VOD : Netflix/Streaming Services

[Mad Max]

I agree with a lot of what OB, says, the dozens of channels on Virgin and Sky are mostly garbage imo, if I didn't like football I wouldn't subscribe to Virgin, I'd just watch whatever I wanted on Netflix or Amazon, the footie is the only thing that keeps me with Virgin.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Mad Max

I agree with a lot of what OB, says, the dozens of channels on Virgin and Sky are mostly garbage imo, if I didn't like football I wouldn't subscribe to Virgin, I'd just watch whatever I wanted on Netflix or Amazon, the footie is the only thing that keeps me with Virgin.

It's nice to see somebody's got taste on this forum, Max!

[jfman]

There’s over 250 channels on Sky/Virgin. Statistically it’s unlikely someone will like them all, or even the majority of them.

However anyone with any sense would know that bundling keeps prices down. Indeed, even you have admitted that fledgling streaming apps might not survive without guaranteed income from being bundled with other pay-tv services.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

It's nice to see somebody's got taste on this forum, Max!

As they say taste is often in the eye of the beholder..

Originally Posted by denphone

As they say taste is often in the eye of the beholder..

You might want to see a doctor about that, as I always thought taste buds were on the tongue and in the lining of the mouth...

(you probably meant "beauty)

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

There’s over 250 channels on Sky/Virgin. Statistically it’s unlikely someone will like them all, or even the majority of them.

However anyone with any sense would know that bundling keeps prices down. Indeed, even you have admitted that fledgling streaming apps might not survive without guaranteed income from being bundled with other pay-tv services.

250 channels and nothing on. Some bargain.

Of course bundling keeps prices down. But that's only looking at cost per channel. When you consider that you are paying for all that when you only watch a dozen or so of them, you have to question whether that is value for money. Particularly when there may only be one or two programmes per week that you even bother to record from those channels.

[spiderplant]

It's in the ear of this chap
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/l...-a7996766.html

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Hugh

You might want to see a doctor about that, as I always thought taste buds were on the tongue and in the lining of the mouth...

(you probably meant "beauty)

Yes l did mean beauty actually.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by spiderplant

It's in the ear of this chap
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/l...-a7996766.html

H'mm...I wonder what The Good Wife tastes like.....

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

250 channels and nothing on. Some bargain.

Of course bundling keeps prices down. But that's only looking at cost per channel. When you consider that you are paying for all that when you only watch a dozen or so of them, you have to question whether that is value for money. Particularly when there may only be one or two programmes per week that you even bother to record from those channels.

You do have to question if it’s worthwhile but look what happened when they spun off La Liga and Serie A into Eleven Sports. £6 more a month for minority interest content. Imagine valuable content being separated and losing economies of scale?

Bundling doesn’t require me to watch or have any interest in the vast majority of the content available, just keep the price below what I’d pay for what a do want in a fragmented environment. Having seen Eleven Sports I’ve never been more confident that this is the case.

[Aguero9320]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

250 channels and nothing on. Some bargain.

Of course bundling keeps prices down. But that's only looking at cost per channel. When you consider that you are paying for all that when you only watch a dozen or so of them, you have to question whether that is value for money. Particularly when there may only be one or two programmes per week that you even bother to record from those channels.

Bruce Springsteen was right. He said there was 57 channels and nothing on. Even with 557 channels, there's still nothing on!

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

You do have to question if it’s worthwhile but look what happened when they spun off La Liga and Serie A into Eleven Sports. £6 more a month for minority interest content. Imagine valuable content being separated and losing economies of scale?

Bundling doesn’t require me to watch or have any interest in the vast majority of the content available, just keep the price below what I’d pay for what a do want in a fragmented environment. Having seen Eleven Sports I’ve never been more confident that this is the case.

I've always said that sport is a different kettle of fish, jfman. My posts have been focusing on dramas, films and documentaries.

---------- Post added at 18:46 ---------- Previous post was at 18:44 ----------

Originally Posted by Aguero9320

Bruce Springsteen was right. He said there was 57 channels and nothing on. Even with 557 channels, there's still nothing on!

Spot on, Aguero. Although you would have thought that Bruce would have got dressed by now.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I've always said that sport is a different kettle of fish, jfman. My posts have been focusing on dramas, films and documentaries.

My memory rather tells me something different..

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I've always said that sport is a different kettle of fish, jfman. My posts have been focusing on dramas, films and documentaries.

Spot on, Aguero. Although you would have thought that Bruce would have got dressed by now.

The same principle applies to all forms of content though. Do I really want the back catalogue of different Hollywood studios scattered across four or five providers? Or worse, new releases on some platforms and the back catalogues on others?

What if Discovery owned documentaries, National Geographic documentaries and the BBC back catalogue all ended up separated?

It seems odd you are focused on dramas and documentaries when you consider the present pay tv bundles to be inadequate. There’s literally thousands of hours broadcast and on demand available. From as little as £7 a month on Now TV.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by denphone

My memory rather tells me something different..

You need to go back to the posts rather than rely on your memory, Den!

---------- Post added at 13:27 ---------- Previous post was at 13:21 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

The same principle applies to all forms of content though. Do I really want the back catalogue of different Hollywood studios scattered across four or five providers? Or worse, new releases on some platforms and the back catalogues on others?

What if Discovery owned documentaries, National Geographic documentaries and the BBC back catalogue all ended up separated?

It seems odd you are focused on dramas and documentaries when you consider the present pay tv bundles to be inadequate. There’s literally thousands of hours broadcast and on demand available. From as little as £7 a month on Now TV.

Now TV is a streaming service, I should point out.

As I said before, if content is broken up between the streaming services, you don't have to subscribe to them all at once because you won't be tied into annual, 18 months or two yearly contracts. That gives you the flexibility to jump about and take advantage of the various deals that are going.

I do watch factual stuff other than dramas of course. I find that rather too much of the factual stuff gets repeated ad nauseum and some is pretty lightweight stuff. If it's not intellectually stimulating, I tend to find it rather boring. We deserve better.