The future of television

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I said ‘if’. In any case, how can I possibly prove to you what has not yet happened? I can’t link to the future, and even if I could, you’d find some obscure or silly reason to rubbish it. May I remind you that we are talking about a prediction relating to future developments here. It’s already half way to coming a reality and we’ve not even reached 50% of the way through the period yet.

Yes OB, I'm fully aware we are still 11 years away from your being proven wrong definitively however many of your assumptions have proven to be incorrect in the interim.

No adverts, undoubtedly appealing to anyone who watches television, has been debunked. Quick movement of "streamers" into the top tier of sports rights has not came to pass.

You are clearly not grasping this argument. You seem to think that the TV channels will continue right up until the last person has stopped watching them. This is a curious and unrealistic stance for you to take. Firstly, there would come a tipping point when it was no longer worth the time and money to spend on ‘linear’ channels, and secondly, the transmitters and satellite transponders are unlikely to continue to be available by 2035. I cannot see any reason for the ‘linear’ channels continuing via IPTV due to diminishing content and the better choice that on demand viewing offers. In the end, it’s the broadcasters’ decision, not the audience’s, and that decision will be forced by diminishing advertising revenues.

A lovely straw man argument against a point nobody has actually made on the forum. Nobody, anywhere, has claimed linear would continue until the last viewer.

Nor would a content owner have additional rights costs in broadcasting both.

My dear chap, I cannot evidence the future as you request, and you can’t prove your view that ‘linear’ channels and streaming will continue to exist side by side.

I can watch it on Peacock. I'm unsure why profit seeking, rational, companies would develop and offer such a product if it were truly as straightforward as your simplistic analysis claims.

In my view, the change to streaming only will come when the existing contracts for the use of transmitters and transponders ends. Your insistence that broadcasters would use two different methods of content provision when one would do, is bonkers. Successful businesses survive by keeping costs low and maximising income.

In what way does maximising income mean closing existing revenue streams?

Ever heard of advertising and reviews? Come on, jfman, use your imagination.

I'll leave imaginary futures as your area of expertise.

Yes, by the looks of it (as explained previously).

You could have fooled me! Your responses to any suggestion that your precious TV channels will be lost convey just a little hysteria.

Once again you needlessly personalise your rebuttals in complete ignorance of my viewing habits and giving disproportionate weight to those which you imagined.

I have considered the alternative of which you speak, but I’ve ruled it out for all the reasons I've given.

None of my predictions have ‘unravelled’ although FAST channels are now in the mix, and I acknowledge that these will continue. The streamers continue to provide ‘no ads’ options and it was the Netflix CEO who said there would never be any advertisements on Netflix.

As for the Premier League, the point I have been making is that the global streamers could blow Sky out of the water if they wished to, because simply they have more resources, and that is undeniable. They have not yet chosen to do so, but sports streaming is becoming more prevalent now, as I am sure you will acknowledge.

I'd be more concerned that rational capitalists exit the market unable to bid the fair market price.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

Yes OB, I'm fully aware we are still 11 years away from your being proven wrong definitively however many of your assumptions have proven to be incorrect in the interim.

No adverts, undoubtedly appealing to anyone who watches television, has been debunked. Quick movement of "streamers" into the top tier of sports rights has not came to pass.

What nonsense you do talk! Every premium streamer has an ad-free option, which was my point back then. You could watch content free of ads, a position that remains true now, and I think always will be. I will not be proven wrong, and you cannot prove otherwise, so let’s wait and see.

Originally Posted by jfman

A lovely straw man argument against a point nobody has actually made on the forum. Nobody, anywhere, has claimed linear would continue until the last viewer.

Nor would a content owner have additional rights costs in broadcasting both.

[QUOTE=jfman;36181875]

Not at all your favourite ‘straw man’ scenario. Your argument is based on viewer preferences, whereas I am saying that the broadcasters, not the viewers, will determine the position.

Originally Posted by jfman

I can watch it on Peacock. I'm unsure why profit seeking, rational, companies would develop and offer such a product if it were truly as straightforward as your simplistic analysis claims.

You forgot NOW. Yes, I am aware of them of course, but these are not typical streamers, and when Sky switch off their ‘linear’ channels, this will cease to be an issue.

Originally Posted by jfman

In what way does maximising income mean closing existing revenue streams?

Now you are just being silly. One of the reasons put forward by the Beeb for BBC3 to go ‘online only’ was cost, do you not remember that?

Originally Posted by jfman

I'll leave imaginary futures as your area of expertise.

That’s not one of your most intelligent answers to a response I have made to one of your idiotic questions, jfman. Clearly you have no answer, have you?

Originally Posted by jfman

Once again you needlessly personalise your rebuttals in complete ignorance of my viewing habits and giving disproportionate weight to those which you imagined.

I know (at least according to your posts) that you use a number of streamers, which makes your hysterical responses even more perplexing. Clearly you understand the value of using streamers, but you steadfastly assert that people prefer TV channels and they would be somehow deprived without them! Priceless!

Originally Posted by jfman

I'd be more concerned that rational capitalists exit the market unable to bid the fair market price.

I note your concern.

[Mr K]

There must be better causes in your life OB? How about supporting John Redwood in his hour of need , or saving the Panda, or Wokingham Town FC ? They need your support more than streaming TV .

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

What nonsense you do talk! Every premium streamer has an ad-free option, which was my point back then. You could watch content free of ads, a position that remains true now, and I think always will be. I will not be proven wrong, and you cannot prove otherwise, so let’s wait and see.

This absolutely was not the unique selling point of streaming. Something as absurd as “you can pay a price premium to skip ads just as you can with a hard drive recorder” would have been so ridiculous it’d have been noted.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Not at all your favourite ‘straw man’ scenario. Your argument is based on viewer preferences, whereas I am saying that the broadcasters, not the viewers, will determine the position.

This is not how competitive markets work, OB. So long as rational consumers in the marketplace continue to use their eyeballs to watch television rational capitalists - ITV, Five, Sky - will have no reason to cannibalise their revenue streams to indulge your completely arbitrary date.

You forgot NOW. Yes, I am aware of them of course, but these are not typical streamers, and when Sky switch off their ‘linear’ channels, this will cease to be an issue.

The fact you perceive this is an “issue” at all is testament to the perverse prism through which you view the television market. The fact that other people, having no discernible effect on anything at all, can rationally consume television other than in the manner you prefer, leaves you incandescent with rage clutching at every straw from every blog going. Opining about everything from 5G to World War 3 just to switch off a broadcast mechanism millions of people - including subscribers to streaming services - consume on a regular basis despite time shifting and on demand being around for decades.

Now you are just being silly. One of the reasons put forward by the Beeb for BBC3 to go ‘online only’ was cost, do you not remember that?

And the reason they brought it back was nobody watched it!

That’s not one of your most intelligent answers to a response I have made to one of your idiotic questions, jfman. Clearly you have no answer, have you?

I was extremely pleased with that response, to be honest. Imagining things doesn’t bring them into existence by sheer will.

I know (at least according to your posts) that you use a number of streamers, which makes your hysterical responses even more perplexing. Clearly you understand the value of using streamers, but you steadfastly assert that people prefer TV channels and they would be somehow deprived without them! Priceless!

Another straw man. However you are correct in one narrow respect - the arbitrary and needless removal of digital terrestrial would deprive television services millions of households that either cannot get, or choose not to subscribe to, internet services capable of carrying streaming services.

The viewing preferences for the public as a whole are a matter of public record across linear, on demand, etc. through ratings and Ofcom surveys.

I understand the value of content in a technologically agnostic way, not that I expect rights holders would necessarily approve of me taking up services not targeted at the UK.

I don’t sit there and be a slave to whatever the Netflix window wants to promote to me because 20,000 or less people watched it in the UK in the last 7 days and make an assumption of quality on that basis.

---------- Post added at 21:28 ---------- Previous post was at 21:21 ----------

Originally Posted by Mr K

There must be better causes in your life OB? How about supporting John Redwood in his hour of need , or saving the Panda, or Wokingham Town FC ? They need your support more than streaming TV .

I suspect he will be here well into the night calling for Ofcom to switch off TV masts despite millions of households using them. All to savour that dream of one day watching the premium sports content currently on Sky from an American streamer, at greater cost, on a 45 second delay with interactive betting adverts. Press red or green to bet 3 days subscription on who gets the next throw in. Then they’ll cut you off for the rest of the game once you get it wrong.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

This absolutely was not the unique selling point of streaming. Something as absurd as “you can pay a price premium to skip ads just as you can with a hard drive recorder” would have been so ridiculous it’d have been noted.

Your perverse views don’t line up with the facts. The Netflix CEO originally stated that Netflix would not have ads. So clearly, that was the original intention - a library of content, uninterrupted by ads. That’s how DVDs worked, remember, and Netflix replaced Blockbusters.

You are also incorrect in stating that this supposed USP was that you could ‘skip ads’. This is incorrect. You don’t need to skip ads if the ads aren’t there in the first place. The USP was clearly the vast video library at one’s fingertips, which you could select from just like Blockbusters, but without getting out of your armchair. Other streamers such as Amazon Prime were set up on a similar basis, without ads.

As time has passed, and after shedloads of money have been spent on content, and debts have mounted due to the initial investment and the need to continue to create more and more originals of a suitable quality, the streamers have hit on the idea of cheaper subscriptions with ads that people can opt for, increasing their customer base while increasing yield still further with the money gained from commercials.

Note that the absence of ads on the premium package has been preserved, and with time I hope the streamers will provide a more limited library with ads free of charge to increase their audience and revenue from advertising still further.

Originally Posted by jfman

This is not how competitive markets work, OB. So long as rational consumers in the marketplace continue to use their eyeballs to watch television rational capitalists - ITV, Five, Sky - will have no reason to cannibalise their revenue streams to indulge your completely arbitrary date.

So why are the broadcasters already encouraging viewers to switch to their on demand offerings then? You can watch a whole series in one go on demand, whereas you have to watch it over a period of days or weeks on scheduled TV. If the broadcasters were not meaning to encourage people to rely on streaming, why would they not add an episode at a time to align with the conventional TV channels?

Channel 5 has even taken to making the first episode of a series available on its channel and telling us that to see the rest, we have to go to the streamer.

Open your eyes, jfman. What you keep saying is impossible is already happening.

Originally Posted by jfman

The fact you perceive this is an “issue” at all is testament to the perverse prism through which you view the television market. The fact that other people, having no discernible effect on anything at all, can rationally consume television other than in the manner you prefer, leaves you incandescent with rage clutching at every straw from every blog going. Opining about everything from 5G to World War 3 just to switch off a broadcast mechanism millions of people - including subscribers to streaming services - consume on a regular basis despite time shifting and on demand being around for decades.

You are the one perceiving it as an ‘issue’ - you are the one who made the point that I was answering.

I am well aware that at present, many people consume TV through the ‘linear’ channels as well as through streaming. I am also well aware that a lot of people currently watch scheduled TV only. What is your point? What I have been saying is that in the future, that choice may not, and probably will not, be available. People can’t watch on a service that has been pulled.

I don’t know why you perceive me being in a ‘rage’ about this. You’re the one relentlessly picking over the bones on this subject like your life depended on it. I could ask you why you keep carrying on with this same old argument. You may disagree, which is your right, but you are so determined to have everyone believe that I am wrong, you just can’t leave it alone, can you?

I am opining over nothing. As long as I have choices, as I have now, I am happy. The demise of ‘linear’ TV is simply my view of what I see as where this is all leading. You don’t see it. Fine. Watch and learn.

Originally Posted by jfman

And the reason they brought it back was nobody watched it!

We have covered that already, and you may recall that I said right from the start that they pulled the channel too early. That was a tactical mistake on their part.

Originally Posted by jfman

I was extremely pleased with that response, to be honest. Imagining things doesn’t bring them into existence by sheer will.

How bizarre! I would say back to you that imagining that a service will be in place forever just because you want it to be so doesn’t make it happen either.

I’m not making anything happen. I’m observing. You are burying your head in the sand with your fingers in your ears singing “La la la” at the top of your voice.

Originally Posted by jfman

Another straw man. However you are correct in one narrow respect - the arbitrary and needless removal of digital terrestrial would deprive television services millions of households that either cannot get, or choose not to subscribe to, internet services capable of carrying streaming services.

The viewing preferences for the public as a whole are a matter of public record across linear, on demand, etc. through ratings and Ofcom surveys.

I understand the value of content in a technologically agnostic way, not that I expect rights holders would necessarily approve of me taking up services not targeted at the UK.

I don’t sit there and be a slave to whatever the Netflix window wants to promote to me because 20,000 or less people watched it in the UK in the last 7 days and make an assumption of quality on that basis.

You do like your straw men, don’t you? You see them everywhere. You must have watched too much Worzel Gummidge back in the day. PS - he’s not real!

You say the move to digital only would be ‘arbitrary and needless’ despite the evidence that transmitters will be used for other purposes in the next decade and that most homes are now connected to broadband. It is also what the broadcasters are pushing for. Transmitters and satellite transponders are expensive, and it costs more to run ‘linear’ channels than it does to add content to a streamer.

It is not a matter of ‘what the public want’ which you keep repeating over and over. It’s what the broadcasters decide - why don’t you get that? People cannot tap into a service that doesn’t exist.

The rest of your point is rather vague - I don’t get the point you are making. Nobody is a slave to Netflix, but many people are slaves to the schedules.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Your perverse views don’t line up with the facts. The Netflix CEO originally stated that Netflix would not have ads. So clearly, that was the original intention - a library of content, uninterrupted by ads. That’s how DVDs worked, remember, and Netflix replaced Blockbusters.

You are also incorrect in stating that this supposed USP was that you could ‘skip ads’. This is incorrect. You don’t need to skip ads if the ads aren’t there in the first place. The USP was clearly the vast video library at one’s fingertips, which you could select from just like Blockbusters, but without getting out of your armchair. Other streamers such as Amazon Prime were set up on a similar basis, without ads.

This seems like a needlessly pedantic interpretation of what I indicated. To the end user it would have looked the same. Regardless, it was a myth. Bait and switch from the streaming services that are inserting unstoppable ads and charging price premiums to avoid them.

As time has passed, and after shedloads of money have been spent on content, and debts have mounted due to the initial investment and the need to continue to create more and more originals of a suitable quality, the streamers have hit on the idea of cheaper subscriptions with ads that people can opt for, increasing their customer base while increasing yield still further with the money gained from commercials.

In other words - as many forum members indicated to you at the time - the low cost streaming future that you prophesied was a complete myth.

Note that the absence of ads on the premium package has been preserved, and with time I hope the streamers will provide a more limited library with ads free of charge to increase their audience and revenue from advertising still further.

Price premiums, price rises. All trying to salvage something from an inherently unsustainable business model.

So why are the broadcasters already encouraging viewers to switch to their on demand offerings then? You can watch a whole series in one go on demand, whereas you have to watch it over a period of days or weeks on scheduled TV. If the broadcasters were not meaning to encourage people to rely on streaming, why would they not add an episode at a time to align with the conventional TV channels?

Why wouldn't they? Unskippable ads. They're quite happy to deteriorate the viewing experience to improve the bottom line. It's got nothing to do with viewers preferences.

Channel 5 has even taken to making the first episode of a series available on its channel and telling us that to see the rest, we have to go to the streamer.

Open your eyes, jfman. What you keep saying is impossible is already happening.

You keep telling me to open my eyes yet when I tell you what is observably true in the present (broadcasters using both linear and streaming) you tell me that's irrelevant - which is it?

Why would Channel 5, keen to promote it's content, readily give up it's position of being beamed free to air into 28 million households?

You are the one perceiving it as an ‘issue’ - you are the one who made the point that I was answering.

I am well aware that at present, many people consume TV through the ‘linear’ channels as well as through streaming. I am also well aware that a lot of people currently watch scheduled TV only. What is your point? What I have been saying is that in the future, that choice may not, and probably will not, be available. People can’t watch on a service that has been pulled.

But why would rational profit seeking capitalists seek to cannibalise their own revenue streams in this irrational manner?

I don’t know why you perceive me being in a ‘rage’ about this. You’re the one relentlessly picking over the bones on this subject like your life depended on it. I could ask you why you keep carrying on with this same old argument. You may disagree, which is your right, but you are so determined to have everyone believe that I am wrong, you just can’t leave it alone, can you?

I am opining over nothing. As long as I have choices, as I have now, I am happy. The demise of ‘linear’ TV is simply my view of what I see as where this is all leading. You don’t see it. Fine. Watch and learn.

We have covered that already, and you may recall that I said right from the start that they pulled the channel too early. That was a tactical mistake on their part.

How bizarre! I would say back to you that imagining that a service will be in place forever just because you want it to be so doesn’t make it happen either.

I’m not making anything happen. I’m observing. You are burying your head in the sand with your fingers in your ears singing “La la la” at the top of your voice.

You do like your straw men, don’t you? You see them everywhere. You must have watched too much Worzel Gummidge back in the day. PS - he’s not real!

You say the move to digital only would be ‘arbitrary and needless’ despite the evidence that transmitters will be used for other purposes in the next decade and that most homes are now connected to broadband. It is also what the broadcasters are pushing for. Transmitters and satellite transponders are expensive, and it costs more to run ‘linear’ channels than it does to add content to a streamer.

It is not a matter of ‘what the public want’ which you keep repeating over and over. It’s what the broadcasters decide - why don’t you get that? People cannot tap into a service that doesn’t exist.

The rest of your point is rather vague - I don’t get the point you are making. Nobody is a slave to Netflix, but many people are slaves to the schedules.

You really don't understand the free market do you? If someone ceases to provide a service that people someone else will step in to satisfy customer demand if it is there. The broadcasters needlessly cannibalising their revenue streams is putting the egg before the chicken. In a competitive marketplace - which television undoubtedly is - these marginal gains will absolutely be the difference between content providers surviving or not.

No broadcaster on DTT is going to readily give up these positions. It's free money, raises their profile and complements their streaming offering.

I'm not sure how you can claim to be completely indifferent given the words you are devoting to this despite no indication from the regulator, the BBC, ITV, Sky or any of the other major broadcasters that they have plans to cease their broadcast linear television offerings. Even if they did, there's no indication they won't attempt to create a linear-over-IP offering to cement their own status at the top of EPGs as everyone switches on their television.

You say 'watch and learn' as if you have a track record of being correct.

Sigh! Why don't/can't you two agree to disagree and move on?

[Mr K]

I predict the future of TV will more hardware gimmicks to get the punters to shell out for new screens, increased ads with no ff facility, less original UK content/production. Repeated increased channels / increased imported crap. ie. An increase in quantity, decrease in quality. Everything to increase profits and disadvantage the consumer.

Try the radio or your local theatre instead

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Maggy

Sigh! Why don't/can't you two agree to disagree and move on?

Well, I agree, but I keep being faced with this persistent questioning on issues that are perfectly clear. It’s like Groundhog Day on here, so I’ll bow out of this current bout of argument from jfman - he knows the answers to these points very well as we’ve been through it a million times before.

Thanks for the intervention.

[spiderplant]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The Netflix CEO originally stated that Netflix would not have ads. So clearly, that was the original intention - a library of content, uninterrupted by ads.

It was just spin. I refer you to this post from 9 years ago:
https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...&postcount=324

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by spiderplant

It was just spin. I refer you to this post from 9 years ago:
https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...&postcount=324

I’m pretty sure that income from advertisements on Netflix was not in the original business plan.

I believe you had a point about the difficulty in including ads in the stream, but I don’t think Netflix wanted to incorporate ads when it started off. I think they probably thought that global income would more than cover their costs and make them a nice handsome profit. Either that was a miscalculation, there was too much uncontrolled expenditure on content or perhaps they didn’t anticipate the amount of competition there would be with all these other streamers getting in on the act.

But a cheaper or free ads option was an obvious step to take as the market started to mature.

Originally Posted by spiderplant

It was just spin. I refer you to this post from 9 years ago:
https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...&postcount=324

Old Boy, getting the wrong end of the stick since 2015.

Here’s a gem from the same thread:



https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...4&postcount=66

But don’t forget, he never said, or implied, that he was predicting the landscape in 10 years. Honest.

Originally Posted by Maggy

Sigh! Why don't/can't you two agree to disagree and move on?

I gave up reading them ...

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Well, I agree, but I keep being faced with this persistent questioning on issues that are perfectly clear. It’s like Groundhog Day on here, so I’ll bow out of this current bout of argument from jfman - he knows the answers to these points very well as we’ve been through it a million times before.

Thanks for the intervention.

I'm unsure why you single me out as holding your claims to account when plenty of others do. Also, that wasn't in bold so it's not a mod intervention.

I've equally no interest in your circuitous nonsense - however to that end it'd be helpful if you didn't resort to ad-hominem attacks, skewed by your interpretation that I have a preference for linear broadcasting. I personally do not - most of my viewing (aside the BBC, or live sport) has been time shifted since the advent of Sky+, however I'm capable of commenting on the whole marketplace as distinct from my own viewing habits, noting that a change on the scale that you predict often requires significant regulatory intervention to facilitate it (e.g. digital switch over).

I'll leave you to address the posts by spiderplant or Chris for the time being.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chris

Old Boy, getting the wrong end of the stick since 2015.

Here’s a gem from the same thread:



https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...4&postcount=66

But don’t forget, he never said, or implied, that he was predicting the landscape in 10 years. Honest.

Don’t you start!

I think most people agree that things look very different now, with about half the viewing now through the streamers. Think what a difference another decade will make.