Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman
Once again you’re fundamentally misunderstanding that the pay-tv market is well developed, as is the free to air market. Television isn’t new. Delivering it over IP - if we actually get there - changes very little.
I’m not sure “poorer households” is anything other than a deliberate slur against people who consider the multitude of streaming services a large waste of money, just as around half of households in the UK didn’t have Sky or cable services when those peaked.
Streaming services don’t have an automatic right to the hard earned cash that makes up household disposable income. As they get increasingly more expensive as quality content gets ever more fragmented the bubble will burst for many.
---------- Post added at 18:33 ---------- Previous post was at 18:32 ----------
Long live linear television.
|
I’m misunderstanding nothing, we just have different views.
My reference to poorer households was not a slur at all, just a recognition that such households won’t be forking out for streamers.
I recognise also that there is a sizeable contingent of the population that steadfastly refuse to pay any more than the licence fee to watch TV.
With regard to your last paragraph, I’ve always believed that the streaming option will become less expensive with more choice over time. You can be reassured that the streamers are now considering the bundling of content with rival streamers. That should make streamers more accessible and bring us lower prices than paying for each streamer separately.