Channels OB.;)

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36000737)

I know we were, Den, and then you made the comment about desperation. So I pointed out that this was standard practice for Now TV, where I don't think desperation comes into it.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36000697)

Not a chance.

---------- Post added at 05:16 ---------- Previous post was at 05:14 ----------



Then their real test will come as the several more 80lb gorillas enter the ring.

---------- Post added at 05:17 ---------- Previous post was at 05:16 ----------



That will not happen Vince.

Originally Posted by Mad Max (Post 36000751)

You don't know that, Den..

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36000759)

Golden age of streaming is over.

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-r...sive-heres-why

Originally Posted by vincerooney (Post 36000760)

wow this is totally spot on. Greed. Tv companies may regret this as piracy returns!