The future of television

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Paul

Quicker than what ?

Scheduled TV, of course. On demand is immediate. You have to wait until your desired content is aired on linear TV.

[1701-e]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Scheduled TV, of course. On demand is immediate. You have to wait until your desired content is aired on linear TV.

You do have to wait for the show to be made available to watch.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Scheduled TV, of course. On demand is immediate. You have to wait until your desired content is aired on linear TV.

You have to wait for some streamed content too…

[Itshim]

Originally Posted by Hugh

You have to wait for some streamed content too…

Just setting it up to watch , gives enough time to get a coffee

[jfman]

The thing OB persistently misses is that none of us are somehow ideologically in favour of linear television - we simply recognise the advantages of it.

Sitting on streaming apps for example switching between live Champions League games, or overseas apps live Premiership games, it's nowhere near as convenient as broadcast content on a set top box with EPG numbers. That's just within the same platform. Heaven forbid you want to check the score on a Sky football league game while watching the TNT game on their app.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1701-e

You do have to wait for the show to be made available to watch.

Clearly, although some programmes are available before they are shown on live TV - and often you can see the complete box set before the programme is scheduled on a TV channel.

The thing is, you can watch the programme you choose at a time convenient to you, not simply at the scheduled time, and you don’t need to go to the bother of recording it first.

---------- Post added at 23:00 ---------- Previous post was at 22:58 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

The thing OB persistently misses is that none of us are somehow ideologically in favour of linear television - we simply recognise the advantages of it.

Sitting on streaming apps for example switching between live Champions League games, or overseas apps live Premiership games, it's nowhere near as convenient as broadcast content on a set top box with EPG numbers. That's just within the same platform. Heaven forbid you want to check the score on a Sky football league game while watching the TNT game on their app.

I’ve acknowledged on many occasions that it’s different for sports viewers.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I don’t know, Chris, you seem to be warming to streaming judging by your recent posts.

It’s just a question of getting used to it, and it will almost certainly improve with time.

I use apps, recordings and bookmarks all the time now, and frankly it presents no problem at all. In fact, I get to the content I want just as quickly or quicker.

TV viewing in our living room, by hours watched, is about 50/50 on any given day in terms of as-broadcast v streaming (whether catch-up or online only). It has been that way in our house for the last 5 or 6 years. In our case it’s because we have a greater than average consumption of the sort of sci-fi and fantasy the PSB channels really can’t be bothered doing any more. Plenty of my real-world friends and family don’t consume nearly as much Netflix/Prime/etc.

Our viewing is entirely over IP but that’s entirely because our house has no aerial and the cost and faff of getting one fitted. I would still rather watch as-broadcast TV via a Freesat box than over IP. Channel hopping via apps is an absolute pain in the neck and many FTA channels just aren’t available at all.

It’s a loss of utility that I can live with, because in absolute terms we don’t watch a vast amount of TV and the lack of an aerial, and the associated inconvenience of navigating streaming/catch-up apps, has the decent side effect of making us watch fewer hours per week than we did maybe 10 years ago. The TV isn’t ever on in the background any more. Viewing is a deliberate choice, and therefore something we do less.

But I doubt advertisers and subscription salesmen are happy with that notion, and if by “getting used to it”, you mean you think the viewing public should learn to be satisfied with less, then you are the Emperor Ming and I claim my £5.

Originally Posted by 1701-e

You do have to wait for the show to be made available to watch.

Thats exactly the same with streaming.

---------- Post added at 23:42 ---------- Previous post was at 23:41 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

You have to wait for some streamed content too…

You have to wait for all streamed content, sometimes while you're watching it ...

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I’ve acknowledged on many occasions that it’s different for sports viewers.

That’ll be the sports viewers who pay billions a year for pay-tv services. They aren’t some niche minority, OB. They’ve been propping up the “general entertainment” subscription market around the world for decades.

[OLD BOY]

Further evidence that the TV channels arenot going to survive for much longer.

Some will try to deny it, Canute-like, but the reality is becoming difficult to ignore.

Some channels will close, others will have IP channels and streaming in a transitional period before going streaming only.

https://rxtvinfo.com/2024/freesat-be...changes-ahead/

[EXTRACT]

Broadcasters can save money by ditching traditional means of distributing their channels. Switching to IP-only pushes some of the cost of distributing content to internet service providers and indeed the consumer. It also allows broadcasters to put channels behind a registration wall, so they can commercially monetise user information.

While big channels like BBC One and ITV1 can still command large audiences via traditional platforms, the shift to streaming is already disproportionately affecting smaller and niche channels.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Further evidence that the TV channels arenot going to survive for much longer.

Some will try to deny it, Canute-like, but the reality is becoming difficult to ignore.

https://rxtvinfo.com/2024/freesat-be...changes-ahead/

If Challenge+1 can survive, anyone can.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

That’ll be the sports viewers who pay billions a year for pay-tv services. They aren’t some niche minority, OB. They’ve been propping up the “general entertainment” subscription market around the world for decades.

What is your take on this, then, jfman? If this becomes the norm, it will please people like you (if it’s even possible to please you) because the consumer would only have to subscribe to one streamer to access all the sports.

It could catch on!

https://advanced-television.com/2024...orts-platform/

. ESPN, a subsidiary of The Walt Disney Company, Fox and Warner Bros Discovery have agreed principal terms to form a new Joint Venture (JV) to build a platform to house a streaming sports service in the US.

The platform will bring together the companies’ portfolios of sports networks, certain direct-to-consumer (DTC) sports services and sports rights – including content from all the major professional sports leagues and college sports. The formation of the pay service is subject to the negotiation of definitive agreements amongst the parties. The offering, scheduled to launch inautumn 2024, would be made available directly to consumers via a new app. Subscribers would also have the ability to bundle the product, including with Disney+, Hulu and/or Max.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Further evidence that the TV channels arenot going to survive for much longer.

Some will try to deny it, Canute-like, but the reality is becoming difficult to ignore.

Some channels will close, others will have IP channels and streaming in a transitional period before going streaming only.

https://rxtvinfo.com/2024/freesat-be...changes-ahead/

[EXTRACT]

Broadcasters can save money by ditching traditional means of distributing their channels. Switching to IP-only pushes some of the cost of distributing content to internet service providers and indeed the consumer. It also allows broadcasters to put channels behind a registration wall, so they can commercially monetise user information.

While big channels like BBC One and ITV1 can still command large audiences via traditional platforms, the shift to streaming is already disproportionately affecting smaller and niche channels.

Nothing in that articles forecasts the end of TV channels, just changing the method of delivery

With Freely, more smart TVs should be able to be sold in the UK with an EPG that supports satellite reception alongside IP-streaming. Any satellite household moving to a satellite-enabled Freely device will automatically receive streamed channels through their broadband connection alongside channels broadcast via satellite.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

What is your take on this, then, jfman? If this becomes the norm, it will please people like you (if it’s even possible to please you) because the consumer would only have to subscribe to one streamer to access all the sports.

It could catch on!

https://advanced-television.com/2024...orts-platform/

. ESPN, a subsidiary of The Walt Disney Company, Fox and Warner Bros Discovery have agreed principal terms to form a new Joint Venture (JV) to build a platform to house a streaming sports service in the US.

The platform will bring together the companies’ portfolios of sports networks, certain direct-to-consumer (DTC) sports services and sports rights – including content from all the major professional sports leagues and college sports. The formation of the pay service is subject to the negotiation of definitive agreements amongst the parties. The offering, scheduled to launch inautumn 2024, would be made available directly to consumers via a new app. Subscribers would also have the ability to bundle the product, including with Disney+, Hulu and/or Max.

Sport is streamed all the time, OB.

Sky have been doing it for the best part of twenty years. The issue - that you seem to have missed - is that "deep pockets" streamers have challenges competing with incumbents in a well established market (pay-tv). Streaming in itself isn't a new market, merely a subset of an existing one.

You seem to have missed off this part:-

aiming to provide a new and differentiated experience to serve sports fans, particularly those outside of the traditional pay-TV bundle.

Nothing indicates this will replace existing offerings, rather the proposal is to complement them.

So 9 channels Ive never even heard of have dropped from a system I've never used. Ok.

The only thing in that article that remotely bothers me is the loss of Sky Satellite.
Sky Stream is not a suitable replacement unless they build in a recording or download system.
The mangled method they use atm is just bad, not to mention my TV still works when the internet fails.