VOD : The future for linear TV channels

[harry_hitch]

Originally Posted by passingbat

I usually stay out of this debate. Mainly because I think linear TV is here for a very long time, but I also know streaming services are becoming more and more popular, especially for content normally exclusive to pay linear TV. And despite what you think, pay and FTA linear channels are being affected differently and to deny that in any discussion on this topic is artificially limiting it's scope.

I think it's far too soon to call on this whole linear/streaming debate, so I follow out of interest.

This time I just posted because you made an incorrect statement:

Now TV is one of the services that in part could and is used as an alternative to linear TV. I use it that way. Are you saying I am wrong in the way I use it? Or I really don't understand how I'm really using it?

But I'd forgotten how much you like to pontificate rather than accept the case pointed out to you.

Where have I have ever said I disagree that linear to will be effected by streaming services? OB has an opinion that linear tv will be extinct within 20 years, I disagree with that opinion. As stated in previous quotes (if you ever bother to read them correctly) I have never disagreed that linear pay tv will lose subscribers. Do please show me the quotes where I have denied this. If I remember correctly, you have put words in my mouth more than once, so I won't hold my breath waiting for you to find a quote. If it exists, I will happily apologize.

How am I artificially limiting the scope of this discussion? Have I said I won't discuss anything with you? I have simply said I agree that some people will cut the cord, but all linear tv will survive. How can I expand on a discussion if I agree with main part of the discussion?

With regards my statement on now tv, how have accepted not accepted what is "pointed out to me"? I have freely admitted I was unaware people could use it solely as an on demand provider, again please quote where I have not. How many times do you want to bring it up? It's getting rather regions now. I would never suggest how you use now tv is wrong, just like I don't think anyone using the linear side of it is wrong.

As for pontificating, I have freely admitted where I was ignorant in the use of now tv, have agreed with statements you have made regarding the effect on demand services could have on pay linear tv, and tried to highlight how my discussion with OB is different that my discussion with you.

It is your good self, who is continuing to try and have a discussion on a topic you have brought into the discussion (which anyone is entitled to so) and which I pretty much agree with you on and it is you who is not really taking then taking discussion forward by not responding directly to many of my posts. Instead,you have gone back to the original reason as to you joined this discussion (and most welcome you are) and have for the third or fourth time, highlighted your thoughts on linear tv. Just in case you missed my previous statements, I agree with your thoughts on the subject.

As such, it is with the greatest respect to you, that it is you wholikes to pontificate, rather more than (or equally as much, if you prefer) than me.

Now, having said all of the above, how would like to continue with the discussion and move it forward?

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by harry_hitch

Where have I have ever said I disagree that linear to will be effected by streaming services? OB has an opinion that linear tv will be extinct within 20 years, I disagree with that opinion. As stated in previous quotes (if you ever bother to read them correctly) I have never disagreed that linear pay tv will lose subscribers. Do please show me the quotes where I have denied this. If I remember correctly, you have put words in my mouth more than once, so I won't hold my breath waiting for you to find a quote. If it exists, I will happily apologize.

How am I artificially limiting the scope of this discussion? Have I said I won't discuss anything with you? I have simply said I agree that some people will cut the cord, but all linear tv will survive. How can I expand on a discussion if I agree with main part of the discussion?

With regards my statement on now tv, how have accepted not accepted what is "pointed out to me"? I have freely admitted I was unaware people could use it solely as an on demand provider, again please quote where I have not. How many times do you want to bring it up? It's getting rather regions now. I would never suggest how you use now tv is wrong, just like I don't think anyone using the linear side of it is wrong.

As for pontificating, I have freely admitted where I was ignorant in the use of now tv, have agreed with statements you have made regarding the effect on demand services could have on pay linear tv, and tried to highlight how my discussion with OB is different that my discussion with you.

It is your good self, who is continuing to try and have a discussion on a topic you have brought into the discussion (which anyone is entitled to so) and which I pretty much agree with you on and it is you who is not really taking then taking discussion forward by not responding directly to many of my posts. Instead,you have gone back to the original reason as to you joined this discussion (and most welcome you are) and have for the third or fourth time, highlighted your thoughts on linear tv. Just in case you missed my previous statements, I agree with your thoughts on the subject.

As such, it is with the greatest respect to you, that it is you wholikes to pontificate, rather more than (or equally as much, if you prefer) than me.

Now, having said all of the above, how would like to continue with the discussion and move it forward?

Earlier this morning, before you had posted, I had a feeling I hadn't expressed something correctly but wasn't able to change it at the time.

You have indeed said that pay TV will be affected differently. And I knew that when I posted. I was trying to say that you don't seem to want to discuss those acknowledged separate implications in the thread, but want to lump all linear TV into one within this discussion. The way I worded it was incorrect, suggesting that you didn't think that FTA and Pay TV will be affected, which was incorrect as you had already agreed with that. It was my bad phraseology that caused the confusion for which I apologise.

Having said all that. I simply replied to a part of one of your post because you had misunderstood the full implications of Now TV and the part it plays in the linear versus streaming debate.

You didn't seem to get that. So I'm simply going to leave it there. Sorry, but I have no interest in replying to your rather long winded posts on this particular thread.

[harry_hitch]

Alas, PB I did seem to "get it". Unfortunately you wanted to have a discussion on the differences between linear pay TV and non pay linear TV. I agreed with your views, and you did not seem to get that and wanted to keep mentioning it. It's a shame you no longer want to have a discussion on it, I was quite happy to contribute as much as I could - even if it would have been a rather limited contribution.

As for my long winded posts, I am sorry if they have been too long for you. I will remember in future to keep my posts short and simple for you.

---------- Post added at 09:52 ---------- Previous post was at 09:45 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Yes, basically I agree with this. Sky now seem to have taken stock and realised that the trend will be away from linear broadcast channels In favour of streaming. Although, as Harry said, Now TV allows viewers to watch the channels it offers live, I have never used that part of the service.

It is true that the Superbowl attracted a huge number of viewers for linear TV, but then, there was no alternative if you wanted to watch it as it happened. However, in time, the streaming of live events will be the norm.

And how many streaming services do our American cousins have OB? How much does it cost them? How many do services do you think will launch over here, and how much do you think they will cost?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by harry_hitch

And how many streaming services do our American cousins have OB? How much does it cost them? How many do services do you think will launch over here, and how much do you think they will cost?

These are the best sites Harry.

http://uk.pcmag.com/netflix/71265/fe...s-best-for-you

I don't know how many of these are likely to launch here that we don't already have, but the UK is a natural choice for them, I would have thought.

[harry_hitch]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

These are the best sites Harry.

http://uk.pcmag.com/netflix/71265/fe...s-best-for-you

I don't know how many of these are likely to launch here that we don't already have, but the UK is a natural choice for them, I would have thought.

Maybe they will be. Consider the amount of services and the prices though OB. There can not be that much content we can not get over here currently. If you exclude Netflix and Amazon from that list, the cost for the few American services not on that website, right now is $59.96, and I doubt that includes the HD streaming service. Imagine the cost in 20 years!! That must be roughly £40.00 over here. A lot of people know how much more we pay than the Americans for a number of products or services (Itunes songs, considerably less Netflix content compared to prices paid in the States and last I checked WWE network worked out more expensive over here too, this names just a few of the rip offs) so I can not imagine we will be offered a better price for these services either.

If people want the same content they currently get on Sky VM etc (and I can't see why they won't) I simply can not see why they would pay considerably more for much the same content - even if it does ever get to the stage where everyone in the country (and all the various Islands around the UK) can watch what they want when they want it.

Also, lets say by some miracle we get all of these services they won't all be on one box (everyone will have a box to sell and TV companies will sign exclusive deals), imagine how much more of a faff it will be to change from one streaming service to the next.

Would you be happy to a minimum of £40 (based on my loose calculations of the American prices from the link you posted) to get much the same content you can currently get via Now TV for the price you currently pay?

Not everything that happens in the states happens over here. For a start, netflix don't offer dvd rental. Their love and propensity for guns is mind boggling, the law system is terrible, corrupt and much more racist than ours, supersize fast food ranges failed over here, their beef is not allowed over here, in fact most of their food industry is, effectively, controlled in parliament by former big wigs of big companies (check out a film called food inc) who ensure their old companies get the best deals, the health system is terrible (even though the Tories are systematically trying to kill the NHS) and let's not forget the chocolate is generally horrible out there too.

Just because things happen in the States, it does not automatically mean it will happen over here - even if logic does dictate that way.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by harry_hitch

Maybe they will be. Consider the amount of services and the prices though OB. There can not be that much content we can not get over here currently. If you exclude Netflix and Amazon from that list, the cost for the few American services not on that website, right now is $59.96, and I doubt that includes the HD streaming service. Imagine the cost in 20 years!! That must be roughly £40.00 over here. A lot of people know how much more we pay than the Americans for a number of products or services (Itunes songs, considerably less Netflix content compared to prices paid in the States and last I checked WWE network worked out more expensive over here too, this names just a few of the rip offs) so I can not imagine we will be offered a better price for these services either.

If people want the same content they currently get on Sky VM etc (and I can't see why they won't) I simply can not see why they would pay considerably more for much the same content - even if it does ever get to the stage where everyone in the country (and all the various Islands around the UK) can watch what they want when they want it.

Also, lets say by some miracle we get all of these services they won't all be on one box (everyone will have a box to sell and TV companies will sign exclusive deals), imagine how much more of a faff it will be to change from one streaming service to the next.

Would you be happy to a minimum of £40 (based on my loose calculations of the American prices from the link you posted) to get much the same content you can currently get via Now TV for the price you currently pay?

Not everything that happens in the states happens over here. For a start, netflix don't offer dvd rental. Their love and propensity for guns is mind boggling, the law system is terrible, corrupt and much more racist than ours, supersize fast food ranges failed over here, their beef is not allowed over here, in fact most of their food industry is, effectively, controlled in parliament by former big wigs of big companies (check out a film called food inc) who ensure their old companies get the best deals, the health system is terrible (even though the Tories are systematically trying to kill the NHS) and let's not forget the chocolate is generally horrible out there too.

Just because things happen in the States, it does not automatically mean it will happen over here - even if logic does dictate that way.

Wow, you've covered quite a bit in that post, Harry!

First of all, let me agree with your last two paragraphs and I will say that I agree with all that, except the bit about the NHS! (Under Labour, we saw the scandal of Mid Staffs with people drinking out of vases because they were so desperate for water, and the spectacle of Andy Burnham trying to cover it up rather than address it, increased privatisation through PFIs which were bad value for money etc). Compare that with increased investment for the NHS under the Tories and their striving to give the public a better 7 day per week service. I find your perspective on all this, and more relevantly, your pessimism over the advance of streaming services difficult to comprehend.

Back to your first paragraph, and more on topic, I think the jury is out on whether streaming services will be more expensive than existing broadcast services. I envisage that there will be for many more decades to come a BBC/ITV/Channel 4/Channel 5 presence, but access will be via their individual i-players or combined streaming site. The BBC will continue to provide a 'free' service as long as the licence fee survives, and the other channels are likely to provide a choice between a free uninterruptable advertisement ridden offer, or an advert free subscriber based service. Many viewers (myself included) will not watch any platform that forces you to watch commercials and so a subscriber option would be necessary if profits are to be maximised and the whole venture does not go under.

What the other streaming service companies will do is a matter for conjecture. As you know, Netflix have pledged never to have commercials on their site (although you don't believe them) and Amazon don't feature commercials either. Even Now TV doesn't have adverts on their streaming services (except of course on the smaller live TV part of their offering).

The price of Netflix is increasing for new subscribers, but where these price increases will end is anyone's guess. While there is healthy competition between the various providers, maybe the prices will remain fairly reasonable.

Although people like me will probably go for as many of these streaming services as is sensible, those of more modest means might well pimp around a bit, sticking with one service for a while and then changing for another service, benefitting by access to maximum content across a multitude of platforms at minimum cost.

You mention Sky, but you know, there's not an awful lot on their channels (apart from the premium sport and films channels) that is worth watching anymore. This week, Sky 1, for example, is showing the following programmes that I would watch:

Chris Ryan's Strike Back (already seen it)
Pride and Glory (film)
Stan Lee's Lucky Man

And that's it! Pretty bad for a pay TV channel, don't you think?

For me, streaming services are always going to provide better quality choices from a much wider list of programmes than pay TV (excluding premium channels) currently provides.

You certainly have a point about the fact that you currently need different boxes for different services, which is why I keep saying that our new Tivo boxes need to address this problem. Virgin need to embrace all these various streaming services on their box to set them apart from the rest. People would be quick to realise the convenience this gives them.

Currently, I access my streaming services from Tivo, my smart Sony TV and my Roku streaming stick. I am extremely pleased with the variety of quality programmes that I can now access by that means, plus the recordings I take from broadcast channels.

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

week, Sky 1, for example, is showing the following programmes that I would watch:

Chris Ryan's Strike Back (already seen it)
Pride and Glory (film)
Stan Lee's Lucky Man

.

You should bear in mind that many of Sky 1 and Sky Living's best shows are US dramas and they have been on a mid season break in the US. Some of them have just started to air again, but others still haven't. I'm guessing Sky are holding back on the ones that have started, to give them a less interrupted rum.

What I'm saying, is because of Sky's reliance on US drama, this time of the year is not the best time to really get a feel for Sky's output, show wise.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by passingbat

You should bear in mind that many of Sky 1 and Sky Living's best shows are US dramas and they have been on a mid season break in the US. Some of them have just started to air again, but others still haven't. I'm guessing Sky are holding back on the ones that have started, to give them a less interrupted rum.

What I'm saying, is because of Sky's reliance on US drama, this time of the year is not the best time to really get a feel for Sky's output, show wise.

That is a fair point, PB, but the number of times I watch Sky programmes has been reducing over time. It no longer represents good value for me (except for Sky Atlantic, which of course we can only subscribe to via Now TV) and this is why I have been reconsidering the TV services I subscribe to of late.

I used to record five or six programmes a week from Sky 1 but now it's down to a trickle.

[muppetman11]

Whether you watch much on them or not I believe if you check BARB you'll find they are some of the best watched pay channels.

[harry_hitch]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Back to your first paragraph, and more on topic, I think the jury is out on whether streaming services will be more expensive than existing broadcast services. I envisage that there will be for many more decades to come a BBC/ITV/Channel 4/Channel 5 presence, but access will be via their individual i-players or combined streaming site. The BBC will continue to provide a 'free' service as long as the licence fee survives, and the other channels are likely to provide a choice between a free uninterruptable advertisement ridden offer, or an advert free subscriber based service. Many viewers (myself included) will not watch any platform that forces you to watch commercials and so a subscriber option would be necessary if profits are to be maximised and the whole venture does not go under.

What the other streaming service companies will do is a matter for conjecture. As you know, Netflix have pledged never to have commercials on their site (although you don't believe them) and Amazon don't feature commercials either. Even Now TV doesn't have adverts on their streaming services (except of course on the smaller live TV part of their offering).

The price of Netflix is increasing for new subscribers, but where these price increases will end is anyone's guess. While there is healthy competition between the various providers, maybe the prices will remain fairly reasonable.

Although people like me will probably go for as many of these streaming services as is sensible, those of more modest means might well pimp around a bit, sticking with one service for a while and then changing for another service, benefitting by access to maximum content across a multitude of platforms at minimum cost.

You mention Sky, but you know, there's not an awful lot on their channels (apart from the premium sport and films channels) that is worth watching anymore. This week, Sky 1, for example, is showing the following programmes that I would watch:

Chris Ryan's Strike Back (already seen it)
Pride and Glory (film)
Stan Lee's Lucky Man

And that's it! Pretty bad for a pay TV channel, don't you think?

For me, streaming services are always going to provide better quality choices from a much wider list of programmes than pay TV (excluding premium channels) currently provides.

You certainly have a point about the fact that you currently need different boxes for different services, which is why I keep saying that our new Tivo boxes need to address this problem. Virgin need to embrace all these various streaming services on their box to set them apart from the rest. People would be quick to realise the convenience this gives them.

Currently, I access my streaming services from Tivo, my smart Sony TV and my Roku streaming stick. I am extremely pleased with the variety of quality programmes that I can now access by that means, plus the recordings I take from broadcast channels.

Apologies for deleting the politics, because as you say, it is off topic, and I am taking up enough space.

You may think the jury is out on the cost of streaming services, but as it stands in the States (based on your link), it is very expensive just to get anywhere near the content we get from Sky etc from just a few of the most popular streaming services at this precise moment.

People may well pick and choose from the various streaming services, but if I was in charge of a streaming company, I would want a very constant stream of income coming into my business. How could any company survive if it's sole income comes when the people who like their streaming offering only intermittently pay £8.99 a month? It simply can not happen. If we follow your logic, then the vast majority of people will have to take the ad free option. This will have to happen in your idea of the future, because the companies will need that ad revenue to give them their guaranteed monthly income. The streaming company will then have to decide how much more money they get through advertising, compared to the £120 (12 x £10 a month) they will get from a paying punter like yourself. I imagine there will be a massive gap between the money the free service gets compared to what you pay, and that gap will be lost revenue - pure and simple, they are not a charity after all. That lost revenue will have to come from somewhere. If they don't allow advertising, it will only come from increased subscription.

Lets say your idea works though, don't forget the more the services vie for peoples money, the more exclusives they have to produce. That will raise costs more and more. That will then more ads for the free service to cover the costs, and a same amount will have to be added for subscriptions. It will be easier for each streaming service to get £10 a month from 5 companies paying £2 each per ad, than it will be to get an extra £10 a month from you. I may be missing something completely obvious from these scenarios (and I welcome your thoughts negating mine) but I don't see how it won't end up with one of these scenarios. Either way, subscriptions will very be expensive without ad's.

I am not sure how you don't get ad's on Now TV - you are lucky if you don't. A quick FFW through the latest catch up episodes of Elementary, 100 Code, Madam Sectretary, The Knick and the last episode of Blue Bloods all had ads at the start and around the 30 min mark. A league of their own only had ads at the start. (Elemantary, A league of their own, 100 code, Blue Bloods and Madam Secretary are all on the featured page of Sky Catch up). As I have stated before Amazon have ad's on their website and, like Sky, are obviously heavily subsiding their streaming services. Most likely so they can get a loyal customer base before unleashing plenty of ads on the services, but I know (and am happy for) you to disagree with my thoughts on this.

You also mention about streaming services offering more variety than pay TV providers. As I have asked before, what would Netflix do if they lost all their back catalogue because all the other content owners wanted exclusive rights to their content (including their films)?

I am happy to have streaming services in the world, and you will never get them all on one box, regardless of what you think VM should do. Thankfully, I can still afford Netflix and it still provides great value, and could afford Amazon it I wanted. I just don't think they will kill off liner TV.

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

That is a fair point, PB, but the number of times I watch Sky programmes has been reducing over time. It no longer represents good value for me (except for Sky Atlantic, which of course we can only subscribe to via Now TV) and this is why I have been reconsidering the TV services I subscribe to of late.

I used to record five or six programmes a week from Sky 1 but now it's down to a trickle.

I think Sky One and living have got some decent shows.

The Blacklist
Blindspot
Scandal (good political conspiracy show, despite it's stupid name)
Madam Secretary (another political/conspiracy drama which has upped the action in S2)

Then they have most of the superhero stuff which is good non-serious knock-about entertainment (Netflix takes care of the grittier side of that very well)

Arrow
The Flash
Supergirl

They've also got the rights to Limitless.

I can't off-hand think of another broadcaster that I watch as much

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by harry_hitch

Apologies for deleting the politics, because as you say, it is off topic, and I am taking up enough space.

You may think the jury is out on the cost of streaming services, but as it stands in the States (based on your link), it is very expensive just to get anywhere near the content we get from Sky etc from just a few of the most popular streaming services at this precise moment.

People may well pick and choose from the various streaming services, but if I was in charge of a streaming company, I would want a very constant stream of income coming into my business. How could any company survive if it's sole income comes when the people who like their streaming offering only intermittently pay £8.99 a month? It simply can not happen. If we follow your logic, then the vast majority of people will have to take the ad free option. This will have to happen in your idea of the future, because the companies will need that ad revenue to give them their guaranteed monthly income. The streaming company will then have to decide how much more money they get through advertising, compared to the £120 (12 x £10 a month) they will get from a paying punter like yourself. I imagine there will be a massive gap between the money the free service gets compared to what you pay, and that gap will be lost revenue - pure and simple, they are not a charity after all. That lost revenue will have to come from somewhere. If they don't allow advertising, it will only come from increased subscription.

Lets say your idea works though, don't forget the more the services vie for peoples money, the more exclusives they have to produce. That will raise costs more and more. That will then more ads for the free service to cover the costs, and a same amount will have to be added for subscriptions. It will be easier for each streaming service to get £10 a month from 5 companies paying £2 each per ad, than it will be to get an extra £10 a month from you. I may be missing something completely obvious from these scenarios (and I welcome your thoughts negating mine) but I don't see how it won't end up with one of these scenarios. Either way, subscriptions will very be expensive without ad's.

I am not sure how you don't get ad's on Now TV - you are lucky if you don't. A quick FFW through the latest catch up episodes of Elementary, 100 Code, Madam Sectretary, The Knick and the last episode of Blue Bloods all had ads at the start and around the 30 min mark. A league of their own only had ads at the start. (Elemantary, A league of their own, 100 code, Blue Bloods and Madam Secretary are all on the featured page of Sky Catch up). As I have stated before Amazon have ad's on their website and, like Sky, are obviously heavily subsiding their streaming services. Most likely so they can get a loyal customer base before unleashing plenty of ads on the services, but I know (and am happy for) you to disagree with my thoughts on this.

You also mention about streaming services offering more variety than pay TV providers. As I have asked before, what would Netflix do if they lost all their back catalogue because all the other content owners wanted exclusive rights to their content (including their films)?

I am happy to have streaming services in the world, and you will never get them all on one box, regardless of what you think VM should do. Thankfully, I can still afford Netflix and it still provides great value, and could afford Amazon it I wanted. I just don't think they will kill off liner TV.

You question how streaming services can survive on £8.99 per month subscriptions, even though Netflix are doing so now! As far as people flitting in and out of the service is concerned, they can deter such practices by charging an annual fee, as Amazon do.

The streaming services with commercials that won't fast forward tend to be provided by our terrestrials and our pay TV services. I think the model used by the big streaming companies in future will be mainly subscription based or pay per view.

I don't agree with you on the comparison of content between what is on Sky and what is on the streaming services. How, for example, can you say that Sky has more than the UK version of Netflix? I have picked out so much from Netflix that I want to see, I doubt I'll ever get round to exhausting that list, and they are adding stuff all the time, with the added bonus of no reality shows!

I don't understand your comment about advertising on Amazon - but I get Amazon Prime Instant Video, and I can assure you that there are no commercials on there!

As for Now TV, I think you are referring to the broadcast TV part of it, which of course does contain adverts as it is the same as tuning into the channels via satellite or cable. However, the main part (and purpose) of Now TV is for the streaming of videos, and all of this is ad free. If the streaming service companies were to bombard us with unskippable ads, people would be put off and they would look for alternatives. The Sky catch up service is a 'free' add-on for their broadcast channels and this is why there are commercials on it.

The search will be on in earnest for exclusives, and the streaming services will sucking everything up and leave nothing for our broadcast TV channels, which presumably explains the recent trend towards buying up studios and their newly found obsession with their new dramas.

As for what would happen if Netflix lost all their content... I think our terrestrials are more worried about such an eventuality than Netflix!!

[muppetman11]

Sorry Old Boy but that's a silly comparison , Netflix offers loads of content but as a Sky or VM subscriber you have access over the course of a year to far more content whether its content that's worth paying the difference for is down to the individual.

How many hours of sports action do XL TV subscribers get with inclusive BT Sport , Sky Movies is an Add on with over a 1,000 movies , both services have PPV offerings with 1,000 of movies , hundreds of linear channels showing a wide range of content across the year , Sky has a vast range of first run rights with 100's of boxsets.

As for nothing being left for broadcast channels I'd say the complete opposite , most of the first run rights are with the terrestrial and pay tv broadcasters that's why Netflix felt the need to make the move into original content.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I think the model used by the big streaming companies in future will be mainly subscription based or pay per view.

I think you're right (to a point*), and this is one of the major reasons they will never completely supplant broadcast TV.

Around half of UK homes don't subscribe to any TV package at all. Sky has been around for 27 years now (almost to the day) - the market is at saturation point; those that don't already have it, are not very likely to go and get it now.

There are large numbers of people that simply won't connect to something if they have to pay for it.

*In future, it is more or less inevitable that as the big providers get into hard competition with each other, the use of adverts will become more widespread as a means of bringing in extra revenue. Look how many ads Sky runs per hour, and they get away with it - it's just a matter of time before big VOD providers start placing one or two ads in their streams.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

Sorry Old Boy but that's a silly comparison , Netflix offers loads of content but as a Sky or VM subscriber you have access over the course of a year to far more content whether its content that's worth paying the difference for is down to the individual.

How many hours of sports action do XL TV subscribers get with inclusive BT Sport , Sky Movies is an Add on with over a 1,000 movies , both services have PPV offerings with 1,000 of movies , hundreds of linear channels showing a wide range of content across the year , Sky has a vast range of first run rights with 100's of boxsets.

As for nothing being left for broadcast channels I'd say the complete opposite , most of the first run rights are with the terrestrial and pay tv broadcasters that's why Netflix felt the need to make the move into original content.

Well, at the moment, you can't exactly see a great deal of sport via streaming, which is why I didn't count that. As for films, Sky has most of the exclusive rights with the film studios at present, but Netflix have vowed to take over these exclusive rights in the future.

I admit that I didn't include all the Sky dross fillers between the good programmes when talking about content, but who wants that? If Netflix and Amazon went down that route, I would be looking at alternative options.

For me, the streaming services I use have far more watchable stuff than Sky are able to produce.

---------- Post added at 17:50 ---------- Previous post was at 17:47 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

I think you're right (to a point*), and this is one of the major reasons they will never completely supplant broadcast TV.

Around half of UK homes don't subscribe to any TV package at all. Sky has been around for 27 years now (almost to the day) - the market is at saturation point; those that don't already have it, are not very likely to go and get it now.

There are large numbers of people that simply won't connect to something if they have to pay for it.

*In future, it is more or less inevitable that as the big providers get into hard competition with each other, the use of adverts will become more widespread as a means of bringing in extra revenue. Look how many ads Sky runs per hour, and they get away with it - it's just a matter of time before big VOD providers start placing one or two ads in their streams.

Except that if the Tories get their way and the BBC goes down the route of
subscriptions rather than a licence fee, everyone will be making a choice based on what they can afford.

As far as ads on streaming services are concerned, the first company to do this will certainly lose my custom.