Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36007670)

I fail to see the relevance of the broadband comparison. People are using more data in many different ways. Obviously, technology moves to fit and consumer behaviour. It's all just an evolution of internet.

What is being discussed here isn't comparable. A valid comparison would be a prediction that BT/Virgin and other existing suppliers would be replaced by many suppliers who aren't in the direct to home market yet because people would prefer to buy 4 or 5 different speed bundles and add them together to get 500 meg, than just buy it from Virgin.

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36007674)

Again you're arguing just for the sake of it. The only reason broadband speed has been mentioned is as an enabler. It enables streaming as a valid alternative.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36007677)

I'm not arguing for the sake of it. The comparison isn't valid and is being deployed to imply certain members of the forum hold outdated views. Which simply isn't the case.

Nobody here doesn't like streaming as a technology, but there's limitations that will make it much more difficult for it to outright replace linear - my only point has ever been the difficulty in reducing linear channels to zero.

A proportion of British consumers need regulation because they are too lazy to shop around for better deals on gas and electricity. A further proportion seems happy to continue paying a mobile phone contract beyond the minimum period rather than switch to a SIM only deal. However they are going to rotate around streaming services every couple of months!

All we are seeing here is a small number of users and their confirmation bias in action.

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36007678)

I agree the comparison wasn't valid because there was no such comparison going on.
Comparing gas, electricity and mobiles to streaming isn't a valid comparison either.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36007681)

You fail to see how consumer apathy, and preferences for straightforward choices, could have an impact on this? Fair enough.

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36007683)

What I'm saying is making the comparison you made is not valid. You do not have more than 1 electricity supplier at a time do you? The same can be said for your other choices.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36007685)

The fact people are reluctant to change despite tangibly better value elsewhere demonstrates that there's a group of consumers who will have no interest in chopping and changing streaming providers for "better value" that's entirely subjective.

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36007689)

Then those people will use either one streamer or multiple ones. Better value doesn't enter into it for instance where other than Disney+ could I watch their content at better value? Answer, Nowhere.
Do you now see the stupidity in your argument?

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36007690)

You are assuming TV viewers relate to companies the way football fans view their teams. E.g. someone will feel that Disney content is "must have" and that as a product it exists in isolation. It obviously doesn't, it's up against the range of streaming (and linear) alternatives in the marketplace.

I can only hope you see the stupidity in your argument.

Originally Posted by oliver1948uk (Post 36007625)

I am confused. OB has written he is 'halfway there' to his streaming heaven. It is a reasonable assumption that therefore he has cut down on the number of linear channels available in his house in favour of streaming. Yet I am sure he told us he has just subscribed to VM's top package with the maximum available number of linear channels, all the more surprising as he often writes he does not like sport.

Perhaps Mrs OB does not share her hubby's enthusiasm for streaming.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36007692)

Thank you all for your views on this, which are very interesting. I do think that some of you are fearful of the migration to streaming services because you don't actually use them at the moment.

Let me address some of these points.

Grim talks about trawling through content listings of a miriad of streaming services being too much like hard work. I understand that concern. However, what is not being acknowledged is that if you are subscribing to Netflix or Prime, you will get regular emails telling you of new stuff that is now available. Additionally, if you go to the streaming service itself, all the new films and series appear in one place. I know so many of you believe that the EPG is their friend, but how much more difficult is it to look at stuff available on the Home page than trawling through the EPG? It is not a problem.

I note the worries about keeping track of programmes offered by a diverse range of streamers. However, in the future, no doubt Virgin Media, Sky and BT will offer a page where all the programmes and films are displayed from different providers by category and popularity. This is the route being taken by Roku and I am absolutely certain that other providers will follow.

Also, people are not recognising that there will be various means of selecting your programmes, for example by voice activation. You will be able to ask your V6 to find you, say, 'The Crown', and that will be displayed, with the name of the provider, and all that remains for you to do is click on it, assuming you subscribe to that service. The Amazon Fire Stick displays a menu of programmes that are provided by both Prime and Netflix, which scotches the negative thinking of some who still believe that one service would not show programmes provided by another. On the contrary, it is this 'everything on one box' which the streamers are now aware is a popular feature that they can replicate on their own menus.

Grim is also worried about swapping streamers on the right day to ensure no overlap in subscriptions. To be honest, I think people will change streamers occasionally rather than every month, but presumably, everyone has a diary if dates are critical to ensure you don't overspend your budget. Just enter the date on your mobile phone and set the alert!

jfman, as ever, throws a few wobblers. I think most of these points have been answered over time, but in relation to his statement about few suppliers being replaced by many suppliers, I simply don't agree that this will be a problem. Virgin Media and BT see themselves as super-aggregators, and although Sky has a lot of its own content, it probably (reluctantly, I suspect) sees itself going that way as well. If it didn't, why have they embraced Netflix?

Ultimately, there will be a whole range of streamers available, and Virgin/BT/Sky will offer various packages so you can choose what you want, much as you have some choice of channels now with various packages. For channels, think streamers, and everything should fall into place. jfman's analogy isn't really relevant because what we should be comparing are the many channels with the fewer number of streamers.

Although Legendkiller supposes that we are a long way from linear tv being made redundant, in common with many who believe things will change very gradually, I cannot agree with this. The pace of change is quickening in just about every field and technology is what is changing fastest of all. We are not waiting for the very last viewer to stop watching scheduled linear tv before it is put to bed. However, there comes a point where the number of viewers on these channels is insufficient to sustain them any longer. Our resident economist still carries his staunch belief that a TV channel can run on a sixpence, but if the advertising revenue is insuffiient to pay for decent content, people won't watch and advertisers won't advertise. I have said it before, but when ITV's advertising revenue crashed a few years ago, it was in serious trouble. That lesson needs to be learned. The number of people watching streaming services has mushroomed to over 52% of the TV audience. This is only going one way.

Of course, the people to worry about in all this are the poor, who could not run to spending their money on pay tv or streamers. This will be catered for when the TV licence is scrapped and they can use that money to subscribe to Britbox and Netflix, or whatever other combination they choose. There will also be subscription free services supported by advertisements, ensuring that everyone has plenty of choice in the future.

I acknowledge that the issues around sports broadcasting have yet to be resolved, but have no doubt that all sport will be streamed in the future.

---------- Post added at 14:26 ---------- Previous post was at 14:17 ----------



Come on, jfman! Just how far into absurdity can you go?

People will choose which streamers they subscribe to by the content and the price. Isn't that obvious?

Some people will delight in swapping services a lot, others will be interested in sticking with the ones they initially select. I still have a huge amount of content to watch on Netflix and Prime, so why would some people feel compelled to chop and change? You are thinking through problems that don't exist.

---------- Post added at 14:42 ---------- Previous post was at 14:26 ----------



No, it is not a reasonable assumption, oliver. For example, by ditching my subscription to pay tv channels, I would not have easy access to many documentaries shown on the Discovery and other channels, the TLC, Lifetime and Quest Red stuff that my wife likes, the Virgin Media UHD channel, the Virgin Media Exclusives and so on. Additionally, I don't want all my programmes scattered around on various playlists - I want them all in one place.

Once VM or another provider can offer me that and I'm not missing out on the programmes we want to see, I will change over. But of course we are not there yet.

I am subscribed to the top VM package because it is available to me at only £1 above the price I was paying without the Sky premium channels. The fact that Sky Sports channels are included is as irrelevant to me as BT Sport being included in the old Full House. They go with the deal, which has saved me £10.99 in subscriptions for the Movie Pass on Now TV.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36007701)

Far from being fearful I actually subscribe to three of them!

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36007701)

Old Boy you have now contradicted yourself. People will not chop and change: Netflix and Prime will have more than enough television for anyone. An interesting notion, as ever the economist in me wonders what space there is in the market for new entrants at all if that statement holds true? It also appears to not enough content for your own household given you pay Virgin an eyewatering £99 a month for their services.

Originally Posted by OLD BOYS

Our resident economist still carries his staunch belief that a TV channel can run on a sixpence, but if the advertising revenue is insuffiient to pay for decent content,

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36007701)

Far from being fearful I actually subscribe to three of them!

Couple of points though:

People will subscribe based on content and choice. Somewhat obviously. However that same basis has Sky the market leader in this country and Virgin moving along nicely. Millions actually choose not to have pay-tv altogether. If people are agnostic to the delivery method, which I believe most are, why would that change? If they feel strong why can't the market leaders adapt?

Point 2

Old Boy you have now contradicted yourself. People will not chop and change: Netflix and Prime will have more than enough television for anyone. An interesting notion, as ever the economist in me wonders what space there is in the market for new entrants at all if that statement holds true? It also appears to not enough content for your own household given you pay Virgin an eyewatering £99 a month for their services.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36007703)

As our household does as well but as usual OB's musings are full of his own contradictions...

---------- Post added at 15:01 ---------- Previous post was at 14:59 ----------



By heck that is one of the biggest contradictions of one of many by OB.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36007717)

Oh I missed this bit:



Once again an inability to answer my actual point results in you redefining it to one that suits you better.

I've always said to a major content owner the additional costs of linear in addition to other distribution models is pennies by comparison. We have hundreds of linear channels many of which have tiny viewer shares.

By comparison, even 10% of households watching linear only television gives a larger target audience than the Republic of Ireland. I'm sure they have television over there.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36007724)

ITV, the largest non-state, non-subscription service in the country isn't a major owner of content? They just broadcast thousands of hours of nothing per month? They produce, and own the rights to, plenty of content.

You're, unsurprisingly, clinging to the ridiculous now.