Re: The future of television
 

I have never claimed that the trend will reduce to zero. What I have claimed is that there will be a point reached when the broadcast channels will consider that it is no longer worth the effort to continue to broadcast by this method.

As for the scheduler issue, what you say about scheduling may be true of tinpot channels such as ‘Talking Pictures’, for example, which I hear is run from a garden shed! But the bigger, popular channels are a different proposition.

I-Phones? I’m not sure what they have to do with the price of eggs.

Re: The future of television
 

Trends...

In the first 5 years of iPhone sales, the sales multiplied by 60x after the first year, then sales growth stabilised, and since 2015, has remained constant (in fact, dropped a bit after 2015).

I believe the point is that constant growth in any line of business is not guaranteed.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...cal-year-2007/

Re: The future of television
 

Which is so close to zero it may be zero.

Can you explain to me how the act of scheduling is proportionately more expensive for larger channels than smaller channels? A huge media conglomerate could do it for buttons across swathes of channels across numerous countries.

As Hugh says I’m questioning your ability to read trends and make accurate assumptions off the back of them.

Re: The future of television
 

Reflecting Chris's point the other day about the pandemic-led streaming boom, Netflix is now reporting growth below target. Interesting to see it blaming last year's growth too.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...boom-wears-off

Re: The future of television
 

Not surprising - they really just ate their own lunch last year, gaining a good chunk of the subs they might otherwise have had to work longer and harder to attract. The double whammy is unfortunate, with the forthcoming new content slowdown caused by the same pandemic that also caused the rapid increase in subs. Institutional investors will be worried that insufficient new content over the coming months will test the commitment of some of their newer subscribers, who may only have signed up because they were stuck at home.

Re: The future of television
 

Just found this, which is interesting.

https://advanced-television.com/2021...egy-for-youth/

The reason for me that it’s interesting is that it is acknowledged that scheduled TV means extra work for the schedulers. That extra work means extra cost. Something that some of us on this forum seem to believe is unimportant from a broadcaster’s point of view.

When you combine the extra cost with the viewing trends, this gives a pretty good indication of which way we are going.

I accept completely that the neanderthals will not agree. However, I would point out that neanderthals were subject to a best before date! :D[COLOR="Silver"]


But more generally, once you are freed of the constraints of scheduling and programming a linear channel, it becomes really exciting in terms of the possibilities of the different genres we might venture into – such as factual programmes. On ITV2, we have been very successful in becoming the No1 destination for young adults and we did that by really targeting them and focussing on funny, often irreverent, entertainment programming with a tone that ran through all the content. We prided ourselves that as a viewer you come in, lean back, have fun, and “But more generally, once you are freed of the constraints of scheduling and programming a linear channel, it becomes really exciting in terms of the possibilities of the different genres we might venture intoq all the content.

We prided ourselves that as a viewer you come in, lean back, have fun, and we programmed it so every programme led neatly into the next, it’s all about inheritance, it’s about 9pm junctions and watersheds. But guess what, on demand it’s not…and when you’re free of those linear channel constraints there’s other things you can do in programming terms…”

Re: The future of television
 

Where does it say scheduled programmes mean extra work?

It mentions constraints involved in linear programming, but not extra work - or is that an assumption?

Re: The future of television
 

I agree, but that point does not negate mine, that in terms of on-demand viewing, there will come a point where conventional viewing will no longer be seen as important to broadcasters.

You can only take your analogies so far, Hugh. Advertisers are key to Freeview, but if they are left selling their wares to people who cannot afford their products ... well, I’ll leave it to you to complete that sentence.

---------- Post added at 19:08 ---------- Previous post was at 19:06 ----------

Are we nitpicking again here, Hugh? You seem to be getting desperate to prove the impossible argument.

Just saying’....

Re: The future of television
 

Well, you’d know what that looks like.

Re: The future of television
 

Desperate to get some acknowledgement of the inevitable, yes!

Although I have to say I’m getting a bit past caring. I might just let events prove my argument.

Re: The future of television
 

You said Didn’t answer my question, though, did you?

Please highlight where, in that article, it states that scheduled TV means extra work?

Re: The future of television
 

“Neanderthals”????

Re: The future of television
 

Breaking News .... scheduled TV means TV schedulers have to work ... :dozey:

Re: The future of television
 

Its alright as one has been called far worse as its water off a ducks back as they say..;)

Re: The future of television
 

Someone here getting bullied out of existence by Homo Sapiens then ??