Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman
I've never said that streaming won't be successful - only that it's not as black and white as being portrayed by some on the forum. There's also limited space in the pay-tv market (which streaming is part of). Not every new streamer is guaranteed success although the underlying hype is that they can all be the 'next Netflix'.
I agree that the industry is changing - content owners are pushing end to end distribution of their content and removing the middle men.
However at the same time I see it as an evolution not a revolution. It's still just television. The point I've consistently made is that linear remains cheap for anyone who owns the content anyway - these will be companies also involved in streaming content. These companies won't see it as a zero sum game the way it's portrayed here. It's an additional revenue stream (pun not intended) that costs virtually nothing to maintain.
|
Hmm, come back to this at some point on the linear thread, but for now..
There can't be systemic change and business as usual. Either there has/will be a tipping point and business is done differently, or not. Whether that's revolution or evolution, not sure, but yes it is still tv.
I agree though, that for our country and some other markets, it's no so black and white, or at least not yet as we're very different to the States. But in America, it's clear that pay tv is in terminal decline and streaming is on the rise. If and when, the tech cos move into sports in a very big way, that would be the final death knell for the traditional cable/satellite tv services over there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman
The danger being that lenders are comfortable with cable operators because of the huge asset - the network. Even where massive state intervention funds FTTP networks the majority of consumers - worldwide - will end up in practice having a choice of one or two ISPs in addition to cable.
A streamer in a chunk of debt that is heavily reliant on third parties for content is always at risk of a new entrant (especially a content owner) coming in and offering a like for like service minus the huge costs in servicing the debt. That's a lower price point to consumers and greater market share in theory.
|
I think anything internet related is always at risk of someone new coming along, so in that sense, I agree. But Netflix is huge now with a vast catalogue of its own content and others like Disney and Comcast have vast libraries of their own content, plus theme parks (virus, not withstanding) so these are massive assets in their own right too.
On networks, some see them as assets (like bricks and mortar) and others see them as liabilities which need tons of money to keep maintaining, so not sure I'd quite equate networks to streamers.