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 ----------
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.