Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman
I don't have anything against more choice per se.
However you could end up in a ridiculous situation where content splinters so much that only a tiny number of people benefit from 'new' entrants offering near similar products.
In a hypothetical scenario if all of the major content companies (Disney, Viacom, etc) decide they'd prefer to market their own content at £6-8 per month the vast majority of people would be worse off overall than the status quo.
If Virgin, Sky etc can wholesale the content and an additional standalone service is offered, then that's the best of both worlds. However I fear the streaming future is just going to leave the vast majority paying for a basic TV service, plus three or four add ons, to be worse off while trying to maintain the same quantity/quality of content they have at the minute.
In reality for those who don't want to pay huge amounts the choices have never been better with Netflix, Amazon and Now TV.
I'm not sure what value Lionsgate, Disney, Viacom, etc. would bring to the market with separate standalone offerings that aren't bundled with Sky, Virgin etc.
|
I really do think that Virgin, Sky and BT will offer bundles of streaming services rather than scheduled linear channels in the future, so your fears should prove unwarranted.
As I said earlier, more streaming services means more choice. You don't have to take them all if you have to pay a subscription.
---------- Post added at 19:18 ---------- Previous post was at 19:14 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raider999
Exactly - people in limited income will bin pay to, go to the pub to watch footie etc nursing a single drink.
A case of suppliers getting too greedy.
|
If you are on a limited income, you might not be able to afford Netflix, but you might just stretch to Starz, which is half the price and appears to offer a good range of content.
I think it is sports that give the most cause for concern, but maybe a major disrupter such as Amazon may force change for the better.