Sky announced performance numbers and drops HD Ticket Fee

Forums › Sky, Neon, Lightbox › Sky announced performance numbers and drops HD Ticket Fee

1 | ... | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23

29752 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2207255 29-Mar-2019 18:43

ockel:

Rikkitic:

6x$15 is about what we used to pay for Sky. The difference is about 10,000x more content.

And you probably pay for a whole lot of content that you dont watch - and doesnt interest you. Go figure.

I agree, as I previously implied, but its not really a Sky issue. If Sky decided to wind itself up and pay out the shareholders, we still have the 6 x $20 problem.

Sky has been awesome to bash (check my bruises), but the overall issue isn't Sky

shk292

2857 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2207259 29-Mar-2019 19:00

tdgeek:
If you had sport. And sport costs. Sky Sport at $100 should be Basic at $20 and sport at $80. Take off the now free HD so sport is now $70. Thats fair. I'd easily pay $20 for both Basics.

The 6 x $15 which will be 6 x $20, will be bucketloads of rubbish, but its 000's of rubbish, sounds good. All we will watch from $20 each will be the great show , or shows, plus some other nice stuff. There wont actually be a lot we get for our $20. (the rest is filler) Thats quite ok, as $4 a week for one great show. or more is good value. But its 6 X that. Its not a bash Sky issue its a bash SVOD issue.

Fortunately for me, between a Freeview recorder, BBC iPlayer, YouTube and Netflix my family has more tv than we have time to watch. At a monthly cost of about a quarter of what we paid for sky, and with much fewer adverts and fillers
You're right, the internet and svod are wonderful things

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek

#2207262 29-Mar-2019 19:09

Rikkitic:

ockel:

And you probably pay for a whole lot of content that you dont watch - and doesnt interest you. Go figure.

That was what I had with Sky.

So you must be pretty annoyed at paying for a whole lot of content (in your 6x$15 services) that you dont watch?

A fallacy argument. The important point is how much do you pay for what you do watch. Cost-per-viewing-hour. A simple concept that anyone can apply to assess the economic value of that which they consume irrespective of the service or services purchased. When the cost exceeds the benefit then one terminates the service. The breadth of the catalogue is irrelevant - the amount consumed is relevant.

Sixth Labour Government - "Vision without Execution is just Hallucination"

tdgeek

29752 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2207264 29-Mar-2019 19:14

shk292:
tdgeek:

If you had sport. And sport costs. Sky Sport at $100 should be Basic at $20 and sport at $80. Take off the now free HD so sport is now $70. Thats fair. I'd easily pay $20 for both Basics.

The 6 x $15 which will be 6 x $20, will be bucketloads of rubbish, but its 000's of rubbish, sounds good. All we will watch from $20 each will be the great show , or shows, plus some other nice stuff. There wont actually be a lot we get for our $20. (the rest is filler) Thats quite ok, as $4 a week for one great show. or more is good value. But its 6 X that. Its not a bash Sky issue its a bash SVOD issue.

Fortunately for me, between a Freeview recorder, BBC iPlayer, YouTube and Netflix my family has more tv than we have time to watch. At a monthly cost of about a quarter of what we paid for sky, and with much fewer adverts and fillers
You're right, the internet and svod are wonderful things

Yep, there is a lot of content out there. The Freeview OD has heaps of stuff. Some have all they want for a low cost, I am one that can't use that, due to sport. Oh well.

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek

#2207265 29-Mar-2019 19:16

tdgeek:

ockel:

tdgeek:

Yes, Sky should have got a new online based STB out before now (its not even out yet) and embraced apps (also not out yet) but they are the only ones making a profit. Yes, the planned changes should have been last year not later this year. Spark has upset proceedings, so with hindsight, sooner again.

IMHO the new online based STB (puck) is probably going to be a very similar beast to VodafoneTV. Anecdotal evidence suggests its not market ready (despite Vodafone pushing it very very hard). So why would Sky launch it now?

If its not ready its not ready, but the market would have declined less if it was out sooner. The UK version, I forget the name has been out for some time? yes, Sky NZ is not Sky UK but they must share more than just the logo. While I don't feel the urge to bag Fellet for not acting 10 years ago, it needed to be sooner than now, and now, nothing has changed

Yes NowTV has been out for sometime. What impact has that had on BSkyB? Its uptake hasnt been great cf Netflix, Amazon et al. Whether it would have had any impact on subscriber decline is debatable. Has Foxtel Now helped Foxtel? Why would it change the NZ marketplace if it hasnt worked anywhere else? Even with Kayo, Foxtel has seen a 8.9% decline in its subscribers on a yoy basis (despite the big price cut to basic, remember that?)

And they share, from my understanding, nothing. SkyNZ even buys content on a market basis from SkyUK. STB's, software - nothing. They share as much as Sky and Foxtel - nothing.

Sixth Labour Government - "Vision without Execution is just Hallucination"

DjShadow

4088 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2207266 29-Mar-2019 19:18

Prob going off topic here but whatever happened to the idea of Fetch TV setting up shop in NZ? The line up looks good if you like the basic linear channels it carries

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek

#2207270 29-Mar-2019 19:19

DjShadow:

Prob going off topic here but whatever happened to the idea of Fetch TV setting up shop in NZ? The line up looks good if you like the basic linear channels it carries

The absence of entry into the NZ marketplace speaks for itself, doesnt it?

Sixth Labour Government - "Vision without Execution is just Hallucination"

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

Spyware

3764 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2207293 29-Mar-2019 20:03

DjShadow:

Prob going off topic here but whatever happened to the idea of Fetch TV setting up shop in NZ? The line up looks good if you like the basic linear channels it carries

Most of the non Australian channels are on Sky though so how would Fletch be allowed to carry them. You'll never see Fletch in our market.

quickymart

13967 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#2207379 29-Mar-2019 22:02

Couple of articles from Newsroom I was reading today that I hadn't seen around the changing of the guard at Sky:

https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2019/02/20/453617/john-fellet-came-to-sky-tv-for-18-months-stayed-28-years

https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2019/03/22/500436/sky-tv-wants-your-love

Interesting how John thinks that Sky got into the internet side too quickly - I think some people may beg to differ.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18663 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2207386 29-Mar-2019 22:22

ockel:

So you must be pretty annoyed at paying for a whole lot of content (in your 6x$15 services) that you dont watch?

Not at all. The relevant point is I have a lot more choice, not a lot more that I don't watch.

Your fallacy argument is forgetting about quality of service. Fewer ads, better technology, no awful promos. Except for films, which I don't watch a lot, an hour of almost anything is a hell of lot more enjoyable than an hour of Sky.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek

#2208452 1-Apr-2019 10:42

Rikkitic:

Not at all. The relevant point is I have a lot more choice, not a lot more that I don't watch.

Your fallacy argument is forgetting about quality of service. Fewer ads, better technology, no awful promos. Except for films, which I don't watch a lot, an hour of almost anything is a hell of lot more enjoyable than an hour of Sky.

A lot more content that you dont watch, a lot more choice of content you dont watch. Either way you're paying for a whole lot of content that you dont want and isnt relevant to your vieiwing habits.

I watch a lot of sport (no advertisements), a lot of drama (no advertisements) and a lot of onDemand (no advertisements). The technology works flawlessly. Seems like a very enjoyable way to consume entertainment.

You, however, are forever complaining that the technology wont do what you want https://www.geekzone.co.nz/forums.asp?ForumId=97&TopicId=245623 and https://www.geekzone.co.nz/forums.asp?ForumId=97&TopicId=245580. It wont work properly, it wont do what you want, "I bought the Shield because of its reputation, but it is the worst purchase I have ever made. All it does is cause problems. I really am fed up with it"

So which is it? Your technology is better (and you're always whining for whining sake) or its not (and claiming so is just another consistent inconsistency in your posts).

Paying for a lot more content you dont watch, contradicatory claims about technology - you really should just try sticking to the facts to avoid contradicting your arguments so often.

Sixth Labour Government - "Vision without Execution is just Hallucination"

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18663 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2208547 1-Apr-2019 11:56

I don't know why you are attacking me in this way at this time, but I am happy to respond. As to your first point, I thought I had already answered that. It was when I had Sky that I was paying (a substantial sum) for a lot of content I didn't want that was not relevant to my viewing habits. Apart from sports, I recall UKTV, The Box, Jones, E!, Food Channel, many others I can't remember the names of. I didn't watch them, didn't want them, but still had to pay for them as part of the 'package'. I'm surprised you keep raising this point because Sky is by far the worst offender in this regard that I have experienced.

As I have previously made clear, my Sky experience ended about a year ago. At that time we were still on the old decoder. My opinions of Sky are based on my customer experience up to then. I can say nothing about them since then. Maybe they have improved enormously. I don't know.

It is considered bad form at best to bring in comments from other threads when trying to make an argument. I can only conclude from that that your argument is not a very good one. But okay, The Shield is not Sky and has nothing to do with it. I have had specific issues with that device and with Android. How this relates to Sky I don't understand, but if you think it proves some kind of point then knock yourself out.

I could also rake through other threads and collect many, many, many complaints about Sky technology. How is Sky Go working for you? Enjoying all that SD content on Neon? Numerous people far more knowledgeable than me have criticised Sky for poorly implemented or outdated technology. If that is the basis of your criticism of me, it is a dumb one. Go find something better.

"So which is it? Your technology is better (and you're always whining for whining sake) or its not (and claiming so is just another consistent inconsistency in your posts). "

This is a personal attack and possibly a FUG violation. Get a life.

"Paying for a lot more content you dont watch, contradicatory claims about technology - you really should just try sticking to the facts to avoid contradicting your arguments so often."

Fact: Sky may have modified their packages since I left, but when I was a subscriber I had to pay for a lot of crap I didn't want in order to get the stuff I did want. This is beyond dispute. Many people have complained about it. If you absolutely insist on pursuing this I am prepared to go through some past threads to verify it. I imagine the reason Sky changed their packages was because of this very thing. You are just reaching for things to hit me with and you are not doing very well at it.

Fact: Complaining about Android is not the same as complaining about Sky. Relax, catch your breath, have a relaxing drink. You are trying too hard.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek

#2209271 2-Apr-2019 09:35

Oh dear. First I apologise if you feel you're being attacked personally. Thats not my intention - I just take exception to your opinion and offer my own in return. As usual whenever someone questions your opinion you climb back on your high horse and cry "personal attack". Feel free to take a leaf out of your own book : "Relax, catch your breath, have a relaxing drink. You are trying too hard"

Thank you for telling me to get a life [Should I be crying personal attack?]. Perhaps I should take some time to attack those services to which I formerly subscribed? I used to subscribe to a home food delivery service (I terminated it a few years ago and havent missed it at all, thanks for asking). I found that I had more choice and I made significant savings if I did it myself. Until now I havent found the need to continuously remind people, especially existing subscribers, of my opinion on the service that they choose. Clearly they need constant re-education as they are unable to reach any conclusion of the values and merits of their subscription on their own. I shall indeed take a leaf out of your book, so thanks for the advice.

You state that you were paying a substantial sum to Sky for a lot of content that was not relevant to your viewing habits. In swapping that for 6x$15 services you would now paying for a whole lot of content that is not relevant to your viewing habits. Just pointing out that nothing has changed other than you'd be paying the same substantial sum to multiple providers. I dont dispute the fact that you had to pay for a whole lot of crap you didnt want to get what you did - in fact I think the relevant aspect is how much you pay for what you do watch. There will always be content from a provider that wont appeal to every subscriber (Adam Sandler movies on Netflix I will never watch - and yet I have to pay for them - fact). If you only pay for what you watch its called PPV - if you watch a selection of content from a library, the library is not important but what you watch, no? Its not rocket science.

You state that you have fewer ads, better technology, no awful promos. I simply pointed out that you spend a lot of time complaining about your technology. Is that not true? Not a personal attack, not poor form to requote you, just a statement of fact backed by relevant evidence. Either you have better technology or you dont. Your argument is inconsistent. Feel free to find one of my quotes where I complain about something but contradict myself elsewhere.

I have a different opinion to you. That does not make my opinion any less relevant than yours.

Sixth Labour Government - "Vision without Execution is just Hallucination"

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2209277 2-Apr-2019 10:01

This argument is crazy. Some folk like Sky, some don't. Some folk like Freeview, some don't. Some folk like streaming services, some don't. Some folk like Shortland Street but I have no answer for that. It just does not matter, view what you want, how you want and when you want. No one is right and no one is wrong.

Hammerer

2476 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2209282 2-Apr-2019 10:16

MikeB4:

This argument is crazy. Some folk like Sky, some don't. Some folk like Freeview, some don't. Some folk like streaming services, some don't. Some folk like Shortland Street but I have no answer for that. It just does not matter, view what you want, how you want and when you want. No one is right and no one is wrong.

The argument is only crazy if you conflate two different features:

Personal preference has no other arbiter than the self. In other words, the right answer is whatever I prefer.
"I like my Sky TV package" is difficult to debate and I would agree that there is no right or wrong position.
Demonstrable claims can be critiqued. Even personal preferences can be debated as right or wrong when justified by specific claims and evidence which is accessible to others.
This is what is happening here. If I say "I like my Sky TV package because it is the best value for money" then others can debate the rightness and wrongness of my position.

1 | ... | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23