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

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

My dear chap, I am not suggesting that any of these changes I have been going on about will happen in the next few months! How much of the contractual stuff do you see that deals with 2035, or even 2025?

5G broadcast certainly won’t be ready to replace DTT for some good few years - well beyond your modus operandi.

---------- Post added at 20:43 ---------- Previous post was at 20:30 ----------



You have not taken account of the fact that an increase in OTT viewing will rob the TV channels of their audience, thus reducing advertising revenue. Your premise is that viewer habits will not shift in a major way in the future, which is a pretty big assumption, given the way younger people watch TV. Those younger people are growing older, and there is no sign yet that they are changing their OTT viewing habits. Then there is the newer generation starting to come through, who are even more attracted to OTT viewing.

Add to that the declining quality of content on the traditional TV channels, and you are looking at a bleak future for them. I believe that the direct to consumer approach increasingly adopted by the various studios (to wit, the Disney content, which will all now move exclusively to Disney+) will be the final nail in the coffin.

Despite what some people think on this forum, the traditional channels will not carry on broadcasting once a certain audience threshold can no longer be reached. The BBC saved a lot of money when it transferred BBC3 to online only, and therefore OTT-only distribution will become much more attractive. This will be paid for by subscription and/or advertising.

Nearly spat my coffee out at that line.

The usual helping of dubious opinion presented as fact, with no economic grounding, misrepresenting the BBC 3 situation.

Pray, tell, OB what is this audience threshold for a linear channel?

[Mad Max]

Originally Posted by jfman

Nearly spat my coffee out at that line.

The usual helping of dubious opinion presented as fact, with no economic grounding, misrepresenting the BBC 3 situation.

Pray, tell, OB what is this audience threshold for a linear channel?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

Nearly spat my coffee out at that line.

The usual helping of dubious opinion presented as fact, with no economic grounding, misrepresenting the BBC 3 situation.

Pray, tell, OB what is this audience threshold for a linear channel?

Maybe something you should consider, jfman, since you claim DTT could survive with a handful of viewers. Let’s put your skills as an economist to good use.

---------- Post added at 21:50 ---------- Previous post was at 21:49 ----------

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth

Looks a lot like moving goalposts again to me.

https://youtu.be/lz9HDvg_mp0

I don’t think you saw any goalposts in the first place, Grim.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Maybe something you should consider, jfman, since you claim DTT could survive with a handful of viewers. Let’s put your skills as an economist to good use.

I don’t think you saw any goalposts in the first place, Grim.

Can you source where I’ve said this? I’m fairly agnostic towards the technology as I’m not pushing an agenda in the sense that you are. So it doesn’t sound like the kind of thing I’d say.

I know you’ve persistently struggled to address the actual points I’ve made so it suits you to misrepresent them. Especially if your next goalpost shift is to pretend you didn’t mean scheduled, linear television at all and you meant DTT.

[Legendkiller2k]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

My dear chap, I am not suggesting that any of these changes I have been going on about will happen in the next few months! How much of the contractual stuff do you see that deals with 2035, or even 2025?

5G broadcast certainly won’t be ready to replace DTT for some good few years - well beyond your modus operandi.

---------- Post added at 20:43 ---------- Previous post was at 20:30 ----------



You have not taken account of the fact that an increase in OTT viewing will rob the TV channels of their audience, thus reducing advertising revenue. Your premise is that viewer habits will not shift in a major way in the future, which is a pretty big assumption, given the way younger people watch TV. Those younger people are growing older, and there is no sign yet that they are changing their OTT viewing habits. Then there is the newer generation starting to come through, who are even more attracted to OTT viewing.

Add to that the declining quality of content on the traditional TV channels, and you are looking at a bleak future for them. I believe that the direct to consumer approach increasingly adopted by the various studios (to wit, the Disney content, which will all now move exclusively to Disney+) will be the final nail in the coffin.

Despite what some people think on this forum, the traditional channels will not carry on broadcasting once a certain audience threshold can no longer be reached. The BBC saved a lot of money when it transferred BBC3 to online only, and therefore OTT-only distribution will become much more attractive. This will be paid for by subscription and/or advertising.

My dear chap at lot more than you will ever know about contracts i told you already that Channel 4 have a plan for at least 20 years on traditional broadcast platforms which part of that do you not understand?
The way people watch tv is certainly changing no-one has ever disputed that but traditional broadcast tv is not going anywhere, did you know that in 2017 there was a proposal for Channel 6 from Comcast? Neither did i until i looked through old documents today as we all know Comcast went on to buy SKY last year instead.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

Can you source where I’ve said this? I’m fairly agnostic towards the technology as I’m not pushing an agenda in the sense that you are. So it doesn’t sound like the kind of thing I’d say.

I know you’ve persistently struggled to address the actual points I’ve made so it suits you to misrepresent them. Especially if your next goalpost shift is to pretend you didn’t mean scheduled, linear television at all and you meant DTT.

So if you are now denying that you ever suggested the TV channels could survive with very little funding? Who’s really changing the goalposts here?

The reason I mentioned DTT channels is simply that I think the pay TV channels will go first.

I have always addressed your points, jfman, the problem is you are not listening.

---------- Post added at 22:46 ---------- Previous post was at 22:43 ----------

Originally Posted by Legendkiller2k

My dear chap at lot more than you will ever know about contracts i told you already that Channel 4 have a plan for at least 20 years on traditional broadcast platforms which part of that do you not understand?
The way people watch tv is certainly changing no-one has ever disputed that but traditional broadcast tv is not going anywhere, did you know that in 2017 there was a proposal for Channel 6 from Comcast? Neither did i until i looked through old documents today as we all know Comcast went on to buy SKY last year instead.

But, Legendkiller, as your very example shows, plans change. And where do you think Comcast is going now? OTT, of course. You will see this play out over time.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

So if you are now denying that you ever suggested the TV channels could survive with very little funding? Who’s really changing the goalposts here?

The reason I mentioned DTT channels is simply that I think the pay TV channels will go first.

I have always addressed your points, jfman, the problem is you are not listening.

So I haven’t claimed that DTT channels can exist on very little funding as you suggested a few posts ago.

Thanks for clarifying, OB.

You haven’t addressed any points, and indeed last time I pressed you on the matter moderators got involved due to your persistent use of profanity. Which was a shame really, because it didn’t have to come to that.

[Legendkiller2k]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

So if you are now denying that you ever suggested the TV channels could survive with very little funding? Who’s really changing the goalposts here?

The reason I mentioned DTT channels is simply that I think the pay TV channels will go first.

I have always addressed your points, jfman, the problem is you are not listening.

---------- Post added at 22:46 ---------- Previous post was at 22:43 ----------



But, Legendkiller, as your very example shows, plans change. And where do you think Comcast is going now? OTT, of course. You will see this play out over time.

If by 2035 Channel 4 isn't on traditional broadcast methods i'll buy you a beer if they are still there you buy me a beer, deal?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

But, Legendkiller, as your very example shows, plans change. And where do you think Comcast is going now? OTT, of course. You will see this play out over time.

As ever you fail to demonstrate why someone like Comcast cannot, and would not , do both. They aren’t ideological in the way you are. Maintaining linear channels is cheap for content owners. Amazon and Netflix are developing linear offerings in Germany and France.

It’s also an easy way to advertise or showcase your content.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

As ever you fail to demonstrate why someone like Comcast cannot, and would not , do both. They aren’t ideological in the way you are. Maintaining linear channels is cheap for content owners. Amazon and Netflix are developing linear offerings in Germany and France.

It’s also an easy way to advertise or showcase your content.

Did you ever take any notice at all of the savings the Beeb made when it closed BBC3 as a linear channel? No, you didn’t.

No business would pass up an opportunity like this to make their company more efficient. Once they stop making a decent profit, they will close.

---------- Post added at 23:00 ---------- Previous post was at 22:59 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

So I haven’t claimed that DTT channels can exist on very little funding as you suggested a few posts ago.

Thanks for clarifying, OB.

Yes, you did! DTT channels are linear channels, which you referred to in your very next post!

---------- Post added at 23:04 ---------- Previous post was at 23:00 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

So I haven’t claimed that DTT channels can exist on very little funding as you suggested a few posts ago.

Thanks for clarifying, OB.

You haven’t addressed any points,

Yes, I have! God, you can tell it’s pantomime season!

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Yes, you did! DTT channels are linear channels, which you referred to in your very next post!

I think the point being made here is that if you own the content rights, the marginal cost of broadcasting it on a linear channel is low.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Did you ever take any notice at all of the savings the Beeb made when it closed BBC3 as a linear channel? No, you didn’t.

Please cease from misrepresenting this. Closing BBC resulted in the BBC commissioning less content. The savings were not gained from not broadcasting into the air for 12 hours per day, or video playout costs.

---------- Post added at 23:15 ---------- Previous post was at 23:13 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Yes, you did! DTT channels are linear channels, which you referred to in your very next post![COLOR="Silver"]

Yes, I have! God, you can tell it’s pantomime season!

While all DTT channels are linear, not all linear channels are on DTT. Linear channels could, for example, be broadcast over IPTV, cable, satellite or an app. It’d be helpful if you could clarify at this point whether your 20x5 commitment is for the end of DTT or the end of scheduled linear broadcasting. In one word preferably to prevent you from obfuscating.

Worth noting that the BBC is actively considering returning Three to linear broadcast, because its penetration of its target audience (16-34s) fell from 22% in 2015-2016, the last it was fully broadcast over the air, to just 8% last year. It seems even within the age group that’s fed up of linear and only interested in on-demand content, is a rather significant constituency that will only engage with BBC Three when it’s served to them in a nice, easy, hands-off linear schedule.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-52719883
https://inews.co.uk/news/entertainme...-people-666617

[Legendkiller2k]

So OB isn't prepared to put his money where his mouth is then and agree to my little wager i made him.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Legendkiller2k

So OB isn't prepared to put his money where his mouth is then and agree to my little wager i made him.

Of course he won’t as then he’d clearly have to agree to fixed goalposts. No more room to conflate and obfuscate.

He’s clearly realised, for a second time, that his hopes/dreams are over ambitious. Just as 2025 became 2035 the shift is now ‘linear’ to ‘traditional’ broadcasts.

I’ve asked countless times - to no clear answer - whether continuous video accessed through an app where everyone watches the exact same thing at the exact same time to a fixed schedule would be considered ‘linear’ to Old Boy. An example would be the current Sky Sports News app on Now TV.

Now to any objective observer this is ‘linear’ television. You, or anyone else, can opt in and out as you please and at any given time you’d see exactly what I see. If I sat there for 100 hours the broadcast will continue without any need for the user to do anything (energy saving settings permitted). This is how linear, scheduled television works regardless of delivery method. This is what he’s bleated on about for 7 years.

However, this is where Old Boy’s next clutch at straws comes in. He’s going to argue this is streaming as it’s delivered by the internet. Yet, all that posting he did about watching TV to a schedule being for the brain dead at no point debated the merits of DTT vs IPTV.