tdgeek

 

Yep, I get the water bricks.

 

Well of course you do, you can't build an Igloo without water bricks ;-)

littleheaven:

 

ockel:

 

BTW - you'll end up paying the same or more to build your package.  All the returns will accrue to the content owner.  Sounds attractive to them.

 

 

I wouldn't mind that if my package was predominantly filled with the stuff I wanted to watch. I wasn't so keen on paying it when 80% of the content was of no interest to me whatsoever, but I had to take anyway. 

 

While we're talking wish fulfilment, I'd like a streaming annual cricket pass. It's the only sport I watch on a regular basis, and it would be great to pay for just that and not ALL the sports just to see one or two games. I tried Willow TV but the quality was horrible and they didn't have all the matches. I just want to watch the Black Caps.

 

Economies of scale would dictate that you'd probably not get just an annual cricket pass.  I'd imagine the overhead of setting it up would outweigh the number of subscribers.  And if some other third party could come in and take all cricket (all the internationals and IPL) then I'd guess you'd have to put up with what they have on offer.

davidcole:

 

Economies of scale would dictate that you'd probably not get just an annual cricket pass.  I'd imagine the overhead of setting it up would outweigh the number of subscribers.  And if some other third party could come in and take all cricket (all the internationals and IPL) then I'd guess you'd have to put up with what they have on offer.

 

I know. *pout* Doesn't stop me dreaming, though :o) They have it for NRL and AFL, right? But I'd imagine the ICC would want far more money for full international rights than that.

For now, Fanpass does the trick, mostly.

Was this link already posted? Sky TV should 'bite the bullet' and cut the $49 price of Sky Basic, says analyst

Contains quotes such as:

• Sky Television should consider cutting the price of its satellite television service
• Sky had enjoyed a stranglehold on key content but that was now being eroded
• Sky's value proposition is losing lustre
• If it increased the price of some services it would need to cut the price of others
• Sky Television spokeswoman Kirsty Way said the company had no comment.

andrew027:

Was this link already posted? Sky TV should 'bite the bullet' and cut the $49 price of Sky Basic, says analyst

Contains quotes such as:

• Sky Television should consider cutting the price of its satellite television service


• Sky had enjoyed a stranglehold on key content but that was now being eroded


• Sky's value proposition is losing lustre


• If it increased the price of some services it would need to cut the price of others


• Sky Television spokeswoman Kirsty Way said the company had no comment.

 

Brick & Mortar, what shops do they have that are not physically stands in the mall?  I've never seen a Sky Shop?

Benoire:

 

Brick & Mortar, what shops do they have that are not physically stands in the mall?  I've never seen a Sky Shop?

 

I think that's a euphemism for all the hardware. That must be a massive cost to install and maintain.

Benoire:

Brick & Mortar, what shops do they have that are not physically stands in the mall?  I've never seen a Sky Shop?

I would say that until NZ gets the fibre and decent rural internet, Satellite distribution; much like OTA, has a place.  OTA/Satellite gives uncongested/uncontested distribution for a 'single' expenditure (I.e. a fixed cost per transponder) which anyone that can get access to can use.  Internet based distribution requires unlimited data, high quality bandwidth (not just speed), plus then holding the content somewhere... Do Netflix pay a single flat fee to Akamai for example, or is it per GB streamed etc?

Imagine if it is per GB, the cost to distribute would be eye wateringly high, especially if it became the predominant way to distribute content (i.e. 2m+ NZers where streaming data at once).

How do Neon etc. do it now, do they pay a flat fee to distribute or something different?  Do Netflix NZ get subsidised by the global parent for their fees?  Because FULL internet based distribution for content is not the norm yet, I wonder if we are seeing the true costs or not?

tdgeek: There have been a lot of great posts here, lots of ideas, Great read as to what options Sky has. If I had to pick one, it might be Richs post on whether the satellite is usable in Australia. If not, that may be Slys white elephant that precludes them from moving to SVOD over time. Might even be locked into a long contract. Interesting.

Satellite contracts are operating leases - 6 transponders on a 15 year lease starting in 2004.  Its in the annual report.  

littleheaven:

Benoire:

Brick & Mortar, what shops do they have that are not physically stands in the mall?  I've never seen a Sky Shop?

I think that's a euphemism for all the hardware. That must be a massive cost to install and maintain.

ockel:

tdgeek: There have been a lot of great posts here, lots of ideas, Great read as to what options Sky has. If I had to pick one, it might be Richs post on whether the satellite is usable in Australia. If not, that may be Slys white elephant that precludes them from moving to SVOD over time. Might even be locked into a long contract. Interesting.

Satellite contracts are operating leases - 6 transponders on a 15 year lease starting in 2004.  Its in the annual report.  

Benoire:

I would say that until NZ gets the fibre and decent rural internet, Satellite distribution; much like OTA, has a place.  OTA/Satellite gives uncongested/uncontested distribution for a 'single' expenditure (I.e. a fixed cost per transponder) which anyone that can get access to can use.  Internet based distribution requires unlimited data, high quality bandwidth (not just speed), plus then holding the content somewhere... Do Netflix pay a single flat fee to Akamai for example, or is it per GB streamed etc?

Imagine if it is per GB, the cost to distribute would be eye wateringly high, especially if it became the predominant way to distribute content (i.e. 2m+ NZers where streaming data at once).

How do Neon etc. do it now, do they pay a flat fee to distribute or something different?  Do Netflix NZ get subsidised by the global parent for their fees?  Because FULL internet based distribution for content is not the norm yet, I wonder if we are seeing the true costs or not?

tdgeek:

 

 

 

A very long time. Competition brings fragmentation. Thats normal. Otherwise there is no competition. So, we will have more content, but spread over a number of services.

 

Content is king. You can live with a not all in one box, you can live with cost, but you can't live without the content. 

 

 Some will get away with a couple to satisfy most things, others may have 5 services. 

 

I don't agree fully with the older folk inability. Some will not get it. Click once to turn the box on, ATV4 for example, and the apps are looking at you. Scrolling and selecting is smoother and more intuitive than a Sky Remote. Quicker and simpler. The difference will disappear. I can't comment on navigating other devices often mentioned, Fire TV etc.

 

I guess it's just a learning curve... I think the ATV4 is pretty easy to use, Chromecast a little harder. I just think for someone who has had years of Sky it may be hard to adapt? Like you say, some will get it and others won't. That said, the simpler the better really.

I agree we are probably looking at a very long time. I don't think NZ market is big enough for as many services as we have now. I suppose it's just a matter of who has the deepest pockets to keep their's around while the others wilt?