The future of television

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

There will be a place for the existing non-FAST TV channels in the future, just as there will for the FAST channels, of course there will. Nobody’s going to stop it from happening. I simply believe that as on demand viewing becomes prevalent, the broadcasters will choose not to take that route.

I know you and some others who have contributed to this thread disagree, but that is their right. I’m just expressing my opinion, nothing more. I have heard you, and you have heard me. We can all make up our own minds.

You'd make a good Jehovah's witness OB, if they believed the Lord can only he streamed

[Jaymoss]

Originally Posted by Mr K

You'd make a good Jehovah's witness OB, if they believed the Lord can only he streamed

We are Multi Media nowadays. We had The Photo-Drama of Creation audio visual in cinemas in 1914 and used to minister with phonographs. Jah you see is ahead of his time

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

There will be a place for the existing non-FAST TV channels in the future, just as there will for the FAST channels, of course there will. Nobody’s going to stop it from happening. I simply believe that as on demand viewing becomes prevalent, the broadcasters will choose not to take that route.

I know you and some others who have contributed to this thread disagree, but that is their right. I’m just expressing my opinion, nothing more. I have heard you, and you have heard me. We can all make up our own minds.

Schrödinger’s scheduled programming channels - you believe there’s a place for scheduled programming channels in the future, and also believe that there won’t be a place for scheduled programming channels in the future (because broadcasters will choose not to provide them).

Thank you for clarifying that point…

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Schrödinger’s scheduled programming channels - you believe there’s a place for scheduled programming channels in the future, and also believe that there won’t be a place for scheduled programming channels in the future (because broadcasters will choose not to provide them).

Thank you for clarifying that point…

I don’t really think my comment needs any explanation, Hugh. Of course the channels could appear as now but on IPTV. If they wanted to, they could. But I don’t think they would want to do that if on demand was the preference of most viewers, with audience figures for conventional viewing declining. Why would they?

[1andrew1]

The decision of Sony to remain a content producer and not a streamer looks a wise one.

Decade-long spending boom on original TV content expected to slow

Lossmaking streaming platforms and traditional channels face pivotal year in 2023, say analysts

Analysts predict 2023 will be a pivotal year for the video media industry, which has been hammered by the deteriorating economy and an expensive transition from traditional television to streaming, where most platform’s soaring content costs have yet to be matched by revenue gains...

Meanwhile, big legacy media companies such as Disney, Paramount and Warner Bros Discovery are facing another year of heavy streaming losses, with Morgan Stanley estimating content costs per subscriber will be almost double that of Netflix while revenue per member will be lower.

Excluding Netflix, Morgan Stanley estimates streaming services suffered operating losses of around $10bn in 2022. Losses are expected to peak for some services in what the analysts called a “tipping point year” where it will be clear costs are reaching “unsustainable levels”.

“Streamers are raising prices and cutting costs,” the Morgan Stanley analysts wrote in a note to clients. “If these moves do not deliver meaningful streaming profits, we see two options (not mutually exclusive): give up and/or consolidate.”

https://www.ft.com/content/d9a7cded-...1-44bf6516d476

---------- Post added at 22:26 ---------- Previous post was at 22:20 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I don’t really think my comment needs any explanation, Hugh. Of course the channels could appear as now but on IPTV. If they wanted to, they could. But I don’t think they would want to do that if on demand was the preference of most viewers, with audience figures for conventional viewing declining. Why would they?

Because it brings in additional viewers at a low cost. Declining audiences doesn't mean small audiences. And some content is better suited to linear channels.

Streamers are learning that consumers are fed up of having to shell out 4+ subscriptions just to watch their programs.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Paul

Streamers are learning that consumers are fed up of having to shell out 4+ subscriptions just to watch their programs.

+1

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I don’t really think my comment needs any explanation, Hugh. Of course the channels could appear as now but on IPTV. If they wanted to, they could. But I don’t think they would want to do that if on demand was the preference of most viewers, with audience figures for conventional viewing declining. Why would they?

Because it is trivially inexpensive to set up a selection of content you already own, to first drop according to a pre-advertised schedule.

Just think beyond your silo for half a second and surely even you can see this. If the BBC owns half a dozen shows which it is going to host on demand on the iPlayer, the additional cost of creating an additional menu item which is a parallel live stream, in which those shows feature one after the other of a weekday evening, with linked continuity announcements and advertisements, is tiny. Dropping content in such a way allows busy TV viewers to choose one menu item - the ‘broadcast stream’ or whatever they choose to brand it - and just leave it running. No further intervention required from teatime all the way to the 10 o clock news or beyond. Believe it or not, a lot of people actually do this and are fine with it. It works for them, whether you can comprehend it or not.

If customers want it, the BBC can do it, and the cost of doing it is tiny, why would they *not* want to do it, absent the fundamentalist zeal that underpins your own views on this subject?

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Paul

Streamers are learning that consumers are fed up of having to shell out 4+ subscriptions just to watch their programs.

indeed I currently have the following:

Sky - incorporating Discovery+ & Paramount +

Prime

Disney

Apple (which I took out and didn't get around to cancelling, but I've watched some decent stuff on there)

Although I have a Smart TV in every room I access all my content through my SkyQ box, as not all apps are available on all Smart TVs.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Pierre

indeed I currently have the following:

Sky - incorporating Discovery+ & Paramount +

Prime

Disney

Apple (which I took out and didn't get around to cancelling, but I've watched some decent stuff on there)

Although I have a Smart TV in every room I access all my content through my SkyQ box, as not all apps are available on all Smart TVs.

I think Paramount + is a bit optimistic as a stand-alone offering. I can see them being a bolt-on to Now TV in the future. Ending the Smithsonian channel looks like a bit of an own goal.

The interesting development will be what happens to Discovery, HBO, Eurosport and BT Sport.

I'm sure Netflix, Apple, Disney + and Amazon will all remain as they are.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I think Paramount + is a bit optimistic as a stand-alone offering. I can see them being a bolt-on to Now TV in the future. Ending the Smithsonian channel looks like a bit of an own goal.

The interesting development will be what happens to Discovery, HBO, Eurosport and BT Sport.

I'm sure Netflix, Apple, Disney + and Amazon will all remain as they are.

I don’t think Paramount are the only one in that boat. The irony if they bundle/consolidate offerings is it loses what they wanted to achieve - more of their own revenue independent of platforms.

I suspect that whatever system I go for it will be the same old "there's nothing on to watch".

[Dude111]

Yes sadly thats why I stopped watching.... Almost nothing but bloody disgusting trash on now!

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Dude111

Yes sadly thats why I stopped watching.... Almost nothing but bloody disgusting trash on now!

Try BBC4 Dude.

Originally Posted by Mr K

Try BBC4 Dude.

He’d have to change his VPN setting…