Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY
I do understand what you are saying, Chris, but generally the end result is that you are watching rubbish - or at least programmes that you don't have a particular interest in.
Of course there will always be those who will continue to take this approach, but my guess is that the majority of people will want to select the programme they want to watch when they switch on the TV.
If the majority of people are not as laid back as you in this area, sooner or later there will be an advertising revenue problem as fewer and fewer people make use of linear channels. It's the economics of it all which will drive change.
|
People don't need permission to watch rubbish.
. You may not understand it, you may not approve of it, but it is what it is, and the great British public's appetite for rubbish is insatiable, as the success of multi-channel TV has proven beyond any doubt.
Quote:
|
But surely channel hopping is a very inefficient way of finding the programme you want. I wouldn't recommend that at all. Whenever I have channel hopped I have been profoundly disappointed. Even if I find a programme I wouldn't mind watching, it tends to be just finishing by the time I find it!
|
I suddenly realised the other day, what it is you remind me of. You're like one of those late 1990s Apple Mac fans who would always loudly proclaim the superiority of their home computer over any Windows-based PC, and their incomprehension that anyone would deliberately choose to buy anything made by Microsoft (I know this, because I was that man).
It doesn't matter how inefficient it is (in your opinion - in truth, those who do it are getting what they want, very quickly and efficiently indeed). It doesn't matter whether you recommend it. The fact is, it is what large numbers of people want to do with their TV at 8 or 9pm on a Thursday evening.
Quote:
|
Live events can also be shown as they happen on video on demand. Just as you can start a recording on the TIVO and then watch the recording while it is being recorded. So that isn't actually an issue at all.
|
If you're watching it live, you're watching it according to a schedule and it is, by definition, not "on demand". The fact that it may be delivered across the Internet is neither here nor there.
VOD cannot do live events. When a VOD provider does a live event, they are not doing VOD; they are broadcasting according to a linear schedule. They cannot put the entire 2015 F1 season on Netflix for immediate download. Were Netflix to get in to sports rights, they could only make events available according to a schedule. If you watch it on a delay of even 2 minutes, then you are, of course, not watching a linear broadcast, but a VOD stream.
Quote:
Your third point is the issue. Currently, linear TV provides a mass audience. But if the trend continues and more and more viewers steer away from linear channels, there will no longer be the mass audience that is keeping them alive.
This isn't about your personal preferences sadly, Chris, it's simple economics.
|
This has nothing to do with my preferences. It is indeed a matter of economics, but you are misconstruing the economics because you don't understand statistics. You are making extrapolations about the future direction that past events don't support.
I absolutely promise you, linear broadcast TV will still be here in 10 and 20 years, sitting alongside and complementing on-demand services, and most likely other means of content consumption we haven't yet dreamed of.