> because Netflix-style on-demand services are the way people want to consume content now
Is it? I have been exposed a bit to Netflix and the content is a lot of filler with the occasional interesting movie. But not nearly enough value for what it costs in my opinion, and with the very limited programming it would become boring quickly.
> because Netflix-style on-demand services are the way people want to consume content now
> Is it? I have been exposed a bit to Netflix and the content is a lot of filler with the occasional interesting movie.
The comment you quote says "the way people want to consume", but your comment is about the content itself.
I think most people want the on-demand style, but of course everyone also wants there to be good content. Content being equal, do you think on-demand content is not the way most people would want to consume it?
When several people are potentially watching it can take a long time to reach consensus. Even by myself I've scrolled Netflix for 15 minutes and then turned it off, because I can't agree what I want to watch...
In contrast, channels have content in sync with the rhythm of the day and the hour. You only have to choose the channel. I wish I could flick through channel streams at the speed I can flick through broadcast channels.
I understand the point, but whether it actually is the way people want to consume content or not is irrelevant — that is the accusation being levelled at the BBC, and specifically that they risk being “Blockbuster in the age of Netflix”.
Is it? I have been exposed a bit to Netflix and the content is a lot of filler with the occasional interesting movie. But not nearly enough value for what it costs in my opinion, and with the very limited programming it would become boring quickly.