Big drop in Sky subscribers

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

1 | ... | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ... | 45

3142 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 945

Lifetime subscriber

#1557637 23-May-2016 00:49

at the bottom of that article it had there's a 1080p version circulating as well.

Probably be a better viewer experience then watching on Sky as well. No big SoHo letters all over picture in bottom right, and in big writing coming up next all over the bottom middle picture before show finished.

It's not just price, it's viewer experience as well that decides where people put their money.

quickymart

14942 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 13959

ID Verified

#1557643 23-May-2016 05:54

Do they still show ads on Sky? (I ask as I haven't had it for over a year). If so, anyone know why? More money?

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1557644 23-May-2016 06:51

Rikkitic:

tdgeek:
Rikkitic:

Since I am in a marginal area and depend on RBI, the question of what happens to those who cannot get either fibre or RBI is an interesting one. I believe landline phones that are not economical have been subsidised up to now. I imagine something similar might happen in a Skyless future. Maybe the reduced number of people who cannot get other options could hitchhike on satellites with other primary uses. Maybe with improved RF technology the government could put up relays on all the mountaintops. Maybe that nice, philanthropic Google will fly some Internet balloons over our inaccessible areas. Maybe those who live remotely will just have to do without, and maybe they won't miss it at all. I think it is a mistake to imagine that if Sky goes bust, it will all come crashing down or become unpayable. If there is one thing we all should have learned by now, it is that things don't stand still.

But you don't believe in price equals cost plus margin, you believe price is what your prepared to pay, irregardless of cost and margin. But you want others to pay for infrastructure and costs to cover those who dip out when sky moves away from satellite ? Or ideally, user pays?

No, I believe in price equals what people will pay and nothing else. If they won't pay what it costs, then it won't happen unless an authority decides it is so important that the cost should be spread.

Thats what I said. If your not prepared to pay the real price, irregardless of what the costs of the supplier are, and a margin, why do you expect others that do not use the product or service to pay it for you?

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1557646 23-May-2016 06:58

Rikkitic:

tdgeek:

Rikkitic:

tdgeek:
Rikkitic:

Since I am in a marginal area and depend on RBI, the question of what happens to those who cannot get either fibre or RBI is an interesting one. I believe landline phones that are not economical have been subsidised up to now. I imagine something similar might happen in a Skyless future. Maybe the reduced number of people who cannot get other options could hitchhike on satellites with other primary uses. Maybe with improved RF technology the government could put up relays on all the mountaintops. Maybe that nice, philanthropic Google will fly some Internet balloons over our inaccessible areas. Maybe those who live remotely will just have to do without, and maybe they won't miss it at all. I think it is a mistake to imagine that if Sky goes bust, it will all come crashing down or become unpayable. If there is one thing we all should have learned by now, it is that things don't stand still.

But you don't believe in price equals cost plus margin, you believe price is what your prepared to pay, irregardless of cost and margin. But you want others to pay for infrastructure and costs to cover those who dip out when sky moves away from satellite ? Or ideally, user pays?

No, I believe in price equals what people will pay and nothing else. If they won't pay what it costs, then it won't happen unless an authority decides it is so important that the cost should be spread.

So, you aren't prepared to what it costs, YOU want it subsidised for YOU. Got it.

No idea what you are banging on about. That is not what I said and it is not what I mean. The price of anything is what purchasers are prepared to pay. This has nothing to do with the cost to the seller or anything else. Just ask Dick Smith. If you ask X dollars for something, and no-one is prepared to pay that, you don't sell it. What it cost you has nothing to do with it.

It is exactly what I have said. And if you wish to use an example, use a proper example. Your example is people buying products that cause a loss to the supplier. A drill has a tag of $99. It owes the supplier $69, but you are prepared to pay $40, so $40 is the price. If all businesses sold products at a loss there will be zero businesses. You need to work with reality. If the price is too high don't buy it, its that simple. The price is the cost plus margin. The value to anyone will be what they decide, and they will buy or not buy.

Im not aware of any businesses that try to sell products that no one will buy.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1557647 23-May-2016 07:00

quickymart:

Do they still show ads on Sky? (I ask as I haven't had it for over a year). If so, anyone know why? More money?

Well, UK Sky Sports (which I believe has nothing to do with Sjy NZ) has HUGE ads in F1. I FF, and they are still on, my god.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#1557651 23-May-2016 07:39

MikeB4: Not entirely correct, the price is what the seller sets, its sales success is what the buyer is prepared to buy.

Mmmm... maybe. This is more a matter of definition. What I was trying to say, and still am, is that the price of something is just an abstract concept until or unless it actually sells. I can say I have a painting or diamond and the price is a million dollars, but unless there is someone with a million dollars who is actually prepared to pay that price for the thing I am selling, then my 'price' is only a theoretical proposal. It is the buyer, or the willingness of the buyer to buy, that sets the real price. If I truly want to sell my diamond, I will have to set a price that someone is willing to pay.

The point I was trying to make in the context of this thread is that if Sky becomes unable to stay in business because its customers are unwilling or unable to pay the price it wants to charge, and it cannot lower that price for whatever reason, then something else will come along to fill the void. If that something else is also unable to provide the service people want for a price they are prepared to pay, then the service can only be provided if the government is prepared to subsidise it. I am not advocating this, just pointing it out. A time might come when most of the country is able to receive streaming TV via the Internet, but there will still be small pockets where this service cannot be made available for an economic price. The government might then decide that Internet access of a reasonable speed, not TV, is an essential service and subsidise it for that reason. This would then make TV also available as a side-effect, though that would not be the primary motivation.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

AliExpress

Shop now on AliExpress (affiliate link).

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 545

#1557655 23-May-2016 07:53

quickymart:

Do they still show ads on Sky? (I ask as I haven't had it for over a year). If so, anyone know why? More money?

They show ads cos Sky has more than 1/3 of the viewing audience. On direct feeds from other providers (ie not Sky's own channels) they have no choice about whether they show ads or not. For Sky channels - which have been growing viewers, the advertising community (and its clients) need somewhere cost effective to spend their money rather than the declining audiences on TV2 and 3 (TV1 has held its audience share). Even TVNZOnDemand isnt growing its audience anymore.

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

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1557656 23-May-2016 08:01

Its not Skys responsibility to cater for the rural, and I daresay its not the Govts either to cater for entertainment. Most certainly not to subsidise and make everyone else pay for it. However, I would be happy if the at our cost, extended the terrestrial coverage.

As to price, your prepared to pay issue has existed from the year dot, its not worth stating that

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1557667 23-May-2016 08:10

Some food for thought, It would be a very bad thing for NZ viewing if Sky were to go.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1557668 23-May-2016 08:12

MikeB4: Some food for thought, It would be a very bad thing for NZ viewing if Sky were to go.

Ironic. Bad Sky for being here then Bad Sky for going! But they wont, at worst they will be a Sports SVOD service

darylblake

1172 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 410

Trusted

#1557674 23-May-2016 08:21

Sky wont be going. They will be around. Im sure they will eventually make their SVOD service a lot better than it currently is. I would have considered purchasing a fanpass to watch arena for the evening, but thats right, they don't do that. You have to have a subscription. Nevermind ill just go to the pub.

This whole Joseph Parker thing is absolutely brilliant, and it's a bit of a pity the sky nonsense has began overshadow the guys success.

Mighty Ape

Shop now at Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1557677 23-May-2016 08:27

I believe what is very evident in the whole anti Sky thing is ..."I want it, I want it now and I don't want to pay for it" mentality.

It is clear looking at Sky's financial returns that they are not making excessive margins on their products. Their overheads and costs are huge. Take for example the cost of outside live coverage of sport, it is hugely expensive and something TVNZ was happy to get out of.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1557681 23-May-2016 08:36

darylblake:

Sky wont be going. They will be around. Im sure they will eventually make their SVOD service a lot better than it currently is. I would have considered purchasing a fanpass to watch arena for the evening, but thats right, they don't do that. You have to have a subscription. Nevermind ill just go to the pub.

This whole Joseph Parker thing is absolutely brilliant, and it's a bit of a pity the sky nonsense has began overshadow the guys success.

probably need to talk to Dean Lonergan, not Sky, Sky just play it, they dont own it

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1557684 23-May-2016 08:41

MikeB4: I believe what is very evident in the whole anti Sky thing is ..."I want it, I want it now and I don't want to pay for it" mentality.

It is clear looking at Sky's financial returns that they are not making excessive margins on their products. Their overheads and costs are huge. Take for example the cost of outside live coverage of sport, it is hugely expensive and something TVNZ was happy to get out of.

yep, its the tall poppy syndrome, something to complain about. I find it fascinating, to watch what will play out in the move to SVOD, in full or in part.

dafman

4055 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2652

Trusted

#1557756 23-May-2016 09:43

tdgeek:

MikeB4: I believe what is very evident in the whole anti Sky thing is ..."I want it, I want it now and I don't want to pay for it" mentality.

It is clear looking at Sky's financial returns that they are not making excessive margins on their products. Their overheads and costs are huge. Take for example the cost of outside live coverage of sport, it is hugely expensive and something TVNZ was happy to get out of.

yep, its the tall poppy syndrome, something to complain about. I find it fascinating, to watch what will play out in the move to SVOD, in full or in part.

Geez, here I was thinking I was complaining about Sky's low quality advertisement-ridden programs at an excessive cost, not to mention their callous pricing behaviour for long-standing customers. Yet, it's merely just tall poppy syndrome - thanks for pointing me right on this (-;

1 | ... | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ... | 45