@ockel, I'm curious if you are affiliated with Sky in some way (and if so, has that been disclosed)?

ajobbins:

 

@ockel, I'm curious if you are affiliated with Sky in some way (and if so, has that been disclosed)?

 

I am not, and have not ever been, affiliated with Sky or its suppliers or associates. I have not been employed or contracted or affiliated with any media company or its suppliers or associates.

ockel:

 

ajobbins:

 

@ockel, I'm curious if you are affiliated with Sky in some way (and if so, has that been disclosed)?

 

 

I am not, and have not ever been, affiliated with Sky or its suppliers or associates. I have not been employed or contracted or affiliated with any media company or its suppliers or associates.

 

Thanks for clarifying :)

Ockels posts don't defend Sky directly IMO, neither do mine. Most posters are anti Sky in one form or another, whether thats anti Sky or Skys share price dropped or the subscriber numbers dropped due to SVOD. Doom and gloom etc. IMHO they just correct misinformation or mis assumptions on why things have transpired lately. Really, the thread is about Skys numbers dropped, and where to from here, not kicking the in the shins while they are down. And they aren't down by a long shot, its a transition period that is or should be beginning

I just had a cold call from sky offering it at $6.50something a week - stopped them before they could tell me what it would get me or how long.

tdgeek:

 

Ockels posts don't defend Sky directly IMO, neither do mine. Most posters are anti Sky in one form or another, whether thats anti Sky or Skys share price dropped or the subscriber numbers dropped due to SVOD. Doom and gloom etc. IMHO they just correct misinformation or mis assumptions on why things have transpired lately. Really, the thread is about Skys numbers dropped, and where to from here, not kicking the in the shins while they are down. And they aren't down by a long shot, its a transition period that is or should be beginning

 

But I've noticed in most of your posts here that you are a big Sky fan and defender..

old3eyes:

 

tdgeek:

 

Ockels posts don't defend Sky directly IMO, neither do mine. Most posters are anti Sky in one form or another, whether thats anti Sky or Skys share price dropped or the subscriber numbers dropped due to SVOD. Doom and gloom etc. IMHO they just correct misinformation or mis assumptions on why things have transpired lately. Really, the thread is about Skys numbers dropped, and where to from here, not kicking the in the shins while they are down. And they aren't down by a long shot, its a transition period that is or should be beginning

 

 

But I've noticed in most of your posts here that you are a big Sky fan and defender..

 

Call it a balanced view.  Using basic economics and logic to derive an understanding of a business model.  Rather than ignorance and prejudice based on emotions.

I think there is a difference between defending Sky and providing some business insight personally.  I don't think tdgeek is a big Sky fan as I gather she(?) has just got Sky after not having it for ages.  I have Sky, I've had it now for 5 years.  I resent paying $140 a month for the service, but I do understand the constraints that they operate in and will try to explain that to those that question why Sky isn't as a cheap as current SVOD players; I am also nervous for the quality of the streaming should Sky fail since that might place pressure on the local networks and cause lots of people NOT to get HD streams or even low quality ones depending on their CIR UFB values (I believe those on ADSL/VDSL like me don't even get the higher guaranteed CIR that UFB has!).  Just look at the EPL, no local coverage despite NZ having rights attributed to it... if Sky go under, are the other on demand players in a position to purchase those rights, with the right quality and at a price that has value?

Sky may not be perfect, but they're delivering a product some people obviosuly want as they still have 800k+ subscribers and they do offer a mix of new and old stuff, and with their on demand content coming along you have access to a lot more old stuff too... now lets re-evaluate that in 6 months and see if those numbers have dropped further... 

old3eyes:

 

tdgeek:

 

Ockels posts don't defend Sky directly IMO, neither do mine. Most posters are anti Sky in one form or another, whether thats anti Sky or Skys share price dropped or the subscriber numbers dropped due to SVOD. Doom and gloom etc. IMHO they just correct misinformation or mis assumptions on why things have transpired lately. Really, the thread is about Skys numbers dropped, and where to from here, not kicking the in the shins while they are down. And they aren't down by a long shot, its a transition period that is or should be beginning

 

 

But I've noticed in most of your posts here that you are a big Sky fan and defender..

 

Defender of inaccurate posts and assumptions that are solely based on anti Sky sentiment

Fan? No. I had Sky, I dont have it now, and I could get the $49 deal any time I wish. But I wont as sport is all I require, and FanPass will cover that. You wont find any posts from me that promote Sky. You will find the odd one criticising it. Few here wish to discuss the reasons why ther has been a small decrease in subscribers and where to go from here, what may happen. For many, not all, its just a doom and gloom thread to criticise a successful business that has almost half the market share of NZ, and that now has to adapt to new tech. In the context of business, adapting to new tech or other changes is quite common

Davy: Sky is interesting right now. It's clear enough that they need to move quickly to online delivery of their content, while they still have a strong content portfolio. Neon is a start, but needs improvement, and FanPass is a start, but both are awkward technically and both are priced uncompetitively.

It's a time of vital transition for Sky, and they need to move fast to gain a decent online market share if it is to be economic for them to continue to procure quality programming. Continue to drift for another year and it may be too late.

And I would imagine this is their issue, and probably main cause of debate internally (completely guessing of course).  IF they are locked in to the Optus satellite contracts till 2019 then moving to an ondemand, fully online service will cause problems for their operational costs unless the online system was priced at the same time as the satellite system; i.e. if the SVOD version of Sky cost $60 a month, why would anyone subscribe to the satellite version, however Sky will still have to pay the costs to Optus until their contract expires, unless they have a termination clause but even then it might be too prohibitive to use financially.

It appears that NEON and FanPASS are their method of introducing SVOD content without gutting their main operation at this stage....

Benoire:

 

I think there is a difference between defending Sky and providing some business insight personally.  I don't think tdgeek is a big Sky fan as I gather she(?) has just got Sky after not having it for ages.  I have Sky, I've had it now for 5 years.  I resent paying $140 a month for the service, but I do understand the constraints that they operate in and will try to explain that to those that question why Sky isn't as a cheap as current SVOD players; I am also nervous for the quality of the streaming should Sky fail since that might place pressure on the local networks and cause lots of people NOT to get HD streams or even low quality ones depending on their CIR UFB values (I believe those on ADSL/VDSL like me don't even get the higher guaranteed CIR that UFB has!).  Just look at the EPL, no local coverage despite NZ having rights attributed to it... if Sky go under, are the other on demand players in a position to purchase those rights, with the right quality and at a price that has value?

 

Sky may not be perfect, but they're delivering a product some people obviosuly want as they still have 800k+ subscribers and they do offer a mix of new and old stuff, and with their on demand content coming along you have access to a lot more old stuff too... now lets re-evaluate that in 6 months and see if those numbers have dropped further... 

 

HE, Im a HE!  I havent got Sky back, just Fanpass last night.

The numbers will have but more important is what they will do as part of the transition

Ooops my apologies for the gender confusion.... I have no idea why I thought that.

richms:

 

I just had a cold call from sky offering it at $6.50something a week - stopped them before they could tell me what it would get me or how long.

 

I just had the Foxtel $127/m Platinum HD package for free for a limited time under a promotion. Cancelled it early as it wasn't worth the $0 I was paying for it. There were so many ads in everything it was a negative experience to watch it, not to mention the low bitrate high compression on most channels.

Back to Netflix and Hulu.

Davy: Sky is interesting right now. It's clear enough that they need to move quickly to online delivery of their content, while they still have a strong content portfolio. Neon is a start, but needs improvement, and FanPass is a start, but both are awkward technically and both are priced uncompetitively.

It's a time of vital transition for Sky, and they need to move fast to gain a decent online market share if it is to be economic for them to continue to procure quality programming. Continue to drift for another year and it may be too late.

My take is they are there, setup, up and running, thus making it easier to move stuff to SVOD. Neon is going HD. I expect sport to have the subsidy removed and Basic to be cheap. Note that the price for FanPass is similar to other offerings overseas, sport is not cheap. 60% of Skys content paymants are for sport