Its clearly regressing.
Looking at sky e.g.
The production quality of their content is going down which indicates cost cutting.
The subscription fees are rising rapidly year on year, this is to compensate for drop in subscribers.
This increase is especially apparent on the base packages which is likely to compensate for where most of the loss of subs is felt in the premium packages.
As the prices go up it moves further and further away from the average person been able to afford it.
Sky's entire model is about exclusivity as well, as they not willing to compete in other metrics, look at how they refused to allow f1tv to be a thing in the uk, and wont share movies with netflix etc.
However I also think scheduled tv in general is on its way out as well. The future is on demand content for scripted content. Live would be for news events and sport.
Sky world used to cost £15 maybe a decade or so ago, now if I were to ring up sky for the full package I would be paying the best part of a £100, that inflation is insanity, and the cost is ridiculous.
Also I see Am not the only one thats noticed that sky deliberately cripple their online content, the EPL highlights on their website is like what youtube used to be like in the 2000s, now tv has been a joke as well and thats a paid for service, yet when I watched highlights of the leics spurs game on lcfc website, it was proper hd with decent bitrate.
You couldn’t be more wrong.
Sky have consistently won awards for their production in sports broadcasting, news broadcasting and their own content too. Chernobyl, a joint HBO & Sky production was raved about by critics and viewers and has just won Emmy’s.
Sure the prices rise every year, but so do everyone else’s. And they’re limited to, a 10% rise every year as well.
A one or two pound increase isn’t massive on £22pm but when Netflix puts a pound or two on their package it’s a far higher percentage increase?
Sky have had an INCREASE in subscribers every quarter for nigh on five years now. Your statement they’re losing customers is false.
Sky have a massive on demand presence on both their satellite service and via Now TV. They’re on this. Many older people don’t watch or use on demand either so Sky has to cater to both parties, which they do.
To compare Sky World at £15 a decade or more ago with two Sports channels, two movie channels and a dozen other channels compared to the current offerings isn’t a fair or valid comparison. The content available now is far far wider and broad than before with more movies, more live content and more sports covered.
Why on earth would you offer content that you expect people to pay for, for free, elsewhere? You want to protect your content and hope that if people want to watch it they'll pay you for the privilege. If you offer it for free, they won’t pay? The same goes for the F1. They paid Bernie and the FIA a pretty penny for exclusive coverage. Why on earth would they want to allow F1 TV in the UK when they paid for exclusivity?
Now TVhas a bit of a problem in that If they get too close to the content and quality and usability of the main satellite service, their main and most profitable business, they could lose customers from one to the other.
You seem to forget that a business has a primary concern of making a profit rather than being the cheapest or feeling charitable.
