The future of television

Originally Posted by Paul

Actually, I asked how long has it has "often" been described as Live TV.

I asked around my family (and friends) and everyone defined Live TV as what you would expect, broadcast of an event as its happening, for example, a Football Match.

They consider the rest to be "Terrestrial TV" or "Streaming (TV)".
Granted, no one (I know) calls it Linear TV, but that wasnt the point, the point is they have never called it "Live TV".

Before streaming was a thing, it was just TV, and Live TV.

Exactly - because until recently, its use was niche and specific to a particular function of a particular kind of TV receiver that most TV viewers didn’t have in their house.

[spiderplant]

Originally Posted by Paul

Granted, no one (I know) calls it Linear TV, but that wasnt the point, the point is they have never called it "Live TV".

I do, often. If someone reports a fault when playing back a recording, or while watching On Demand, I'll ask them "Does it also do it on live TV?". I can't think of a clearer way that would be generally understood.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Then, if IPTV becomes the means of broadcasting TV, there is the question of (a) whether audiences will choose ‘on demand’ over the listed channels

They won't. Most people don't know or care how their television is delivered as long as it works when they switch it on.

Stream, and the FAST channels, are IPTV already. It doesn't make people think "ooh, I must watch on demand".

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

We spend far too much time agonising over what a ‘linear channel’ is. We all know it is scheduled TV, which includes live streams, but over time the media has used the phrase very loosely to mean our conventional TV channels as shown on our EPGs.

Given the title of this thread, we need to be less picky about these terms and the pedantic detail as demonstrated in so many posts and actually debate how we see TV changing over the years.

Much now depends on the government’s attitude to switching off the transmitter signals in favour of IPTV, which they may have trouble resisting, given the international pressure to make more bandwidth available for 5G, the cost to broadcasters in paying out for conventional broadcasting over the transmitters when a cheaper alternative is available, etc.

Then, if IPTV becomes the means of broadcasting TV, there is the question of (a) whether audiences will choose ‘on demand’ over the listed channels and (b) whether the broadcasters themselves actually want to spend more than they need to so that people are given that option.

We will see, but I think I know where this will end.

There’s nothing pedantic about trying to avoid you conflating two separate things - linear television which (although the vast majority of it is consumed over terrestrial, satellite or cable) isn’t technology dependant and the end of terrestrial, satellite and DVB-C cable broadcasts in favour of IP based solutions (which can be both linear or on demand).

You could actually end the conversation right now by clarifying.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by spiderplant

I do, often. If someone reports a fault when playing back a recording, or while watching On Demand, I'll ask them "Does it also do it on live TV?". I can't think of a clearer way that would be generally understood.


They won't. Most people don't know or care how their television is delivered as long as it works when they switch it on.

Stream, and the FAST channels, are IPTV already. It doesn't make people think "ooh, I must watch on demand".

No, you are missing the point. On IPTV you will have the choice in front of you. Scheduled TV or on demand. It’s which the majority of people choose that will be the deciding factor.

So you are waiting for the next episode of your favourite drama. Do you choose to wait two hours or do you select it now?

At present everything is geared so that scheduled TV is the first thing you see when you switch on - the apps are separate and you have to get into them before you can access their content.

In the future, the menu would look quite different. Think BBC I-Player, NOW and Pluto TV. Do you ever head for live TV from those apps? Why watch programmes from half way through when you can see them from the beginning?

---------- Post added at 12:52 ---------- Previous post was at 12:50 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

There’s nothing pedantic about trying to avoid you conflating two separate things - linear television which (although the vast majority of it is consumed over terrestrial, satellite or cable) isn’t technology dependant and the end of terrestrial, satellite and DVB-C cable broadcasts in favour of IP based solutions (which can be both linear or on demand).

You could actually end the conversation right now by clarifying.

I don’t know what your problem is, jfman, because you are being very obtuse. My view of the future is stated over and over in this and other threads. If you don’t understand what I am saying by now, you never will.

[jfman]

Yet another opportunity passed up to clarify which of the two you mean, or both?

Do you not think it’d be of benefit to have it there in black and white once and for all? Hugh could helpfully link to it in future every time I (or anyone else) gets confused. As he did with my clear definition of what I understand linear television to be.

---------- Post added at 13:18 ---------- Previous post was at 13:15 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

No, you are missing the point. On IPTV you will have the choice in front of you. Scheduled TV or on demand. It’s which the majority of people choose that will be the deciding factor.

These are exactly the same choices presented to every Sky Q or TiVo/V6 user at present. Yet the evidence would suggest often they head straight to live tv to see what is on now.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

Yet another opportunity passed up to clarify which of the two you mean, or both?

Do you not think it’d be of benefit to have it there in black and white once and for all? Hugh could helpfully link to it in future every time I (or anyone else) gets confused. As he did with my clear definition of what I understand linear television to be.

I don’t think your question has anything to do with what I have written in my posts. How is it relevant? You are just making waves. I refuse to drown in them.

---------- Post added at 20:10 ---------- Previous post was at 19:59 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

These are exactly the same choices presented to every Sky Q or TiVo/V6 user at present. Yet the evidence would suggest often they head straight to live tv to see what is on now.

No, they are not. Live/linear/scheduled/conventional TV (whatever you want to call it) are all more prominent on Sky HD/Q and Virgin Media TiVo/360 boxes, and they are the obvious easy ways into the system. If you want to go to Netflix, Prime, etc, you need to go to the apps and get in that way.

There is no comparison, because, for example, if you go to NOW, the obvious ‘go to’ access point is on demand. You have to hunt out the live TV option.

You seem to be an intelligent man in some respects, jfman, so why can you not get your head around all this…unless of course, you are just playing games.

Well, I’m not playing anymore. Happy to debate, but I won’t get drawn into your poisoned net.

[Taf]

"If you watch TV channels on any TV service, watch LIVE TV on any streaming service, or use BBC iPlayer*, you need to be covered by a TV Licence."

https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-...HS%20recorders

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I don’t think your question has anything to do with what I have written in my posts. How is it relevant? You are just making waves. I refuse to drown in them.

Defining the point you are attempting to make is entirely relevant.

No, they are not. Live/linear/scheduled/conventional TV (whatever you want to call it) are all more prominent on Sky HD/Q and Virgin Media TiVo/360 boxes, and they are the obvious easy ways into the system. If you want to go to Netflix, Prime, etc, you need to go to the apps and get in that way.

There is no comparison, because, for example, if you go to NOW, the obvious ‘go to’ access point is on demand. You have to hunt out the live TV option.

You seem to be an intelligent man in some respects, jfman, so why can you not get your head around all this…unless of course, you are just playing games.

Well, I’m not playing anymore. Happy to debate, but I won’t get drawn into your poisoned net.

Ladies and gentlemen the Emperor has no clothes.

For streaming to succeed it requires its competitors to irrationally cede their unique selling point and accessibility on every platform.

It requires competitors to bow before them, redesign their user interfaces.

Who are the average brain dead viewers that streamers so desperately need that are too lazy to navigate with their up and down keys to the content they actually want? Vegetating away on BBC 1 because the Sky remote is beyond their comprehension.

They do not exist, OB. They are a work of fiction you use to sooth yourself that you are right, against all evidence.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

Defining the point you are attempting to make is entirely relevant.



Ladies and gentlemen the Emperor has no clothes.

For streaming to succeed it requires its competitors to irrationally cede their unique selling point and accessibility on every platform.

It requires competitors to bow before them, redesign their user interfaces.

Who are the average brain dead viewers that streamers so desperately need that are too lazy to navigate with their up and down keys to the content they actually want? Vegetating away on BBC 1 because the Sky remote is beyond their comprehension.

They do not exist, OB. They are a work of fiction you use to sooth yourself that you are right, against all evidence.

It’s your responses that are fiction, jfman. You are on a frolic of your own.

Streamers abandoning their unique selling points? How the hell do you make that out?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

It’s your responses that are fiction, jfman. You are on a frolic of your own.

Streamers abandoning their unique selling points? How the hell do you make that out?

I didn't say streamers I said competitors. Once again you fail to comprehend that streamers are one part of the TV market as a whole.

Your "vision" above requires literally everyone else to redesign their interfaces and platforms to accommodate streaming services above linear. Why would they do that?

The average viewer doesn't want to switch on their television and immediately be bombarded with repetitive lists of content they don't subscribe to.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

I didn't say streamers I said competitors. Once again you fail to comprehend that streamers are one part of the TV market as a whole.

Your "vision" above requires literally everyone else to redesign their interfaces and platforms to accommodate streaming services above linear. Why would they do that?

The average viewer doesn't want to switch on their television and immediately be bombarded with repetitive lists of content they don't subscribe to.

I do not ‘fail to comprehend’ anything. You make too many assumptions and now you are throwing your toys out of the pram.

No redesign of interfaces is necessary. You just click on the streamer of your choice, just as you click on a TV channel. Ever heard of Roku?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I do not ‘fail to comprehend’ anything. You make too many assumptions and now you are throwing your toys out of the pram.

No redesign of interfaces is necessary. You just click on the streamer of your choice, just as you click on a TV channel. Ever heard of Roku?

I have, it’s rubbish that’s why almost nobody uses it as a primary device.

You yourself said:

Live/linear/scheduled/conventional TV (whatever you want to call it) are all more prominent on Sky HD/Q and Virgin Media TiVo/360 boxes, and they are the obvious easy ways into the system. If you want to go to Netflix, Prime, etc, you need to go to the apps and get in that way.

In what sense is this not calling for every major TV platform and every TV manufacturer to redesign their interfaces in favour of fledgeling streamers the end consumer may not even subscribe to?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

In what sense is this not calling for every major TV platform and every TV manufacturer to redesign their interfaces in favour of fledgeling streamers the end consumer may not even subscribe to?

Nobody is calling for anything. This will be in the hands of the TV platforms themselves. But given the trend towards streaming now, it would make sense to change the existing prominence towards the streamers rather than the (yawn) ‘conventional broadcast scheduled TV channels’, which are ultimately doomed anyway. The FAST channels will never command anywhere near the audiences of the streamers unless there is a future unforeseen innovation which captures the imagination.

All that is required is one button that allows you to give prominence to existing TV channels and a second to streamers on set-up, which can be altered as easily as altering the profiles on the 360. Then each time you go in, you get the choice of a channel guide (if you’ve selected the first button) or the streamers if the second has been selected.

As for finding programmes, all that is required is a central watchlist, which will require either the agreement of all the streamers or alternatively an intervention by Ofcom. Only Netflix appears to be causing problems over this.

I really find it difficult to grasp what it is you don’t understand. If you genuinely do have a problem in grasping this, it would help if you were more specific rather than giving me the usual cryptic comments.

---------- Post added at 20:10 ---------- Previous post was at 20:09 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

I have, it’s rubbish that’s why almost nobody uses it as a primary device.

You yourself said:

‘ Live/linear/scheduled/conventional TV (whatever you want to call it) are all more prominent on Sky HD/Q and Virgin Media TiVo/360 boxes, and they are the obvious easy ways into the system. If you want to go to Netflix, Prime, etc, you need to go to the apps and get in that way.’

Amazon and others are doing the same.

As for your last paragraph, I was describing the existing position. In the future, prominence will be given to on demand.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Nobody is calling for anything. This will be in the hands of the TV platforms themselves. But given the trend towards streaming now, it would make sense to change the existing prominence towards the streamers rather than the (yawn) ‘conventional broadcast scheduled TV channels’, which are ultimately doomed anyway. The FAST channels will never command anywhere near the audiences of the streamers unless there is a future unforeseen innovation which captures the imagination.

You are the one gagging for the Government to weaken legislation around protected events and ultimately remove the PSB requirements on the major terrestrial broadcasters.

All that is required is one button that allows you to give prominence to existing TV channels and a second to streamers on set-up, which can be altered as easily as altering the profiles on the 360. Then each time you go in, you get the choice of a channel guide (if you’ve selected the first button) or the streamers if the second has been selected.

A redesign, as I stated. Are people really too lazy to go to “apps” yer can memorise the 3 digit channels numbers of a dozen or so of their favourite channels? Inherently improbable, OB.

As for finding programmes, all that is required is a central watchlist, which will require either the agreement of all the streamers or alternatively an intervention by Ofcom. Only Netflix appears to be causing problems over this.

Why should the regulator intervene in the free market? Who would this intervention protect?

I really find it difficult to grasp what it is you don’t understand. If you genuinely do have a problem in grasping this, it would help if you were more specific rather than giving me the usual cryptic comments.

You say this when it is you who cannot answer straightforward questions such as your own definition of linear.

Amazon and others are doing the same.

And again, almost nobody uses these are primary devices hence your desperation to see every fledgeling app on the Sky or Virgin Media platforms.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Nobody is calling for anything. This will be in the hands of the TV platforms themselves. But given the trend towards streaming now, it would make sense to change the existing prominence towards the streamers rather than the (yawn) ‘conventional broadcast scheduled TV channels’, which are ultimately doomed anyway. The FAST channels will never command anywhere near the audiences of the streamers unless there is a future unforeseen innovation which captures the imagination.

All that is required is one button that allows you to give prominence to existing TV channels and a second to streamers on set-up, which can be altered as easily as altering the profiles on the 360. Then each time you go in, you get the choice of a channel guide (if you’ve selected the first button) or the streamers if the second has been selected.

As for finding programmes, all that is required is a central watchlist, which will require either the agreement of all the streamers or alternatively an intervention by Ofcom. Only Netflix appears to be causing problems over this.

I really find it difficult to grasp what it is you don’t understand. If you genuinely do have a problem in grasping this, it would help if you were more specific rather than giving me the usual cryptic comments.

---------- Post added at 20:10 ---------- Previous post was at 20:09 ----------



Amazon and others are doing the same.

As for your last paragraph, I was describing the existing position. In the future, prominence will be given to on demand.

It has nothing to do with lack of understanding OB. It’s simply mild exasperation at your lack of self-awareness. Whenever you write a sentence that includes the phrase ‘it would make sense to…’ or ‘all that is required…’ you’re skipping over the whole part where you have to convince multimillion-dollar broadcast companies *why* they should radically overturn their own cost-effective business models in order to satisfy your own vision of the future - a vision that has everything to do with what you personally find convenient and nothing to do with even a moment’s reflection on the mere possibility that not everyone wants to use their TV the way you do.

You talk a good game, OB, but so does everyone who calls their post-match local radio phone-in at 6 o’clock on a Saturday evening.