Thread: VOD The future for linear TV channels
View Single Post
Old 12-02-2016, 17:50   #570
OLD BOY
Rise above the players
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Wokingham
Services: 2 V6 with 360 software, ITVX, 4+, Prime, Netflix, Apple+, Disney+, Paramount+, Discovery+
Posts: 15,086
OLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronze
OLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronze
Re: The future for linear TV channels
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetman11 View Post
Sorry Old Boy but that's a silly comparison , Netflix offers loads of content but as a Sky or VM subscriber you have access over the course of a year to far more content whether its content that's worth paying the difference for is down to the individual.

How many hours of sports action do XL TV subscribers get with inclusive BT Sport , Sky Movies is an Add on with over a 1,000 movies , both services have PPV offerings with 1,000 of movies , hundreds of linear channels showing a wide range of content across the year , Sky has a vast range of first run rights with 100's of boxsets.

As for nothing being left for broadcast channels I'd say the complete opposite , most of the first run rights are with the terrestrial and pay tv broadcasters that's why Netflix felt the need to make the move into original content.
Well, at the moment, you can't exactly see a great deal of sport via streaming, which is why I didn't count that. As for films, Sky has most of the exclusive rights with the film studios at present, but Netflix have vowed to take over these exclusive rights in the future.

I admit that I didn't include all the Sky dross fillers between the good programmes when talking about content, but who wants that? If Netflix and Amazon went down that route, I would be looking at alternative options.

For me, the streaming services I use have far more watchable stuff than Sky are able to produce.

---------- Post added at 17:50 ---------- Previous post was at 17:47 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris View Post
I think you're right (to a point*), and this is one of the major reasons they will never completely supplant broadcast TV.

Around half of UK homes don't subscribe to any TV package at all. Sky has been around for 27 years now (almost to the day) - the market is at saturation point; those that don't already have it, are not very likely to go and get it now.

There are large numbers of people that simply won't connect to something if they have to pay for it.

*In future, it is more or less inevitable that as the big providers get into hard competition with each other, the use of adverts will become more widespread as a means of bringing in extra revenue. Look how many ads Sky runs per hour, and they get away with it - it's just a matter of time before big VOD providers start placing one or two ads in their streams.
Except that if the Tories get their way and the BBC goes down the route of
subscriptions rather than a licence fee, everyone will be making a choice based on what they can afford.

As far as ads on streaming services are concerned, the first company to do this will certainly lose my custom.
OLD BOY is offline   Reply With Quote