[Former Member 2410]

It will eventually replace Freeview. Perhaps people won't use it until they have to (e.g., when terrestrial frequencies are finally given over to the mobile networks). However, there's a lot of TV's to be replaced in the next 10 years or so. Dependent on many factors, Freeview (as in the terrestrial transmissions) may cease earlier than the frequencies are available for them to use, or it may be reduced to a skeleton service with the 'big 5' channels. Who knows?

As for the reason they're starting with just new TV's, please re-read my post here: pres.cafe , where I cover my thoughts on this.

[WillPS]

It will eventually replace Freeview. Perhaps people won't use it until they have to (e.g., when terrestrial frequencies are finally given over to the mobile networks). However, there's a lot of TV's to be replaced in the next 10 years or so. Dependent on many factors, Freeview (as in the terrestrial transmissions) may cease earlier than the frequencies are available for them to use, or it may be reduced to a skeleton service with the 'big 5' channels. Who knows?

As for the reason they're starting with just new TV's, please re-read my post here: pres.cafe , where I cover my thoughts on this.

I'm just not convinced about the approach, and instead relying _entirely_ on new TV sales. It's not inconceivable that major players like Samsung won't be interested in it at all as it'll compete with their own IP linear offering. My Philips Android TV is quite heavily integrated with Pluto TV (it appears like a third EPG alongside Freeview and 'Satellite'); what if Paramount simply offer more money to Philips and co to stick with Pluto TV and not do Freely?

I get a whiff of hubris with this whole endeavour.

To address your original point the reason OG Freeview was so successful was that it was so unprescriptive in terms of what the Freeview consortium required in order to gain Freeview accreditation - and of course there were plenty of boxes which weren't technically Freeview approved boxes which could be sold as Digital TV receivers, customers didn't really need to know the diff. Indeed for the first 18 months or so the most common way to access was on a slow old ONdigital box! IP changes that relationship dramatically because (we assume) the only way to access the linear IP services will be by Everyone TV letting you in. I don't doubt there'll be some fun and games to be had with this for the determined but there won't be 'IP TV converter boxes' sat on the shelves in Tesco/Aldi ready for people to pick up and shove in their trolleys on a whim. That was how Freeview (the platform) got in the public conscience, whether the boxes said Freeview or not.

[Former Member 2410]

I'm just not convinced about the approach, and instead relying _entirely_ on new TV sales. It's not inconceivable that major players like Samsung won't be interested in it at all as it'll compete with their own IP linear offering. My Philips Android TV is quite heavily integrated with Pluto TV (it appears like a third EPG alongside Freeview and 'Satellite'); what if Paramount simply offer more money to Philips and co to stick with Pluto TV and not do Freely?

I get a whiff of hubris with this whole endeavour.

To address your original point the reason OG Freeview was so successful was that it was so unprescriptive in terms of what the Freeview consortium required in order to gain Freeview accreditation - and of course there were plenty of boxes which weren't technically Freeview approved boxes which could be sold as Digital TV receivers, customers didn't really need to know the diff. Indeed for the first 18 months or so the most common way to access was on a slow old ONdigital box! IP changes that relationship dramatically because (we assume) the only way to access the linear IP services will be by Everyone TV letting you in. I don't doubt there'll be some fun and games to be had with this for the determined but there won't be 'IP TV converter boxes' sat on the shelves in Tesco/Aldi ready for people to pick up and shove in their trolleys on a whim. That was how Freeview (the platform) got in the public conscience, whether the boxes said Freeview or not.

Agreed, but we don't know there won't be boxes, dongles etc. in the future. A partnership with one TV manufacturer is a start. There will be more, especially if Everyone TV make it easy to integrate, which they will as it's in their own best interests. Also, the Government will want a direct replacement for Freeview, including PSB prominence.

RXTV states that Freely TV's will also be able to get channels via the aerial, therefore being more like Freeview Play or a hybrid model. I'm not 100% sure that's right, but I am not being dogmatic and I'm quite happy to be proven wrong.

My thoughts are that it will eventually be built into most / all TV's in exactly the same way as Freeview is now. Not saying every manufacturer will do that, and some make seek deal with, for example, Pluto TV, but I can't see the majority of the public buying those TV's if they can't easily get BBC, ITV, C4, C5 and their associated services.

[i.h]

There is some value in stricter control - remember the "split NIT" stuff that took out some of the ON digital boxes (understandable as it was first gen) and more notably the SetPal based boxes, and a software update could not be forthcoming as they'd already gone bust. As compared to (if I remember correctly) Panasonic DVD recorders which did have the same problem but could be upgraded - I seem to remember having to burn a CD to do it.

I do hope that existing Freeview/Freesat devices are included in any rollout though.

[Andy]

I think it's a miss to be pushing this on to new hardware - they'd be better off doing it as an app in my opinion.

If the software is good enough, then there should be enough of a draw for people to download it. Modern TVs and devices like Fire Stick, Apple TV etc are all more than capable of running an app that does a bit of EPG, a bit of live IPTV and some on demand stuff.

[Brekkie]

That may come but ultimately I guess it's intended as a platform you'll also access apps from, not just be an app.

Having had Wifi issues myself this week I think there is still alot to be said for media being delivered over different mediums. Even as someone who always defends linear broadcasting you don't realise how much you use streaming until it's not an option. Had to dig out an ethernet cable in the end (by broadband was working, just not the wifi) but I think of all the devices I use connected to the internet only my laptop and Freeview box has an ethernet connection.

[orange]

I really do think they’re going an odd way about this. Surely the main initial aim should be to get everyone on board with it and get people connected using existing devices rather than going down this really bizarre and convoluted route.

Nobody is going to buy a “Freely box” when they can get an indoor aerial for a tenner from Amazon. What they absolutely would do is use their existing Smart TVs/Streaming devices to download an app for free which means more eyes on broadcasters and less e-garbage floating around.

[WillPS]

I really do think they’re going an odd way about this. Surely the main initial aim should be to get everyone on board with it and get people connected using existing devices rather than going down this really bizarre and convoluted route.

Agree, although I can see why perhaps they don't want this to be just an app; if they want this to be a truly hybrid experience and start with Freeview/Freesat's lineup as a base perhaps.

Nobody is going to buy a “Freely box” when they can get an indoor aerial for a tenner from Amazon.

There are no shortage of use cases where this isn't an option, in fairness. It's a moot point though because Everyone TV are refusing to produce or even allow such a thing, the Everyone TV answer for anyone who wants IP derived TV is a new TV, which is basically 2 fingers to the customer IMHO.

[Allanbuzzy]

With the rollout that Everyone TV is proposing, I can't see it succeeding long-term. Sure, buying a purpose-built Freely box or telly (with Freeview/Freesat as standard) sounds great... if this was 5-10 years ago. I think when people saw the idea of Freely, they expected it to be an app on an Apple TV, or a website on their computer.

Only reason I can think of as to why they haven't done this approach is DRM + the catch-up services already existing, which is dumb especially for channels that don't already stream online (if, but to name a few, That's TV, the GREAT! channels, E4 Extra, etc.)

[Former Member 2410]

I cannot stress this enough. One. Step. At. A. Time. There's a long way to go for Everyone TV on both Freeview, Freest and Freely, and this is ONE partnership with ONE manufacturer. We don't know if there will be more (likely), we don't know if there will be apps or software updates for any existing devices (possible), we don't know if it will be incorporated into new dongles, sticks or STBs (again, possible). The time will come when we know more, but it's just a beginning. Everyone who's stating the roll-out will fail may be right, but equally, just give it time...