![]() |
Re: The future of television
I’m not sure why it requires Government instruction the clue is in the name. Ad supported.
I’m yet to see a credible explanation why large, established television companies with back catalogues would be incapable of this yet “Pluto” can do it. |
Re: The future of television
Quote:
Obviously, the bigger broadcasters have a considerable amount of expenditure which the FAST channels don’t have to bear. Why would they spend extra money on channels, with all the associated expenditure when they could simply put all their programmes on a streamer? |
Re: The future of television
Quote:
The why is because people watch, and enough people to support the minimal additional expenditure involved. Why would “ad supported” work for some fledgeling operation and not the most successful free to air channels in the UK? I can’t think of any rational capitalist enterprise that would cannibalise a revenue stream for such frivolous reasons and those you put forward. The idea that they would only do so under the threat of Government regulation and not their own profit seeking motive is flawed. |
Re: The future of television
This article presumes that the FAST channels will really catch on. It’ll be interesting to see. It is not difficult to envisage poorer households without the money to fork out for the streamers latching on to this, and if that is the case, perhaps the quality of the output will improve.
Interesting times. https://www.theverge.com/2023/4/29/2...ubi-pluto-roku [EXTRACT] Free ad-supported platforms are the fastest-growing part of the streaming business right now, and services like Tubi, Pluto, and The Roku Channel are starting to assert themselves as power players in their own right. Many of these platforms have been around for years, quietly amassing big content libraries and millions of users. And now, as users look for cheaper ways to get their entertainment and studios look for better ways to monetize, they’re starting to make more noise. The future of TV is free, it has ads, and it involves a lot of channel surfing. It’s a lot like the TV business of old, really. That’s actually kind of the point. |
Re: The future of television
Once again you’re fundamentally misunderstanding that the pay-tv market is well developed, as is the free to air market. Television isn’t new. Delivering it over IP - if we actually get there - changes very little.
I’m not sure “poorer households” is anything other than a deliberate slur against people who consider the multitude of streaming services a large waste of money, just as around half of households in the UK didn’t have Sky or cable services when those peaked. Streaming services don’t have an automatic right to the hard earned cash that makes up household disposable income. As they get increasingly more expensive as quality content gets ever more fragmented the bubble will burst for many. ---------- Post added at 18:33 ---------- Previous post was at 18:32 ---------- Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Re: The future of television
Quote:
My reference to poorer households was not a slur at all, just a recognition that such households won’t be forking out for streamers. I recognise also that there is a sizeable contingent of the population that steadfastly refuse to pay any more than the licence fee to watch TV. With regard to your last paragraph, I’ve always believed that the streaming option will become less expensive with more choice over time. You can be reassured that the streamers are now considering the bundling of content with rival streamers. That should make streamers more accessible and bring us lower prices than paying for each streamer separately. |
Re: The future of television
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Bundling of content - another benefit of “streamers” bites the dust as you need to buy content that you don’t want in order to get the content you do. Linear channels and bundles of content. Where have I seen that before. :rofl: |
Re: The future of television
Quote:
combination was pretty much an all you can eat streaming buffet. Sadly, as with so many disruptive technologies, they start off as as something cheaper or better than the competition but then capitalism has its way and years later we're left with worse service or pricing than before it started. |
Re: The future of television
Quote:
|
Re: The future of television
Quote:
|
Re: The future of television
Quote:
Adjusted for inflation Sky Sports would now be £12.75! |
Re: The future of television
Quote:
|
Re: The future of television
Quote:
Quote:
As far as general entertainment goes, it has become much cheaper than to subscribe to Sky’s multi- channel packages and the choice is much greater, particularly when you factor in the ability to change streamers as often as every month. The streamers are now talking to each other about consolidating or bundling different streamers to provide better choices at less cost for the consumer. The same will happen in the sports arena over time, probably sooner rather than later. Quote:
Quote:
The streamer bundles will have plenty of choice with decent material. I dare say there will be the option to take just one streamer, or alternatively, the whole caboosh for a lower price than subscribing individually. We will have to see how that pans out. Hopefully, there will also be subscriptions with ads options for those who cannot fork out too much on this or who simply don’t want to. ---------- Post added at 10:41 ---------- Previous post was at 10:37 ---------- Quote:
|
Re: The future of television
Quote:
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 19:07. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.