Physical & Digital EST: The Future of Home Video Discussion Thread

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

This P.W guy has made the exact same prediction as me, where is the mocking and gifs for him? Nothing like selective targeting guys.

P.W. simply discussed AT&T's interest in their mobile audience; he never said that AT&T would break up all their content into pieces and make all of their customers view it in that manner.

In short, his posts were rational while yours are silly and sensational. P.W. talks about AT&T finding new ways to market products to their mobile customers while you have AT&T killing long form content and you also have AT&T forcing us to watch content on our phones.

P.W. was wrong about some of his statements regarding TV subscribers, but he never predicted the end of long form content or of the viewing of that content on TVs.

Not only do you see threats that do not exist, now you see allies that don't, either.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Vilya

P.W. simply discussed AT&T's interest in their mobile audience; he never said that AT&T would break up all their content into pieces and make all of their customers view it in that manner.

In short, his posts were rational while yours are silly and sensational. P.W. talks about AT&T finding new ways to market products to their mobile customers while you have AT&T killing long form content and you also have AT&T forcing us to watch content on our phones.

P.W. was wrong about some of his statements regarding TV subscribers, but he never predicted the end of long form content or of the viewing of that content on TVs.

Not only do you see threats that do not exist, now you see allies that don't, either.

Read his posts back and get back to me. He believes mobile is the future also.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

In the next 20 years, in our lifetime? What difference does it make? It’s going to happen.

Nothing that you predict is going to happen. I doubt that you could predict rainfall in a rainforest.

Open ended predictions are worthless even when they are not also as ridiculous as your always are. If you really had any insight, you could make a precise prediction and you could also back it up with evidence. You do neither.

All you do is blather about the obvious: People use mobile devices and companies want to market products and services to them. From there you dive right off of the deep end and conclude that that MUST mean that these same companies ONLY care about mobile device usage and will forego marketing to anyone else using other means to watch content.

Companies like several revenue streams; it protects them against the possibility that some of them may get reduced to a trickle or even dry up completely.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Read his posts back and get back to me. He believes mobile is the future also.

He never made the insane predictions about mobile devices that you did. Of course mobile has a future, but it is not the ONLY future. Your myopia, obsession, and paranoia blind you.

[PenguinInfinity]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

How clearer does it have to be? AT&T have access to 140 MILLION mobile customers. 60 million BB and 40 million Pay tv (that doesn’t add up to 100 million by the way) who do you think they are going to target? They want everyone on a mobile package because that’s their business and they can use location data to send targeted ads that would be worth TRIPLE the standard tv based targeted ad. Which do you think thy would prefer? It’s a dream for these companies if they can do that and they also have the bonus of cheaper, shorter content production.

AT&T doesn't want everyone to use just mobile. They get the most money from their customers that have mobile, broadband, and pay TV subscriptions. It is in their best interest to continue to get as many people as possible subscribing to all three.

Absolutely nobody wants a mobile-only future and nobody but you is predicting a mobile-only future.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

That’s because you lot move the goalposts. UV was a correct prediction. Like it or not. Just because you guys were covered in the U.S, doesn’t mean it didn’t have major ramifications in other countries. U.K, Germany, Australia, France, Belgium, Spain etc.. I know you guys forget there is s world outside America but even so......
We don’t have a digital locker so we can’t buy from a variety of stores and have those purchases projected. You can, we can’t.

Nobody moved any goalposts. You, however, move them every year when another year passes without any of your goofy predictions having coming to pass. You are every bit as bad as those that have been predicting the death of physical media for the last 5+ years.

While you may have predicted the closure of UV, you had no idea when it would happen making your prediction of no benefit to anyone. I can predict the closure of any given company and if I just wait long enough, I have a pretty good chance of eventually being correct. You're like a weatherman who always predicts that a storm is coming, but who can't tell us where or when making the prediction worthless.

The void left by UV will be filled. If the affected customers still have access to their digital content, they will not care much about who provides that access.

The transition from UV is going much smoother in the U.S. due to MA, but foreign customers are finding places to transfer their digital titles.

Incidentally, the U.S. market is much larger than ALL of the markets that you named combined, so it is only natural that there would be more options here than in smaller markets.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

How clearer does it have to be? AT&T have access to 140 MILLION mobile customers. 60 million BB and 40 million Pay tv (that doesn’t add up to 100 million by the way) who do you think they are going to target? They want everyone on a mobile package because that’s their business and they can use location data to send targeted ads that would be worth TRIPLE the standard tv based targeted ad. Which do you think thy would prefer? It’s a dream for these companies if they can do that and they also have the bonus of cheaper, shorter content production.

We have Quibi (a new short form mobile only streaming service) seeing investment by all the major film and tv companies. Spielberg, Disney etc..

We have Youtube originals, Facebook Watch, a new technology that allows and vertical AND landscape viewing according to your preference and no doubt many more ventures.

71% of Americans subscribe to Pay TV services and they plan to keep doing so. AT&T alone has 41.5 million of those Pay TV subscribers and they are not about to forego that income.

58% of young people aged 18-34 subscribe to Pay TV and also have no plans of cancelling their service. One of the most common reasons they gave for keeping Pay TV was to watch live news and live sports:

"Moreover, 18-34-year-old loyalists are 23% more apt to say that live news is a reason for keeping pay-TV and 14% more likely to say that access to live sports is a reason."

https://www.marketingcharts.com/tele...cutting-105558

As usual, you fail to grasp that there are multiple markets easily coexisting together and more than one option to watch content. With you, all roads are one way only and that is simply not the reality. Reality: it's a place that you should try visiting.

[cpr3584]

I still pay for AT&T cable. About $100 a month for both my internet and cable. I watch a lot of live sports and news. There are several TV streaming services (Direct TV now, HULU tv, Youtube TV, sling, etc) but they all cost $40-$50 a month, the same im paying for cable.

[PenguinInfinity]

Originally Posted by cpr3584

I still pay for AT&T cable. About $100 a month for both my internet and cable. I watch a lot of live sports and news. There are several TV streaming services (Direct TV now, HULU tv, Youtube TV, sling, etc) but they all cost $40-$50 a month, the same im paying for cable.

According to Steedeel, AT&T would much rather you be paying $40-$50 a month for mobile instead of the $100 a month you are paying for internet and cable. They don't care about their cable or internet customers at all.

[cpr3584]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

According to Steedeel, AT&T would much rather you be paying $40-$50 a month for mobile instead of the $100 a month you are paying for internet and cable. They don't care about their cable or internet customers at all.

haha yea as long as that $100 clears my bank account i dont think they care

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Vilya

71% of Americans subscribe to Pay TV services and they plan to keep doing so. AT&T alone has 41.5 million of those Pay TV subscribers and they are not about to forego that income.

58% of young people aged 18-34 subscribe to Pay TV and also have no plans of cancelling their service. One of the most common reasons they gave for keeping Pay TV was to watch live news and live sports:

"Moreover, 18-34-year-old loyalists are 23% more apt to say that live news is a reason for keeping pay-TV and 14% more likely to say that access to live sports is a reason."

https://www.marketingcharts.com/tele...cutting-105558

As usual, you fail to grasp that there are multiple markets easily coexisting together and more than one option to watch content. With you, all roads are one way only and that is simply not the reality. Reality: it's a place that you should try visiting.

Millennials are not watching full games of anything in General. Why do you think the sporting world is panicking?

You are not considering the attention span issue in all this. A very real problem despite what you claim.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

According to Steedeel, AT&T would much rather you be paying $40-$50 a month for mobile instead of the $100 a month you are paying for internet and cable. They don't care about their cable or internet customers at all.

In 2014, my last year of subscribing to AT&T U-Verse, I subscribed to their cable TV and internet both and the monthly bill for those two alone was $200 per month. My mobile bill was $60 per month.

AT&T made a great effort to retain me as U-Verse customer; that alone tells me how important that part of their business is to them.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Millennials are not watching full games of anything in General. Why do you think the sporting world is panicking?

You are not considering the attention span issue in all this. A very real problem despite what you claim.

There is no attention span issue. None. The science has proven it and I showed you the BBC article that eloquently explained this fact. It was never my claim; I researched the subject after you first made this unfounded statement and your assertion was completely debunked. You just refuse to believe it because it does not fit your anti millenial agenda. Facts are not dependent upon beliefs- including yours. I will always believe the science over your fear mongering.

Here it is again if you care to read it without your predetermined conclusion:

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-38896790

And a another article that says:

"The State of Attention study also found evidence that attention spans are not only intact across generations, but also expanding in younger generations."

https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/321266

^Facts: another something that you should try sometime.

Your dislike of millenials is all that is on display here. You constantly criticize them. One day, you will need one of them to provide medical care to keep your old rigid thinking paranoid self alive and you will be damn glad that they had the attention span necessary to complete medical school. I, for one, am certainly grateful to the young doctors, and nurses, that have provided expert care to me.

A millenial vegan must really set you off.

You have no idea how much of a game anyone watches on any screen. You are just making this sh*t up. You made an absolute statement critical of a group that you dislike with absolutely nothing to support it. People checking their cellphone during a timeout or a commercial break does not mean that they stopped watching the game on TV anymore than going to the bathroom or running to grab a beer does.

The sports leagues derive much of their income from TV viewing of their events. The only one panicking is you.

"the NFL will collect $54.6 billion from TV contracts with FOX (runs from 2014-2022), CBS (2014-2022), NBC (2014-2022), ESPN (2014-2021) and DirecTV (2015-2022)."

"The NBA’s national TV deals generate $2.66 billion annually for the league."

"The second-highest grossing league in the world is Major League Baseball, which grossed a little more than $10 billion in 2017."

"The NHL generated $4.43 billion during the 2017-18 season."

"English Premier League: The Premier League, the top pro football league in England, is another league benefitting from an influx of TV money. It ranks as the third-highest grossing league globally, raking in $5.3 billion (U.S. dollars) in 2016. It generates almost double the revenue of the next closest top professional football league (Germany’s Bundesliga, $2.8 billion)."

"Indian Premier League: The top-10 most-watched television broadcasts of all time in India are cricket matches. the league is valued at $6.3 billion. That figure represents a 19-percent increase from 2017."

https://globalsportmatters.com/busin...eague-revenue/

That amount of revenue may cause hearts to palpitate, but it sure ain't from panic. The NFL's TV revenue alone ($54.6 billion) is worth 2.4 times that of the entire global streaming revenue in 2018 ($22.6 billion).

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

Another example of one of those pesky customers who subscribes to multiple AT&T services. As a 193 billion dollar company with 273 thousand employees they have great difficulty focusing on multiple things at once.

I'm sure that AT&T was actually ecstatic when you dropped U-Verse, if only they could convince everyone else to drop their cable and internet subscriptions so they didn't have to deal with the hassle.

You are stuck in the now.

[Vilya]

^ While you're stuck in a straight jacket. You must type with your nose.

You go ahead and keep worrying about the end of the world as we know it. The rest of us feel fine.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0GFRcFm-aY&list=LLzdbCCjZwKiweT1gZcOybKA&index=7&t=0s

And you're also stuck in denial, completely ignoring the $86.1 billion dollars in TV revenue that those previously listed sports leagues rake in. That's 3.8 times the entire global streaming revenue for 2018. If that's what you call panic, then I can't wait to have a panic attack myself.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Vilya

^ While you're stuck in a straight jacket. You must type with your nose.

You go ahead and keep worrying about the end of the world as we know it. The rest of us feel fine.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0GF...A&index=7&t=0s

And you're also stuck in denial, completely ignoring the $86.1 billion dollars in TV revenue that those previously listed sports leagues rake in. That's 3.8 times the entire global streaming revenue for 2018. If that's what you call panic, then I can't wait to have a panic attack myself.

Yes, and age groups drop off with millennials and younger. Their target audience (future audiences). Sky’s premier league bidding war with B.T was cheaper than last time around. Another sign that live sports broadcasts are losing their value.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

There is more at stake than disc v digital. With digital, we eventually lose the right to the living room tv.

It's probably just as well. My cholesterol is a little high as it is.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by octagon

It's probably just as well. My cholesterol is a little high as it is.

Very good.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Another sign that live sports broadcasts are losing their value.

You talk about others being stuck in the now but everything that has your panties bundled are snapshots in time. You ignore that these 'new' phenomena aren't usually very new.

Ticket sales go up and they go down. Viewership goes up and it goes down. Broadcast revenues go up and they go down. Major sports organizations have always had to contend with changing tastes and demographics and technology.

They tweak their rules and their presentation and their broadcasts all the time in order to maximize the appeal of their product.

Does this round of tweaking portend the End of Days?

No.

And if I'm wrong and soccer does wind up on the ash heap of history, eh, life will go on

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Sky’s premier league bidding war with B.T was cheaper than last time around.

Not only does this not matter, it's not even true.

I just did few quick searches and again, you're looking at a snapshot to the exclusion of all else.

Four years ago Sky and BT had a big bidding war and jacked the price of the broadcast packages by like 45%. This time around BT wasn't as aggressive and the broadcast packages sold for about what they did four years ago.

So to recap: the price paid to the league for broadcast rights to premiere league games skyrocketed four years ago and stayed there.

And you see this as more evidence that the sky is falling.