[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by harry_hitch

Thank you for ignoring how Netflix will market their cheap tier.

Your answers are still unsatisfactory. I don't recall making many, if any assumptions. My posts have challenged a number of your assumptions, and you have come back with many, many different assumptions.

I am really fed up with your constant denial that you have changed your mind. This whole thread is testament to the fact you have.

I won't discuss Netflix with you anymore, simply because you think they won't ever take ad's. Even though you admit you think they could well accept ad's for cheaper subscription tiers in future so they can boost their business in future - via the use of ad's - that would be a shrewd move by Netflix though.

Please stop saying I don't like Netflix, I have said numerous occasions I do.
You simply don't seem to grasp Netflix does not have as strong a pull towards me as it does you, even though it is a good service as it stands.

Equally, I never said Netflix will be free with ad's. I have never said they will introduce different tiers, that is all your suggestion.

No amount of streaming services will appear to me, because it will always be cheaper for me to use linear TV. I will reuse to pay companies more than I do now for the option to watch what ever shows I want to watch on sky.

I don't ever recall asking for a spreadsheet. I knocked up some rudimentary numbers in one paragraph a few posts ago, based on Netflix doubling their viewership, for the cost of one show. Please give me a single paragraph with rudimentary numbers on how much you think one show and one film will cost to pay for, considering the cost involved for making the show and film. If you want to disregard my comments, prove me wrong.

With regards your "new" discussion (changed from your original point), people will still be watching linear tv in 20 years. The revenue will still come from ad money and content owners charging Netflix/Amazon higher cost's for back seasons of shows, if viewership declines. That's my answer. Feel free to discuss that. If Netflix etc becomes too big a threat, they could, effectively, be destroyed as a threat very quickly.

I invite you to discuss how streaming services will destroy linear TV, when the costs involved to customers will be higher than they are now. Also, how will it structured? Will it be bundled by Sky, and people can leave when they want? If so, where does the the guaranteed income come from? You may recall we have had this discussion before, but you choose to ignore my previous comments and want to discuss this again.

Lets leave the other stuff we have chatted about above alone, we are going in circles. Let's just concentrate on the last three paragraphs and tell me the monthly costs involved of streaming services, and how they will survive with out ad's and ow subscriptions.

Well, you do make me laugh, Harry! You pull every word I say apart in the most pedantic fashion and expect me to justify absolutely everything I say, and yet you make these sweeping statements such as the 'fact' that Netflix will have to take commercials, completely ignoring the fact that they've said they will not. It is difficult to have a sensible conversation when one side feels they can say whatever they like and ignore the contrary evidence and expects the other party to detail their views to the umpteenth amount of detail.

I agree, let's leave the Netflix issue aside, people can make their own judgement about whether to believe you or believe the company's stated position.

Concentrating on your last 3 paragraphs as you suggest, you seem to think I've 'changed ' my original point. I don't know what you mean by that because I have been consistent in my views on this throughout, although of course arguments and discussions can develop any theme.

I note that you seem to be saying that if linear TV broadcasters find their audience share declining, they will simply charge more for selling their original content to the streaming services. Well, that's tough luck for the likes of Gold, Dave, Syfy, W, Alibi and countless others who produce precious little if any of their own material. Even ITV has channels, such as ITV 2,3, and 4 that survive on repeats and imported material. Clearly, your (unreported) figures do not add up. Many, many linear channels would have to close if that was the only way to make up the increasing shortfall in revenue that I suggest will start to be noticeable in the medium term. If that's the best solution you have, I rest my case.

You may or may not be right about costs of streaming services in the future, but even if you are right and people will get less for their buck, this will not stop it from happening for the reasons I have stated many times. The only way linear channels can possibly survive in the long term is if they come up with something completely new which stops them haemorraging viewers. I cannot think what this would be, and therefore my conclusion is that they will die out eventually, with the smaller ones dying out first.

Once again, you ask me how the cost of streaming services will be structured, how they will be packaged, etc. How am I supposed to answer that? It's up to the satellite and cable providers to work that out and negotiate the best deals. Don't forget that wholesale deals guarantee income, which is a valuable mechanism that suits both parties, enabling the satellite/cable company to make a profit. Why do you see streaming services as so different from channels? The same principles apply, it's just that there will be rather less of them.

I have already sent you a link on the streaming services available in the US and what the various options would cost, but you chose to ignore this and complain that the article was about cord cutting! Simply look at those charges and use the dollars to pounds calculator and that will give you a pretty good idea. However, don't forget that there will be many additional options available including pay per view sites and those forcing ads down your throat at no extra cost.