in a years time will be shut down, too many subscriptions and services these days. should have partnered with a larger player in the space.
This really isn't what I was expecting. The Doc & Lifestyle section is barren and lifeless, nothing of any real interest in there. I've signed up for a 30 day trial but promising more things in 6-12 months quite frankly doesn't cut it.
I can see this going South inside 6 months, too many competing streaming services for similar money with much larger selections.
The doctor ?????
I would take the young ones instead.
I dont see what it's for
OK if you don't want to pay for a TV license at £12.80 per month, but need old streamed iplayer stuff, I guess £6 per month is OK.
But it doesnt have recent stuff, and in all honesty, you can pick up box set DVD's for £5 on ebay for the things you realyl miss.
dead… before it was breathing
I can see it surviving.
It has existed in North America for the last 4 years, providing it in the UK adds little to the operating costs (the hosting and content already exists for the NA market,) so your only costs are for UK payment providers and a bit of advertising up front.
We're not the target market, just an add on.
There are a few things from the 90s and early 2000s that haven't appeared on other formats or streaming services (as far as I know), that I'd be interested in watching again if they are present on there.
I'm not willing to sign up first to find out though, so I've sent them an email with a list of shows asking if they are on it. Even if they are though, I suspect it would only hold my interest for as long as it took to have a run through the shows on the list, so would guess at 3 months at most.
EDIT: Had an email back, and it was a no. Most of the list consisted of kids shows from the 90s and early 2000s, but they said kids content wasn't part of what they had on there.
Is it categorically stated anywhere that you do not need a TV license to use this service?
I know its streamed as opposed to broadcast live so no need for a license in that respect , however i would not put it past the BBC to bury somewhere in the terms and conditions that a license is needed.
If you have a TV licence it makes no sense.
If you don't have a TV Licence it makes no sense
Only point is for international licencing, but as half of ITV shows are showing american stuff, again what's the bloomin' point?
I'm just glad I don't have a tv licence to see my cash being wasted.
I've given up on streaming and largely TV. There was a sweet spot a few years ago, but it's got confusing and fragmented again. If it's being broadcast on TV then I'll happily acquire it from the most convenient means and watch it at my leisure. Up shot is now I've cancelled all my subscriptions because it was getting silly.
ROFLMAO - So true. They are their own enemy. Right now, it's all the SJW stuff that has caused us to go hallmark and everything else free we can get instead of netflix (cable killed years ago), which is just SJW across the whole place and in EVERY show they make themselves. That and other issues they refuse to fix such as you still can't adjust fonts, or description box size (tons of wasted space for that info), can't filter whatever you want out, such as ALL NON-english audio (simple checkbox in DB for any filter), or any topic you don't want. For example, not religion, no westerns, anime, LGBT, etc etc. Whatever you are NOT interested in is a SIMPLE checkbox in your profile for that content to be HIDDEN. They refuse to fix/allow changes, so we changed them out…LOL.
But yeah, at some point they create mass pirates again, which went away to some extent with so much cheap content. Why take time to pirate anything when you get almost everything for $8-12 a month or free via roku/tubi/youtube/crackle etc etc. But the second you make me need 10 channels again as everyone has 2 shows each we want, well, welcome back pirates in mass numbers…ROFL. You do it to yourself by making your product painful to own/purchase at some point and then…Well, people start seeing PAYING as optional. Today that is death, as EVERYTHING is easily available for under $15 a month (maybe $20 where you live), for multiple services (ways to get your data, news servers, private nzb, pvt ddl/forums, torrents etc) and a vpn. They really don't realize this is NOT the time to wage war over exclusive content. Maybe hold up seasons for a year or something, but not making deals for later dates for everything at some point (and announcing it) means welcome back pirates who are far better equipped to get that job done today and quick too (who doesn't have HSI?).
nobodyspecial
ROFLMAO - So true. They are their own enemy. Right now, it's all the SJW stuff that has caused us to go hallmark and everything else free we can get instead of netflix (cable killed years ago), which is just SJW across the whole place and in EVERY show they make themselves. That and other issues they refuse to fix such as you still can't adjust fonts, or description box size (tons of wasted space for that info), can't filter whatever you want out, such as ALL NON-english audio (simple checkbox in DB for any filter), or any topic you don't want. For example, not religion, no westerns, anime, LGBT, etc etc. Whatever you are NOT interested in is a SIMPLE checkbox in your profile for that content to be HIDDEN. They refuse to fix/allow changes, so we changed them out…LOL.
But yeah, at some point they create mass pirates again, which went away to some extent with so much cheap content. Why take time to pirate anything when you get almost everything for $8-12 a month or free via roku/tubi/youtube/crackle etc etc. But the second you make me need 10 channels again as everyone has 2 shows each we want, well, welcome back pirates in mass numbers…ROFL. You do it to yourself by making your product painful to own/purchase at some point and then…Well, people start seeing PAYING as optional. Today that is death, as EVERYTHING is easily available for under $15 a month (maybe $20 where you live), for multiple services (ways to get your data, news servers, private nzb, pvt ddl/forums, torrents etc) and a vpn. They really don't realize this is NOT the time to wage war over exclusive content. Maybe hold up seasons for a year or something, but not making deals for later dates for everything at some point (and announcing it) means welcome back pirates who are far better equipped to get that job done today and quick too (who doesn't have HSI?).
I do enjoy this game, let's see if any meaning is lost from reading just the ALL CAPS:
nobodyspecial
ROFLMAO SJW SJW EVERY ALL NON-ENGLISH DB LGBT NOT SIMPLE HIDDEN LOL.
ROFL PAYING EVERYTHING NOT HSI.
tomcoleman
in a years time will be shut down, too many subscriptions and services these days. should have partnered with a larger player in the space.
The BBC did seem to start to do that. With a number of thier shows ending up on Netflix. Bodyguard for instance can't be shown on Britbox at the moment due to a deal with Netflix for the show. (almost certainly just a timed deal though)
Not sure if it will close though, i suspect even if it doesn't make prophit in the first few years. They will still keep it going as this is the future of TV. You would also expect that the take up of the platform mabee higher outside of the UK, in regions where the opportunity to watch these shows isn't the same as those of us from the UK. (by all accounts, US has 650,000 subscribers and has been running there for 2 years)
The BBC does have a question to answer in the future though regarding funding, with investment in Britbox and the likes of Dave. The TV license is really becoming a tougher sell.
really doesnt seem worth it in the UK, at least not if you have Virgin/Sky/BT etc.
With Dave, Gold, Drama etc you already get everything from Dads Army to Last of the Summer Wine, and iPlayer has some cracking stuff on it atm.
personally with BBC content my opinion is that we have already paid for it, with license fees, since day 1, we should now have access to all of it. This may however, require an increase in license fees to pay for hosting.
Dareos
personally with BBC content my opinion is that we have already paid for it, with license fees, since day 1, we should now have access to all of it. This may however, require an increase in license fees to pay for hosting.
That's what I was saying in a discussion elsewhere. We've already paid for this content to be produced but if you didn't watch it live or manage to catch a repeat, tough. There's the DVD/BluRay route but it leaves a bitter taste paying for it twice.
If they can license streaming BBC without a TV license they will have a product, it seems to be mainly for resale though rather than the mass market.
I am just waiting until everything on Sounds + iPlayer is with a year archive, or more, then my TV license may seem worth it again. Meanwhile I use it for the monthly Bloomberg or Music TV session. Ripped off? You bet.
I can see myself subscription surfing. This month kids its Britbox. Next month its Disney+. Better get binge watching on the exclusives! I just can't justify more than one ‘tv’ subscription of more than about £7 month (I never bothered with Sky as it was so expensive). Who is going to keep all these subscriptions going?
I'm just hoping the different firms will offer deals as you cancelled say 6 months ago, have 2 months for 1! That'll be even cheaper. I can then play the same game I do with broadband by switching and hardly paying anything.
I have to wonder if this is a pre-cursor to an entirely different BBC model, not least because the TV licence days seem to be numbered, and with it, perhaps, broadcaster-led content scheduling.
Msybe it makes more sense, for the majority of “users” to dump clanky old broadcast mechanusms entirely? After all, that's a huge chunk of currentky reserved bandwidth that would no doubt have significant revenue-generating commercial uses.
They could even have a “streaming” channel or two with current BBC1/2 content, and a +1, +2, +24 type option from an online TV Guide that then does an on-demand supply thing if anyone selects from that guide.
Same could apply to providing the elements necessary to meet the BBC charter obligations to inform, educate, etc.
I've so far supported the license model, but even I'm finding it harder and garder to do so ….helped by the BBC cramming the gap between programs with adverts …. for their own stuff.
One USP for Auntie Beeb always was content delivery uninterrupted by adverts but even that is getting to be so last century, with znetflix, etc, offering ad-free delivery and advertisers moving (sorry, largely already moved) online, at least in large part.
The whole broadcast “over air” thing is starting to look a bit like the last of a dinosaur breed that hasn't yet noticed it's a fossil.
Saracen999
Helped by the BBC cramming the gap between programs with adverts …. for their own stuff..
This is a large part of the problem for me, we pay £150 a year to get television without adverts, that we absolutely must pay to watch any live TV, even if you're watching it through SkyGo on a Playstation, streamed over the internet, but they put adverts in.
It doesn't matter if that advert is for the new Mega Ultra Triple Stacker from McDonalds or for the latest BBC program, an advert is an advert. They've even introduced them into the iPlayer (skippable, but for how long?).
I'm currently paying for a TV Licence so that I can watch the Formula 1, through a PS4, via a SkyGo subscription that my dad allows me to use; what does the BBC have to do with that? £150 a year stings a lot. I use the iPlayer as well, but only to try and get some value out of that £150.
The issue of the eventual move away from the licence fee is removing the stuff it also pays for but can't be controlled. If it was just TV you could lock most (I'd argue Parliament & News should be FTA regardless of platform,) inside the iPlayer and charge a sub and for TV this would be fine.
But it also pays for the website, which is also easy to put behind a sub.
And radio. Which is not. Both the national and local AM/FM stations have no simple way of going behind a paywall without turning off broadcast altogether. And IP radio has nowhere near the reach as IP TV.
Of course you could make them as funded or remove them, but I'd say that while the market could replace the national stations local radio is woeful.
spacein_vader
The issue of the eventual move away from the licence fee is removing the stuff it also pays for but can't be controlled. If it was just TV you could lock most (I'd argue Parliament & News should be FTA regardless of platform,) inside the iPlayer and charge a sub and for TV this would be fine.
But it also pays for the website, which is also easy to put behind a sub.
And radio. Which is not. Both the national and local AM/FM stations have no simple way of going behind a paywall without turning off broadcast altogether. And IP radio has nowhere near the reach as IP TV.
Of course you could make them as funded or remove them, but I'd say that while the market could replace the national stations local radio is woeful.
The problem with all this is the old and poor. Its all well and good sticking this stuff behind a subscription but when the average 70+ year old struggles to even access the internet how can they get it? Its going to go this way eventually however it will require internet access to be pretty much ubiquitous first (and smart devices that don't go dumb after 2 years - looking at some budget TVs that no longer work!). I still think you need to give it 10 years+.
cheesemp
The problem with all this is the old and poor. Its all well and good sticking this stuff behind a subscription but when the average 70+ year old struggles to even access the internet how can they get it? Its going to go this way eventually however it will require internet access to be pretty much ubiquitous first (and smart devices that don't go dumb after 2 years - looking at some budget TVs that no longer work!). I still think you need to give it 10 years+.
You must know a different bunch of 70-year olds to me, if the “average” struggles to access the internet. One or two I know don't have the net, but it's through choice not lack of ability. The other couple of dozen or so have been accessing it for many years. And it is an ….. erm …. self-remedying issue anyway.
Besides, if you can access a TV program guide on cable etc, you can access a Netflux engine. The transmission mechanism, be it over-air, cable service or streaming, is pretty much irrelevant.
I think you underestimate many 70-yr-olds and over.
Saracen999
You must know a different bunch of 70-year olds to me, if the “average” struggles to access the internet. One or two I know don't have the net, but it's through choice not lack of ability. The other couple of dozen or so have been accessing it for many years. And it is an ….. erm …. self-remedying issue anyway.
Besides, if you can access a TV program guide on cable etc, you can access a Netflux engine. The transmission mechanism, be it over-air, cable service or streaming, is pretty much irrelevant.
I think you underestimate many 70-yr-olds and over.
Agreed.
Also 95% of the country has access to broadband according to OFCOM.
Seems a bit late to the streaming train? A lot of work needed to stand out surely
