[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by harry_hitch

I find enough stuff to watch on Netflix OB, as I have stated many times before. Amazon just does not appeal to me. They do have some stuff I would watch, but I will pay them per episode for something I would not fully own, I would rather buy the bluray. The trouble I have is, like many linear tv channels, they are also choc full of old shows. As I have also stated before, I don't care how many shows Netflix are releasing, it is the quality of them that matters. I have this about the quality of shows on SA before too. Let's not quibble about this though, again it is personal preference.

You have changed your mind frequently though. If you are not sure what will happen, we can stop our discussion on this and leave that you think linear TV will be dead in 20 years, and I don't. Equally, if you speculate what you think will happen, anyone has the right to challenge your thought process. It is for you to convince me how streaming services will work, and how it will work as well as it does for everyone now.

Surely, if Sky offer bundles, people are not cutting the cord. People will still be paying high monthly subscriptions to a company. Lets say there are 10 streaming services on Sky (is that a fair number) all in full HD/4k at the low, low price of £2.99 per service, that is still £29.90 a month. Pretty much what people pay now, so how will that work for cord cutting?

Again, how will HBO make more money, and why will they change their business model? Their content is already available PPV, the day after the seasons end on Sky. I believe they have already stated they make more money from Sky than they could through a streaming service.

I am no maths expert, but I still figured out some figures ad hoc as I wrote, and they were expensive costs. Please take the time to figure out the costs for worldwide exclusive rights for the number of films and tv shows, from all the different movie studios and content providers. I am genuinely interested to see how much you think this will cost.

You missed my point on the ripping off. The price VM etc charge their customers for the lower package, covers the cost for that package alone. M customers, do not pay for Fox etc, so there is no profit for VM from Fox etc for those customers on M package. You said Netflix will gain more profit to pay for more content by getting customers to take out lower packages. The customers on lower packages will not contribute to the cost of new content, because they are not paying to watch that content. The only way Netflix will make money for the new content off of the lower price tier, is to put the prices up with out those customers getting any extra content. Much like VM have done recently, and look at the comments about it on here.

No-one, myself included, have denied changes will happen. I simply don't think linear TV will be dead in 20 years.

---------- Post added at 15:37 ---------- Previous post was at 15:36 ----------



Indeed that is the case den, I await the next step of attempted brainwashing.

I agree that there is a certain amount of 'repeated' material on Netflix (the same as you get on broadcast channels really) but I can only say that there is so much on there that I have not yet seen, it is like a treasure trove for me. The shows I have picked out I am slowly plodding through, but there is so much yet to see, and so much being added, I will never be able to get through it, particularly with the shows I've recorded and those I can watch via Amazon and Now TV as well. I can assure you I'm watching only pretty good quality stuff, I cannot abide some of those tame run of the mill American dramas that fail to tax the grey matter.

I have not 'changed my mind frequently' Harry. I have merely answered the 'what if' questions you have been posting. My central premise (again) is that as viewing habits change over the next couple of decades, more people will be streaming rather than watching scheduled TV and it will ultimately become uneconomic to continue to run conventional commercial channels. That is all I am saying, and I don't need to be able to answer all questions posted on here with chapter and verse. However, I think that most of them I have answered (although it is difficult to break down Chris's arguments that the problems he has identified will never be solved!).

Why do you expect me to persuade you as to how streaming services are to work? I cannot predict accurately market developments over that time! However, what is happening in the US is one indicator of how things are starting to move. This link might be of interest to you.

http://www.slate.com/articles/busine...alculator.html

I think you misunderstand my views on this, as you have referred to 'cord cutting'. I think it is perfectly possible that Sky, Virgin Media, BT and other providers will offer packages of streaming services. I don't think I have ever mentioned cord cutting.

I have no idea what the 'worldwide costs' would be Harry. In any case this is irrelevant. The point I was making is that it costs less per customer to buy the rights if you control a bigger network than that of a smaller network. So it stands to reason that the price per customer for a national operation will be much more than for a worldwide operation. So a worldwide company will be in a better position to pay out for rights to shows, games, etc than the likes of Sky (unless they expanded in the same way).

I don't understand your train of thought on Netflix and others having cheaper packages. The way I see it, if we stick with Netflix as an example, the existing package with original material could be on offer as the cheaper option (the price will probably have to be about £11 per month to be viable), but there would be a more expensive option that would include a lot more premium material.

I respect your view that linear TV services will still be running in 20 years. Maybe they will, but I don't know how they will be able to run their channels at a loss and I cannot think how they can come up with anything to draw people away from the freedom they gain through subscribing to streaming services. Only if those streaming services flood their programmes with commercials will there be less incentive to use them, but even then, you can watch the programmes you want to see at your convenience.

I remain of the view that a decent selection of subscribed streaming services will be available in the years to come, as well as PPV and 'free unskippable ads' services. In short, there will be something for everybody.

---------- Post added at 12:03 ---------- Previous post was at 11:55 ----------

Originally Posted by muppetman11

Why do you keep banging on to Harry about Sky's non premium channels.

Harry's Sky subscription offers him far more than just those channels for instance National Geographic , Discovery , History , W , Alibi , Gold , Fox , Comedy Central , SyFy , Universal , Eden and that's just the tip of the iceberg.

All the broadcasters available on pay tv combined put far more new content out than the streaming services you list.

A lot of the material is low grade, repeated stuff. Some of it is good, I don't deny that, but once you discount the amount of rubbish on these channels, this is not good value at all.

In my view, there is no comparison to Netflix.