Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman
It’s just a paradox to consistently claim their offering is poor yet here we are.
We clearly get less. The further splintering of rights by studio across different platforms means we can no longer enjoy from the traditional incumbents using economies of scale to bring us more content.
Indeed, even Channel 4 and Five would previously have had a decent offering of US content slipping down to them now being retained by studio run streaming services. You yourself have post countless times this to be the case, and a lowering of quality of what is left over for what you deem “linear” channels in a poorly defined way.
Who pays for that? Philanthropic studios?
No, the mugs. The end user.
|
It’s not a paradox. My wife is not really very good at coping with the streamers at her age, and as you well know, the older you are the less you can cope with new stuff.
I don’t know what rocks your boat, but the pay TV listings are much worse than they ever were before and I find myself recording less and less. Go into the streamers and you get a fantastic choice to watch any time.
It is true that there are fewer shows available on the pay TV channels as well as most of the terrestrials these days, but I still believe that the streamers offer much better value than the pay-tv channels. Netflix on its own has more choice, and you can jump between the streamers too because you are not hooked into a contract.
You could have all you need through a Freeview box and just one streamer, which you could change from time to time.
As you know, I am not talking about sport, which is a different matter altogether.