Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman
Old Boy there’s really no need to be insulting about the viewing habits of other people as “hardly stimulating”. It’s television, by any mechanism it’s delivered, it’s a broadly passive experience.
It’s curious how you are insistent this is how the future must be despite recognising the many barriers new entrants face and fail to recognise that it’s far easier for incumbents in the pay-tv market to deliver apps/on demand than app developers to put their content on the largest platforms with the easiest and most user friendly interfaces.
It’s sitting watching a rectangular box at the end of the day and the vast majority of people don’t feel in any way strongly about the technology behind it. The evidence points to most people enjoying a mix of watching live, on demand and on apps. I’ve no idea why you feel so strongly against offering people a range of options to suit their preferences and needs.
Ironically if television evolves beyond being passive it will be through social media interaction. Which necessitates that everyone is watching at broadly the same second. What’s the cheapest and most effective way to deliver that I wonder?
|
Well, jfman, if you are suggesting that people who plonk themselves in front of the box and just gaze at whatever the channel they are on throws at them receive stimulating viewing, I fail to see where you are coming from. For anyone to be so passive about what they watch suggests to me a state which is almost comatose.
Yes, people do watch a mix of live, on demand and streaming, and that is fair enough, but as we all become used to having the choice and only watch what is of interest, live viewing will become less and less until it becomes unviable or not worth the effort.
I think your reference to the barriers new entrants face is aimed at sport, and you are drawing on the experience of Eleven Sports. It is true that new entrants will find it an uphill struggle, but the same applies to existing conventional TV channels, doesn't it? Sky already streams on Now TV, and no doubt they will do so more and more with time as broadband rolls out and people get more used to streaming live TV.
As I have said many times, the demise of the linear channels is not what I 'want' - I don't give a toss personally as I don't watch them - I just think that this is the way it's going. The BBC agrees.
---------- Post added at 19:42 ---------- Previous post was at 19:39 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by oliver1948uk
I just cannot get my head round the implication from OldBoy that programmes produced in the past are 'any old junk'. Many of us did not have the time to view series first time round so I find channels like Drama have much enjoyable content which is so much easier to find and record than ploughing through hundreds of possibilities on Netflix only to find your choice was made with amateurish actors in some far off country and shown with subtitles
|
My point was simply that watching the same old repeats over and over seems mindless to me when there is so much new stuff people could be watching instead.
If you've not seen the programme before, of course, it's not a 'repeat' to you.
When I look at my Netflix watch list, I really cannot identify with your comment about their content. How can you seriously believe that the content on Netflix is inferior to what you can find in respect of dramas on the TV channels? How bizarre!
---------- Post added at 19:46 ---------- Previous post was at 19:42 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by denphone
As usual OB has his rose tinted glasses on believing there is only one future while being dismissive of anybody who shares a rather different view of the future then him.
|
As I keep saying to you, Den, the media industry agrees that this is the way we are heading. It is you wearing the rose tinted glasses, not I.