Big drop in Sky subscribers

Forums › Sky, Neon, Lightbox › Big drop in Sky subscribers

1 | ... | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | ... | 45

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#1555943 20-May-2016 09:14

We haven't cancelled because it's not my decision but years ago I was getting constant upgrade sales calls from Sky since they always rang in the daytime when I was home. I finally got sick of it and became embroiled in a lengthy correspondence with someone high up the customer service food chain which ultimately resulted in a big, fat NEVER BOTHER stamp on our file. Since then we have never had another call from them about anything, and it has now been several years.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Yabanize

2351 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 583

#1557220 22-May-2016 12:19

Joseph Parker fight illegally broadcast to more than 100,000 viewers

That's what happens when you charge $50 to watch something on TV

debeeriz

5 posts

Wannabe Geek
+1 received by user: 4

#1557230 22-May-2016 12:41

Another nail into Sky's coffin. I hope the streamers were smart enough to cover their tracks, If any are caught I am sure the next time they will be a lot smarter and not leave any trace

PhantomNVD

2619 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 759
Inactive user

#1557232 22-May-2016 12:48

And they didn't even offer a FanPass option?

Stupid marketing results is a small profit loss.

And $50 for PPV on top of requiring a Sky basic+sport 6-12month contract? They're really trying hard to keep people on their box subscription, without even considering the modern age equivalent of VHS which can now be shared 'live' with the entire world in real time...

I can't care less for sport, but even I see this as 'gouging' those who do...

Benoire

2878 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 681

#1557233 22-May-2016 12:48

The price may not entirely be Sky's fault. I recall being charged £15 for a lewis fine in the early 2000s at Uni in the UK... Boxing is notoriously expensive as a ppv activity, primarily due to the promotors.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1557242 22-May-2016 12:57

Benoire:

The price may not entirely be Sky's fault. I recall being charged £15 for a lewis fine in the early 2000s at Uni in the UK... Boxing is notoriously expensive as a ppv activity, primarily due to the promotors.

And whether its cost or rights of sports or TV/Movies, thats where the buck starts.

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.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#1557243 22-May-2016 13:00

Yeah I see the promoter was screaming blue murder and claiming he would not be able to pay the poor boxer all he deserved because of this. It sounds a lot like the argument that was used against music downloads, but then it turns out that even famous musicians get almost nothing of the money paid by customers. Most of it appears to be just cream for the middlemen.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1557245 22-May-2016 13:05

Were the 100,000 mainly offshore? I can't see anything close to that number in NZ paying PPV, or in fact wanting to watch it apart from a "its on I'll watch it" and I can't see every FB user here being aware it was streamed. Disclosure, I detest FB

Hammerer

2480 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 802

Lifetime subscriber

#1557248 22-May-2016 13:10

Rikkitic:

Yeah I see the promoter was screaming blue murder and claiming he would not be able to pay the poor boxer all he deserved because of this. It sounds a lot like the argument that was used against music downloads, but then it turns out that even famous musicians get almost nothing of the money paid by customers. Most of it appears to be just cream for the middlemen.

Are you serious? Trying to justify it with a fallacy about musicians' earnings. You don't have to look far to find evidence against that:

http://www.billboard.com/articles/business/6605326/how-much-do-artists-make-music-industry-earnings

Yabanize

2351 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 583

#1557253 22-May-2016 13:17

I find Sky vs Netflix quite similar to Taxis vs Uber

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1557257 22-May-2016 13:22

Yabanize:

I find Sky vs Netflix quite similar to Taxis vs Uber

Not even close. Sky uses a costly hardware content delivery and infrastructure, but the taxis both use the same content delivery, a car.

Mighty Ape

Shop now at Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

richms

29105 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10222

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1557260 22-May-2016 13:24

tdgeek:

Not even close. Sky uses a costly hardware content delivery and infrastructure, but the taxis both use the same content delivery, a car.

Taxis have a manual inefficient dispatch system based on phonecalls, uber developed a more efficiant dispatch and charging system, so there is a bit different between them. Taxis are now having to catch up to the way that people seem to prefer to interact with transportation with their own apps that suck compared to uber, so in that way they are like sky with their quarter assed neon.

Richard rich.ms

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1557264 22-May-2016 13:31

richms:

tdgeek:

Not even close. Sky uses a costly hardware content delivery and infrastructure, but the taxis both use the same content delivery, a car.

Taxis have a manual inefficient dispatch system based on phonecalls, uber developed a more efficiant dispatch and charging system, so there is a bit different between them. Taxis are now having to catch up to the way that people seem to prefer to interact with transportation with their own apps that suck compared to uber, so in that way they are like sky with their quarter assed neon.

Yes,but updating the taxi comms service to their customers is a bit easier than replacing the many non streaming STB's that Sky customers still use and disbanding satellite and replacing that with CDN services. And having to sort out how they can run both satellite and streaming without the economies of scale if they get stuck have to use both. Streaming saves money, that gets sucked into the probably higher cost per unit as Sat subscribers reduce, therefore prices can't migrate down to streaming prices. NB plenty of assumptions there, I know

richms

29105 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10222

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1557269 22-May-2016 13:34

From a user perspective the similarities are there, as a user I do not give a crap about the problems the business has moving from old model to new model. They either do it or go broke, both of which I am indifferent to.

Blue bubble could disappear tomorrow, the drivers would go elsewhere and I would still get a lift from uber or someone else.

Sky could disappear and someone else would begin buying/creating and selling video content to people.

Richard rich.ms

PhantomNVD

2619 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 759
Inactive user

#1557272 22-May-2016 13:38

So whatever happened to 'user pays'?

It's the same argument as the bundling 'basic' sky deal.

Charge according to what people want, and if only 150 people want the channel, split it between those 150 rather than canabalising popular channels 50,000-100,000 people who would pay far less if that channel cost was shared by its user base.

If only 100,000 people 'need/prefer' satellite delivery, and 700,000 would happily stream, why should the whole cost of Sattelite be shared by the whole client base?

If satellite is no longer feasible with only 100,000 paying its costs, business sense says ax the non profitable service?

1 | ... | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | ... | 45