Thread: The future of television
View Single Post
Old 13-06-2021, 20:40   #295
OLD BOY
Rise above the players
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Wokingham
Services: 2 V6 boxes with 360 software, Now, ITVX, Amazon, Netflix, Lionsgate+, Apple+, Disney+, Paramount +,
Posts: 14,618
OLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronze
OLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronzeOLD BOY is cast in bronze
Re: The future of television
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman View Post
A statement you’ve been invited to evidence on numerous occasions yet to date never taken the opportunity to do so. Your clear obsession with this subject won’t make this happen all by itself.

Right now linear ensures quality of service to end users, in high and ultra high definition. Something not achievable by streaming in a uniform way as broadcast television does.
What point are you making here? Is it not self evident that if we are paying for pay-tv channels as well as streaming services, it will be more expensive than if we just had a bouquet of streamers providing the same content?

Yes, it is true that TV channels provide a service that some are perfectly happy with, but people are not going to pay twice for the same content, are they? Even if they are obsessed with channel numbers and advertisement breaks.

I’m not sure either what you are getting at in inferring that ‘quality of service to end users, in high and ultra high definition’ is even applicable to scheduled TV. There is far more content in UHD on the streamers, and nothing in SD.

So your assertion that this is not achievable by streaming is palpable nonsense.

Perhaps you should clarify yourself.

---------- Post added at 20:37 ---------- Previous post was at 20:34 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by epsilon View Post
So don't buy them twice. You wouldn't buy your eggs from Asda and then go to Tesco to buy them again. Make a choice. Eventually you will choose the streamers but other viewers will choose scheduled content.

Happy days for everyone.
No, quite clearly you wouldn’t, and that is my point. If your satellite or cable subscription gave you a package of streamers with all that content that gives you almost unlimited choice, why would you want to pay for TV channels as well?

---------- Post added at 20:40 ---------- Previous post was at 20:37 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetman11 View Post
Good points , I can see the satellite platform hemorrhaging customers especially with every additional bit of content it loses going forward. I have lots and lots of friends and colleagues who have already cancelled their Sky subscriptions with many moving to Freeview/Freesat complemented by Now for Sport and streaming apps.

I can see Sky going over to IPTV with a box sent out in the post and installed by the customer , Now pretty much does this already but at some point I see the two meeting in the middle.

The extra money Sky saves on third party content will be invested into its own content with content from the NBCUniversal stable also.

Linear will still be very much part of its offering specifically for Sport and News.
I agree with all of that, except your last sentence. Why pay twice for the same content?
__________________
Forumbox.co.uk
OLD BOY is offline   Reply With Quote