^ Nice one, cheers, probably see if I can get one cheap come the time

You missed my point, that "linear viewing habits" are being changed even by mainstream technology.

Incidentally I personally find the phrase "time-shifting" spurious and misleading, (despite originating in the home video judgement from the 1980s), it's now being used as a [LIFTED] marketing term to explain to stupid people what the box they are being mis sold won't be able to do. In reality it's just capture and storage, surely VoD is the same, whilst you don't need prior knowledge, you still have to get the content from a service (itunes). So in reality if you get your video from itunes it's not that much different from Sky+, sure the content may be exclusive to the "service" it's still a hardware/software business model, either way you're paying one is subscription based and the other pay per view. I guess maybe VoD and PVR are not accurate enough terms to describe either system.

VOD is not time shifting.

VOD is exactly as it is called. Video On Demand

VOD requires an internet connection in order to be able to deliver the content (or you would have to own a disc with everything on in the drive ready to play)

VOD is not a PVR experience however both can be used to view shows that were previously on television. VOD does not need the system to be shown on TV, you could have a whole series of VOD episodes that were never broadcast on TV but available for viewing.

Time-shifting is not misleading in modern (IPTV and hard drive based) systems, in terms of a hard drive system it is more of a buffer recording from when you press the button but freezing the tv so you can resume when ready, however on an internet protocol based system of delivering content it can be exactly that, where a different trick stream is used to get the user back up to speed/further ahead depending on if the VOD is available at the same time as the live stream.

Getting content from iTunes compared to sky is completely different. iTunes is a download and play service, again different to VOD as VOD is streamed (akin to iPlayer or youtube)

A lot of systems that do this do merge in features and functionality, however a subscription service is usually favoured for both as it enables the user to receiver DRM on the recordings which can help to prevent unlicenced copies of shows being distributed after or in the case of some systems if a unit is stolen/misappropriated it can be stopped working.

It's just semantics, again you've missed my point, perhaps I'm not being clear enough, I should not have clouded the matter by discussing different systems/business models for viewing "content".

VOD, PVR, itunes, iplayer, whatever all spell the end for "linear viewing" (furthermore they all have to be paid for).

You can argue as much as you like about the relative merits or lack of for each system, at the end of the day they all do the same thing, allow the viewer to select something to watch, then watch it whenever they want.

I hope that's clear enough.

You aren't being clear. It's not semantics at all because it is comparing a Ferrari 355, Vauxhall Nova, a Skoda and an Audi about which is best then dismissing anyones comment because "they're all cars". These are all different solutions and to misuse the terms or call them incorrectly is wrong.

They don't spell the end for linear viewing to put it simply, for a main tv maybe however very few people will get a PVR for their bedroom or kitchen (as a home on average has more than 1 tv), the only alternative is when the internet speeds in the UK reach a realistic amount minimum (6mbps minimum standard) then there could be a shift towards more IPTV based solutions such as iPlayer and 4OD as iPlayer does allow live streaming however even then the cost of entry for a unit would have to be incredibly low to compete with a £10 freeview box.

To compound the criticism of your arguement further I would point out that of the examples you provided, only iTunes charges you for shows on top of the cost of hardware. 4OD and the ITV/5 solution are all free and advert supported. If you take Hulu as an example of how it could be:

Due to the increased amount in viewers also mean the demand for advertisement space is increasing as opposed to supply. This increases the price approx 1.5-3x as much for the same ad to be shown during the same show to the same audience
http://www.pcworld.com/article/167344/t ... n_fox.html

They don't all do the same thing, some of the features overlap however the actual functionality is VERY different. I spent the past 14 months working on the largest distributed IPTV system in the world.... I do know what I am on about

Thank you, that is exactly what I'm saying, they are all cars, I'm not saying one is better than the other, or cheaper or faster, simply they all ultimately do the same thing, which in this case, in my opinion is alter peoples film, TV and music consuming habits.

What you are effectively saying is people who have horses that want to upgrade to cars, that then buy cars will get the bus, or something, I don't know, but you have totally missed my point.

Feel free to comment further, but you're not getting it after three attempts so I'm done with this one.

Well make a clear concise post then

And show one study that states aside from the main viewing device being a computer other than a TV that vieweing habits are changing