VOD : Linear is old tech - on demand is the future

Play nicely...

[Raider999]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

And yet, here comes another one. This does not seem to be going the way you are seeing things, jfman. The streaming services are increasing in number and will take over from the pay tv channels, providing more choice for less.

Sky knows it. The BBC knows it. Both are planning ahead for that very eventuality.

https://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2019...nclude-europe/

They certainly won't offer more choice for less money - maybe for less people.

The only way your scenario would play out would be if all matches are available on all platforms - then the broadcasters/streamers would be competing for subscribers on price.

Of course the Premier League will never let that happen.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

And yet, here comes another one. This does not seem to be going the way you are seeing things, jfman. The streaming services are increasing in number and will take over from the pay tv channels, providing more choice for less.

Sky knows it. The BBC knows it. Both are planning ahead for that very eventuality.

https://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2019...nclude-europe/

NBCUniversal, 100% owned by Comcast, is making an app available to Comcast subscribers and Sky (another company 100% owned by Comcast) subscribers in Europe.

So essentially I can buy more Comcast owned products in a slightly different way if I wanted to. Or in this case the same way as I can (and do) buy Now TV. Another Comcast product.

I’d say this is closer to how I described the future in post #476 except they already have significant market share and this makes them even less likely to lose out to new entrants.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Raider999

They certainly won't offer more choice for less money - maybe for less people.

The only way your scenario would play out would be if all matches are available on all platforms - then the broadcasters/streamers would be competing for subscribers on price.

Of course the Premier League will never let that happen.

Netflix alone offers more choice than the pay tv channels. And for less than a tenner.

The outcome of sports rights has yet to be determined and although it is early days, I can see streamed sports services being cheaper in the long run with the global players involved. However, there are many things that could happen to mitigate against this and so no predictions from me yet on how the pricing will work out. One thing that does appear to be likely is that each sport will have a separate subscription. So if you like to watch different sports - horse racing, motor racing, golf, darts, boxing and football, this could be expensive if subscribing to multiple services. However, against that, I can see carriage deals being negotiated with Sky, Virgin Media and BT which would provide a cheaper means of viewing across multiple streaming services.

[Raider999]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Netflix alone offers more choice than the pay tv channels. And for less than a tenner.

The outcome of sports rights has yet to be determined and although it is early days, I can see streamed sports services being cheaper in the long run with the global players involved. However, there are many things that could happen to mitigate against this and so no predictions from me yet on how the pricing will work out. One thing that does appear to be likely is that each sport will have a separate subscription. So if you like to watch different sports - horse racing, motor racing, golf, darts, boxing and football, this could be expensive if subscribing to multiple services. However, against that, I can see carriage deals being negotiated with Sky, Virgin Media and BT which would provide a cheaper means of viewing across multiple streaming services.

Just what I have been saying all along!

Streaming will be expensive for sports fans.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Raider999

Just what I have been saying all along!

Streaming will be expensive for sports fans.

It puts the costs up for everyone (not just sports fans) unless it can be demonstrated that they bring 'new' customers in for providers/distributors to recover their costs from.

All that's changing is that content providers are trying to remove platforms from the equation. They hope by dealing directly with the consumer they will tip the balance of power back in their favour avoiding content/platform disputes that are a staple of the US cable industry.

In the case of Comcast they are seeking to vertically integrate the lot end to end as shown above. It's not more choice it's more ways to make the same choice.

[RichardCoulter]

This article predicts that linear programmes via Freeview will still be around in 2042!

https://ukfree.tv/article/1107052541...eview_in_2042_

It predicts that those under 24 will abandon linear TV by 2027, those between 25 and 44 will abandon it by 2035 and those over 45 will be the ones still using the system.

[Raider999]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

This article predicts that linear programmes via Freeview will still be around in 2042!

https://ukfree.tv/article/1107052541...eview_in_2042_

It predicts that those under 24 will abandon linear TV by 2027, those between 25 and 44 will abandon it by 2035 and those over 45 will be the ones still using the system.

Doesn't surprise me on those splits - it is being driven by the young, who will probably find some way to stream what they want for nothing.

Not having a go at them per se - just that they are more tech savvy than the rest - whilst those over 45 consist of a lot of people who would struggle to tell you what streaming is

Not sure I would agree - my kids(?) are 31 and 27, and both subscribe to Amazon Prime (half price, because they both work at Universities) and Netflix (as do a lot of their friends) - they can’t be ersed with the hassle(as they see it) of dodgy downloading.

[Raider999]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Not sure I would agree - my kids(?) are 31 and 27, and both subscribe to Amazon Prime (half price, because they both work at Universities) and Netflix (as do a lot of their friends) - they can’t be ersed with the hassle(as they see it) of dodgy downloading.

But they aren't in the lower age group they are in the middle aged group - so perhaps their preferences are mixed?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

This article predicts that linear programmes via Freeview will still be around in 2042!

https://ukfree.tv/article/1107052541...eview_in_2042_

It predicts that those under 24 will abandon linear TV by 2027, those between 25 and 44 will abandon it by 2035 and those over 45 will be the ones still using the system.

I can understand where the author of this article is coming from, but drawing a straight line from where we are now is not the way to be certain about the future. He or she completely disregards the increasing financial problems the scheduled linear TV channels will encounter as the income from advertising drops off because viewers are changing their habits. Resistence by some to on demand programming will wear away quicker as this becomes the norm in society.

I stick by my prediction. The old channels will be dead by 2035. I say again, the BBC is working on the assumption that they will be gone by 2038 at the maximum, so I don't think I'm far off, do you?

[jfman]

You are massively overstating the financial problems because it suits your prediction.

The actual cost of broadcasting a linear channel is virtually zero if you own the content anyway. Streaming will broadly be led by the same companies evolving but the point where it’s no longer financially viable for them to maintain a linear presence is much further away due to the relatively low costs involved.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

You are massively overstating the financial problems because it suits your prediction.

The actual cost of broadcasting a linear channel is virtually zero if you own the content anyway. Streaming will broadly be led by the same companies evolving but the point where it’s no longer financially viable for them to maintain a linear presence is much further away due to the relatively low costs involved.

Of course it's not! Have you ever stopped to think how many people are involved in drawing up the schedules, fitting the advertisements within the limited openings within and between programmes, working out how to fill the gaps in the schedules where insufficient first run programmes are available, the need for an announcer before programmes start, etc, etc. It is far easier to simply upload a programme with advertisements included without regard to precise timing.

Have you forgotten the problems ITV experienced a few years back when advertisers reduced the amount of commercials due to the recession? That's how tight the margins are, and it would not take much for advertisers to reduce drastically the amount of advertising on commercial channels as viewership dropped off.

The smaller channels will go first. Keep your eye on Sky 2. I can't see that surviving for much longer.

[spiderplant]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

It is far easier to simply upload a programme with advertisements included

So how do the adverts get included? What happens if the advertiser doesn't want the advert shown in all regions? How does the advertiser get charged for the number of times their advert is seen? What if the advertiser wants the advert to be unskippable? What happens if the lifetime of the advert isn't the same as the lifetime of the content? What happens if the advert is SD but the content is HD? Or one has Dolby audio and the other doesn't?

Still sure it's easier?

[denphone]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Of course it's not! Have you ever stopped to think how many people are involved in drawing up the schedules, fitting the advertisements within the limited openings within and between programmes, working out how to fill the gaps in the schedules where insufficient first run programmes are available, the need for an announcer before programmes start, etc, etc. It is far easier to simply upload a programme with advertisements included without regard to precise timing.

Have you forgotten the problems ITV experienced a few years back when advertisers reduced the amount of commercials due to the recession? That's how tight the margins are, and it would not take much for advertisers to reduce drastically the amount of advertising on commercial channels as viewership dropped off.

The smaller channels will go first. Keep your eye on Sky 2. I can't see that surviving for much longer.

Why? as Sky as a company are very profitable so have no need to close any channel.