Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman
Well, yes. That’s an evidence based assumption. Some bean counter for Amazon decided £5bn wasn’t a price worth paying in that climate. It’s the same question I always ask. What changes?
More superfast broadband? I’m sorry I don’t accept that Amazon would be shelling out £5bn on the difference between 95% and 100% coverage. They could also offer a satellite or cable broadcast - as DAZN do in Germany for pubs and other venues. These aren’t cost prohibitive steps for a £5bn investment - they are firmly in the ‘loose change’ category - if you have a business model.
It’s all a presumption by reporters regardless of terminology used. None of these companies, on recognised stock exchanges, would engage in tittle tattle though the Telegraph.
Old Boy the only person on this thread that sees the world in black and white is you with your streaming vs linear future rather than recognise they are complementary, not competing, technologies.
|
Clearly, you don’t buy the alternative view that Amazon’s last bid was a ‘toe in the water’ move. You have discounted that without explanation.
You want an evidence based argument? Well let’s hear yours then, jfman.
I am not seeing anything in black or white, jfman,that’s how you seem to view everything. I fully accept I could be wrong. Nobody, but nobody can be 100% certain about the future. But you and some others seem determined to try to paint everything I say as being ‘predictions’ that I would die in a ditch to defend. I don’t. I’m just giving my opinion on how I see things developing.
This is a discussion forum, after all.