Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
Please DO NOT reply to posts by typing inside the quote you’re responding to. It screws up the forum formatting when someone later wants to respond to you.
One post removed.
|
Oh, thanks for that, Chris, really helpful. I only did it that way to avoid the more time-consuming method. However, consider me told. jfman will need to guess at my responses, but it really shouldn’t take too much brainpower, I guess.
---------- Post added at 20:37 ---------- Previous post was at 20:28 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by epsilon
I do realise that your fantasy situation is to have world where only streamers exist and linear channels no longer exist. Nobody else is going to look at broadcasting with exactly the same extreme viewpoint as yourself. It isn't going to make anyone who doesn't want to seek out content on a streamer to suddenly think "oh! OLD BOY dreams of a world where linear channels no longer exist. I must change my life around and stop watching scheduled TV". Really, it just isn't going to happen.
Okay, let's look at Disney, it tried and failed to acquire Sky. If it had been successful I don't think they would have gone through the scheduled channel cull we have now seen. When the Disney kids channels closed, reports were that Disney was asking too much to recontract for channels with declining viewing patterns. Nothing unusual there, viewing patterns change and pay-tv providers no longer consider them to be worth the asking price. The profit margin is no longer there for the pay-tv provider.
Disney is fairly unique, it has the global scale to throw all its weight behind its streaming service. As a global provider, it doesn't even matter if their decision in the UK and Europe loses viewers. They are charging their subscribers far more than they were getting from the pay-tv providers so they still have some income, even in the worst case scenario. In America, they still have the ABC network as an outlet for scheduled content, so very little risk in that market.
Looking at the other channel closures over the last few months, I don't see anything to be of concern. CBS/Viacom killed off a few music channels, viewing figures have been dropping for years in this genre, so understandable. Discovery killed off a few of their under-performing channels. They have recently acquired channels from UKTV and were spreading their content too thinly across their channels. Some fairly routine and far from unexpected changes there.
No real indication of the pay-tv providers haemorrhaging channels.
---------- Post added at 19:54 ---------- Previous post was at 19:46 ----------
I wonder how he thinks it will be funded. If Sky dropped the Disney channels because the profit margin was too small, why would they be happy to move from selling scheduled channels direct to their own customers. The small amount of cash received from acting as a subscription collector for global streamers isn't going to be enough to run a viable TV platform.
Not to mention that the streamers will be reluctant to wholesale their streaming platforms, it cuts into their profit margins too.
|
This is just fantasy, you know. I have said the linear channels will close years ago and I was derided for expressing such an opinion. Now it’s actually started to happen, well within my timeframe, you are pleading a special case forDisney. What will be the special case for Discovery channels, which are probably the next in line.
As for adding these streamers to TV platforms, how do you explain the streamers we already have on Sky, Virgin Media and BT? How do you explain Roku and Amazon Fire?
Whatever the economic arguments you may have, please just acknowledge that it is already happening!
You are personalising this as if it’s my fault!