Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman
Well, no.
The more content splinters, and the greater demand for limited content becomes, drives up prices.
I see DAZN have trebled their prices in Italy following acquisition of Serie A rights.
Why would they pay twice? As far as I can tell all the linear channels of any note have a streaming presence. They’re not mutually exclusive in the way you seem to portray.
Not for end users without internet or with slow speeds it isn’t.
For someone who objects to the Now TV boost I think you’ll find many more object to having to pay ever increasing amounts for a quality internet service just to receive television.
Palpable nonsense? See above.
Because the average user isn’t dogmatic like you are OB. They’ll watch linear when it suits, record when it suits, and stream when it suits (if of course their internet is up to it).
As you’ve been unable to quantify the cost of maintaining a linear presence in addition to streaming for existing linear channels - essentially the status quo - it’s clearly palpable nonsense that users are paying twice for the same content.
|
You are creating arguments out of points I have not made. As usual.
For starters, you need to pay more attention to what is actually happening before you respond to these things.
The new approach, as you don’t need me to remind you, is the ‘direct to consumer’ approach, and by that we are talking about all content being available on streamers. Given that we are now finding channels closing down and the content being transferred exclusively to streamers, I don’t know where this option is going to be for people to watch this content through TV channels even if they wanted to. Note that Disney+ has closed all its children’s channels and all its film channels. The content is now on Disney+ and there are no linear channels, just as I have said would happen all the way along. But for some inexplicable reason, you don’t see that. The next closures will probably be the Discovery channels, and Discovery+ doesn’t have linear channels either.
Now although linear channels are available on Pluto TV, Now and the BBC I-Player,, these are very much exceptions, and the first two put their on demand content more prominently on their streamers. I cannot see the linear channels continuing to appear on Now (TV) when Sky finally launch their streamer (Peacock), although they may continue the practice until the satellite part of their business continues. The I-Player is unlikely to change until all terrestrial is transferred to IPTV.
Of course viewers will not pay twice for the same content. So if, for example, Virgin decided to offer a choice of streamer bundles and terrestrial TV, and it is almost certain that this will be the case, we would no longer be paying for pay-tv channels because they would no longer be offered. There would be no point in doing so, would there?
You claimed that ‘quality of service to end users, in high and ultra high definition’ is even applicable to scheduled TV. When I questioned you on that your response was that UHD was not available to those not on the internet or who suffered low speeds. But that does not address the point that the streamers offer so much more UHD and no SD, making your assertion completely wrong. I might as well respond to your point by saying that Freeview channels were not available to people without electricity. Clear, unambiguous nonsense.
As for your ‘cost of maintaining linear TV’ argument is concerned, again, it is the wrong argument. The future is with the streamers, and most of these will not carry an option of linear channels, whether you like it or not. Disney is showing the way. All the things you have been denying in relation to my vision of the future are starting to be realised, but jfman, you just carry on arguing. In fact, I suspect that you will still be arguing when the last linear channel has closed down.