General : Coming Soon to Virgin TV (2018)

[jfman]

Just what the market needs: another streamer...

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

Just what the market needs: another streamer...

Nowt wrong with having more choice, IMHO.

It is also a cheaper alternative than either Netflix or Amazon.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Nowt wrong with having more choice, IMHO.

It is also a cheaper alternative than either Netflix or Amazon.

Cheaper it might be but Amazon and Netflix offer far better value and much more content.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by denphone

Cheaper it might be but Amazon and Netflix offer far better value and much more content.

Yes, they do, but some would be very happy with Starz content at this price.

You don't have to subscribe to every streamed service anyway. We can pick and choose.

And if VM do a wholesale deal as they have with BT for its sports programmes and also Hayu, that would be even better.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

You don't have to subscribe to every streamed service anyway. We can pick and choose.

I don't have anything against more choice per se.

However you could end up in a ridiculous situation where content splinters so much that only a tiny number of people benefit from 'new' entrants offering near similar products.

In a hypothetical scenario if all of the major content companies (Disney, Viacom, etc) decide they'd prefer to market their own content at £6-8 per month the vast majority of people would be worse off overall than the status quo.

If Virgin, Sky etc can wholesale the content and an additional standalone service is offered, then that's the best of both worlds. However I fear the streaming future is just going to leave the vast majority paying for a basic TV service, plus three or four add ons, to be worse off while trying to maintain the same quantity/quality of content they have at the minute.

In reality for those who don't want to pay huge amounts the choices have never been better with Netflix, Amazon and Now TV.

I'm not sure what value Lionsgate, Disney, Viacom, etc. would bring to the market with separate standalone offerings that aren't bundled with Sky, Virgin etc.

[SonicMaster]

Originally Posted by jfman

I don't have anything against more choice per se.

However you could end up in a ridiculous situation where content splinters so much that only a tiny number of people benefit from 'new' entrants offering near similar products.

In a hypothetical scenario if all of the major content companies (Disney, Viacom, etc) decide they'd prefer to market their own content at £6-8 per month the vast majority of people would be worse off overall than the status quo.

If Virgin, Sky etc can wholesale the content and an additional standalone service is offered, then that's the best of both worlds. However I fear the streaming future is just going to leave the vast majority paying for a basic TV service, plus three or four add ons, to be worse off while trying to maintain the same quantity/quality of content they have at the minute.

In reality for those who don't want to pay huge amounts the choices have never been better with Netflix, Amazon and Now TV.

I'm not sure what value Lionsgate, Disney, Viacom, etc. would bring to the market with separate standalone offerings that aren't bundled with Sky, Virgin etc.

Completely agree.

I don't what to end up in a situation where to maintain access to the same range of content that we get now from a single Virgin TV package, we end up having to subscribe to multiple different streaming services.

[muppetman11]

^What they said^

Been saying the same for ages.

[Raider999]

Originally Posted by SonicMaster

Completely agree.

I don't what to end up in a situation where to maintain access to the same range of content that we get now from a single Virgin TV package, we end up having to subscribe to multiple different streaming services.

Exactly - people in limited income will bin pay to, go to the pub to watch footie etc nursing a single drink.

A case of suppliers getting too greedy.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

I don't have anything against more choice per se.

However you could end up in a ridiculous situation where content splinters so much that only a tiny number of people benefit from 'new' entrants offering near similar products.

In a hypothetical scenario if all of the major content companies (Disney, Viacom, etc) decide they'd prefer to market their own content at £6-8 per month the vast majority of people would be worse off overall than the status quo.

If Virgin, Sky etc can wholesale the content and an additional standalone service is offered, then that's the best of both worlds. However I fear the streaming future is just going to leave the vast majority paying for a basic TV service, plus three or four add ons, to be worse off while trying to maintain the same quantity/quality of content they have at the minute.

In reality for those who don't want to pay huge amounts the choices have never been better with Netflix, Amazon and Now TV.

I'm not sure what value Lionsgate, Disney, Viacom, etc. would bring to the market with separate standalone offerings that aren't bundled with Sky, Virgin etc.

I really do think that Virgin, Sky and BT will offer bundles of streaming services rather than scheduled linear channels in the future, so your fears should prove unwarranted.

As I said earlier, more streaming services means more choice. You don't have to take them all if you have to pay a subscription.

---------- Post added at 19:18 ---------- Previous post was at 19:14 ----------

Originally Posted by Raider999

Exactly - people in limited income will bin pay to, go to the pub to watch footie etc nursing a single drink.

A case of suppliers getting too greedy.

If you are on a limited income, you might not be able to afford Netflix, but you might just stretch to Starz, which is half the price and appears to offer a good range of content.

I think it is sports that give the most cause for concern, but maybe a major disrupter such as Amazon may force change for the better.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I really do think that Virgin, Sky and BT will offer bundles of streaming services rather than scheduled linear channels in the future, so your fears should prove unwarranted.

.

You will still be saying this when l have gone the way of the dodo OB.

---------- Post added at 19:26 ---------- Previous post was at 19:25 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I think it is sports that give the most cause for concern, but maybe a major disrupter such as Amazon may force change for the better.

Not a chance IMO.

[jfman]

If you are on a limited income the standout product in the market is Now TV, which with vouchers/offers can average £4 a month.

I currently pay for Virgin’s top package, Netflix, Amazon and Now TV for products that undiscounted total something in the region of £150 a month.

I don’t see how every provider spinning off their own products from the existing bundles will reduce what I pay, and I don’t see how it benefits anyone at the bottom end of the market either.

The reason to introduce these services is because they want a bigger slice of the pie than Sky/Virgin currently share.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

If you are on a limited income the standout product in the market is Now TV, which with vouchers/offers can average £4 a month. You are also not taking account of the fact that we are transitioning to on line services only, so you won't be paying for your existing pay-tv channels.

I currently pay for Virgin’s top package, Netflix, Amazon and Now TV for products that undiscounted total something in the region of £150 a month.

I don’t see how every provider spinning off their own products from the existing bundles will reduce what I pay, and I don’t see how it benefits anyone at the bottom end of the market either.

The reason to introduce these services is because they want a bigger slice of the pie than Sky/Virgin currently share.

But you are not taking account of the bundling option, which is the current basis on which Sky, Virgin and BT operate.

Why do you think that something similar won't happen with streaming services?

The point about the 'bottom end' customers is not adequately explained. Currently, subscribers have the choice between Amazon, Netflix and Now TV. Then comes along Starz, offering an option for £4.99. How is that not good news for the less well off?

The mistake you and others are making is the assumption that we will have to subscribe to all streaming services. That is not the case. Nor is it the case that we will continue to pay for our current pay-tv scheduled channels that will go the way of the do-do before too long.

---------- Post added at 20:25 ---------- Previous post was at 20:23 ----------

Originally Posted by denphone

You will still be saying this when l have gone the way of the dodo OB.

---------- Post added at 19:26 ---------- Previous post was at 19:25 ----------



Not a chance IMO.

Negative as usual, Den! The incredible 'no' man!

[denphone]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Negative as usual, Den! The incredible 'no' man!

l would call it being realistic OB as l find that works far better then being over optimistic and unrealistic in a great many things in life.

[jfman]

It’s not a mistake to assume to maintain my present amount of content that I’m going to need access to further services if Disney, Viacom or any others “go it alone”. It may only be £5, but if I’m having to fork out a number of them that’s a significant amount.

To be honest I think if you are in the market for under £5 pay-tv then maybe it’s not one you should be in, and the interests of those small numbers are far outweighed by the millions already in the market and paying through the nose.

Your mistake is assuming this is about delivery, it’s not it’s about money. These companies aren’t opening lucrative new markets in the potential customer base at less than £5 a month.

If it was about delivery methods then Sky and Virgin are already well placed to stream for them. It’s about gaining control of the end to end product and selling directly to the high end of the market. Which is me.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

It’s not a mistake to assume to maintain my present amount of content that I’m going to need access to further services if Disney, Viacom or any others “go it alone”. It may only be £5, but if I’m having to fork out a number of them that’s a significant amount.

To be honest I think if you are in the market for under £5 pay-tv then maybe it’s not one you should be in, and the interests of those small numbers are far outweighed by the millions already in the market and paying through the nose.

Your mistake is assuming this is about delivery, it’s not it’s about money. These companies aren’t opening lucrative new markets in the potential customer base at less than £5 a month.

If it was about delivery methods then Sky and Virgin are already well placed to stream for them. It’s about gaining control of the end to end product and selling directly to the high end of the market. Which is me.

Are you factoring in the fact that you will no longer be paying for the scheduled pay-tv services? I don't think you are.

---------- Post added at 21:17 ---------- Previous post was at 21:16 ----------

Originally Posted by denphone

l would call it being realistic OB as l find that works far better then being over optimistic and unrealistic in a great many things in life.

That would be commendable, Den, if you were, in fact being realistic.