Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman
Why don’t you just buy broadband from someone else? Vodafone are doing it for £20 a month. Then some streaming.
Easy.
Except it’s not. Streaming doesn’t offer the compelling content that’s the bread and butter of pay-tv in this country.
You attach an importance to something unrealisable if you want it all on one box with integrated menus and search functions. Disney don’t want to direct you to Viacom content, or Netflix content, or NBC content.
If you think they do then you’ve missed the point altogether. If you are relying on a platform to offer it then it’s no different to Sky or Virgin now.
---------- Post added at 22:08 ---------- Previous post was at 22:07 ----------
Opinion pieces from digital marketing companies isn’t evidence.
|
No, because I am talking about the future, not the present. Much of the 'compelling content' on the main terrestrial channels will soon be available on Britbox UK later this year, which is another step towards that future. I am waiting for that cross over point when everything that is on pay tv is also on a streaming service and available in one place.
You say that Disney won't want their subscribers to access other content on the same box, but that is a nonsense argument that is answered just by looking at what is already happening. The route to maximising the chances subscribing to your service is to ensure it is on as many platforms as possible. Look at the Amazon Fire Stick, for example. Search for stuff on there and it also brings up the Netflix offerings. Netflix - their greatest competitor!
The presence of streaming services on as many platforms as possible is key to the biggest possible audience with the content you have to offer. Even Apple have come to that conclusion and will roll out their Apple+ service on platforms other than Apple.
A good example of what happens to streaming services that cannot find any popular platforms from which to offer their services is Eleven Sports, and look what happened to their plans for the UK.
You constantly denigrate just about everything that is posted by me and others, despite the links provided, but you rarely provide any links of your own to back up your contrary arguments. This leads me to the view that you tend to argue for the sake of it. It would be really nice if you could engage sensibly with the arguments put forward, but just basically saying 'No you're wrong because it will be the opposite and I'm right because I've studied economics' just doesn't wash, I'm afraid.
---------- Post added at 08:36 ---------- Previous post was at 08:27 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman
Yes, my point is that linear will continue to exist alongside streaming. I even accept there will be less linear channels.
However to the companies you mention the cost of maintaining linear, considering the prominence it gives them, is virtually zero.
|
And yet ITV was in deep trouble just a few years ago when their advertising revenues were hit due to the recession. Can't you see that when advertising no longer brings in sufficient reveue because audiences are going elsewhere for their entertainment, these channels will fold? It costs money to run a channel with decent content on it, despite what you say. Apart from organising schedules, etc, and the costs associated with broadcasting, they have to pay for the rights to show programmes by that method. If you are just showing old junk, I guess you can get the rights for peanuts, but if you are showing what people want to see, now that costs serious money.
It won't be a case of waiting until the last person stops watching scheduled tv before the system is shut down. It will be shut down when it is no longer worth the while of companies to broadcast their wares in that way.