Game of Thrones Neon Quality

Forums › Sky, Neon, Lightbox › Game of Thrones Neon Quality

1 | 2 | 3

toejam316

1480 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 853

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1568108 8-Jun-2016 17:34

tdgeek:
toejam316: When I say that I would have assumed you'd be able to work out from the context of what I was saying that they were allowed to spring up uncontested. And besides the point you'd be a fool to lament Sky only working to maintain their Monopoly. I'm not sure why you need to try discredit the actual words I'm using when you could instead talk about the ideas and concepts.

Ive talked about real ideas and real concepts in these Sky threads. Instead of saying they are useless and flippant, describe why you think that. What they should have done and should do. BTW Sky isn't a monopoly, they never had god given rights to anything, they bid. others could have, and have. Every provider has exclusive content so therefore every provider is a monopoly. So its moot.

I'm not saying they have a monopoly on all content ever released, nor content at all. I'm saying they had a monopoly in the pay tv world, because no one had the desire and capital to attempt to compete in such a small market. When there's an elephant in the room, there isn't room for much else. And what I'm saying is they could have utilized this advantage they had in terms of market penetration (because would you believe the people who watch TV would like to also watch TV?), brand awareness, and pre-licensed content (because SkyGO was a thing well before Neon). Combine that with the groundwork they had already done getting content rights and setting up relationships with rights holders, and they could have easily come out roaring with something a lot stronger than Neon.

Neon is the "Guys, we're really trying, honest!". Not the "We're gonna do our best to own this market as well as we own our previous market!". Neon is crap, and Sky had pretty much everything behind them to have done something a lot better. It's pretty simple, really.

Anything I say is the ramblings of an ill informed, opinionated so-and-so, and not representative of any of my past, present or future employers, and is also probably best disregarded.

tdgeek

29819 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9155

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1568126 8-Jun-2016 17:49

toejam316:
tdgeek:

toejam316: When I say that I would have assumed you'd be able to work out from the context of what I was saying that they were allowed to spring up uncontested. And besides the point you'd be a fool to lament Sky only working to maintain their Monopoly. I'm not sure why you need to try discredit the actual words I'm using when you could instead talk about the ideas and concepts.

Ive talked about real ideas and real concepts in these Sky threads. Instead of saying they are useless and flippant, describe why you think that. What they should have done and should do. BTW Sky isn't a monopoly, they never had god given rights to anything, they bid. others could have, and have. Every provider has exclusive content so therefore every provider is a monopoly. So its moot.

I'm not saying they have a monopoly on all content ever released, nor content at all. I'm saying they had a monopoly in the pay tv world, because no one had the desire and capital to attempt to compete in such a small market. When there's an elephant in the room, there isn't room for much else. And what I'm saying is they could have utilized this advantage they had in terms of market penetration (because would you believe the people who watch TV would like to also watch TV?), brand awareness, and pre-licensed content (because SkyGO was a thing well before Neon). Combine that with the groundwork they had already done getting content rights and setting up relationships with rights holders, and they could have easily come out roaring with something a lot stronger than Neon. Neon is the "Guys, we're really trying, honest!". Not the "We're gonna do our best to own this market as well as we own our previous market!". Neon is crap, and Sky had pretty much everything behind them to have done something a lot better. It's pretty simple, really.

Its not that simple. Is Neon the answer for Sky SVOD? No. Sky is stuck with satellite till 2019. Then, it may go full SVOD, full satellite if Optus reduce the cost, or a mix. Despite SVOD being here a while, its only just made a dent, and a very small dent. Sky has Neon setup and Fanpass, if and when it decides or is forced to of full SVOD, its already there. They can the sink some money and put everything on SVOD, the groundwork has already been done. Neon is essentially HBO, and its going HD soon. Perhaps Basis will be on the Neon platform, long with Neon, along with Rialto and Soho. Fan pass stays with Neulion. Ultimately if they go that way or are forced to get off satellite you can bet the SVOD will be good, as is LB, as is NF. They cant do all that now otherwise they will be paying extra rights for duplication, plus they don't know where they are going as that needs to satellite deal negotiated. So they built the foundation, and wait.

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 545

#1568129 8-Jun-2016 17:53

toejam316:
tdgeek:

toejam316: When I say that I would have assumed you'd be able to work out from the context of what I was saying that they were allowed to spring up uncontested. And besides the point you'd be a fool to lament Sky only working to maintain their Monopoly. I'm not sure why you need to try discredit the actual words I'm using when you could instead talk about the ideas and concepts.

Ive talked about real ideas and real concepts in these Sky threads. Instead of saying they are useless and flippant, describe why you think that. What they should have done and should do. BTW Sky isn't a monopoly, they never had god given rights to anything, they bid. others could have, and have. Every provider has exclusive content so therefore every provider is a monopoly. So its moot.

I'm not saying they have a monopoly on all content ever released, nor content at all. I'm saying they had a monopoly in the pay tv world, because no one had the desire and capital to attempt to compete in such a small market. When there's an elephant in the room, there isn't room for much else. And what I'm saying is they could have utilized this advantage they had in terms of market penetration (because would you believe the people who watch TV would like to also watch TV?), brand awareness, and pre-licensed content (because SkyGO was a thing well before Neon). Combine that with the groundwork they had already done getting content rights and setting up relationships with rights holders, and they could have easily come out roaring with something a lot stronger than Neon. Neon is the "Guys, we're really trying, honest!". Not the "We're gonna do our best to own this market as well as we own our previous market!". Neon is crap, and Sky had pretty much everything behind them to have done something a lot better. It's pretty simple, really.

And a board that says "no one has made or is making money off SVOD. tell us why we should spend lots and lots of money on this? if we have some skin in the game and it takes off, can we spend more and make it better? Do we need to throw all this money at it to start with? Or should we just put the cash in a barrel and light it?"

TVNZ always had a desire and inclination to compete in paytv. Telecom/Spark has had at least 3 tries at it - Lightbox is its latest attempt. How can you say that no-one has had the desire and capital to compete???

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

toejam316

1480 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 853

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1568141 8-Jun-2016 18:21

I can't recall anyone trying PayTV outside of Igloo, which was really just TVNZ trying to piggyback a bit off of Sky, and isn't worth calling a real attempt at all. Otherwise, everything I can think of has actually been SVOD attempts. As for profits from SVOD, I don't have any real inkling as to what any of the actual research done by the local bodies has said, but surely there must be some benefit to it if you've got Spark, Quickflix, Netflix, and Sky all having a go at it. You don't get companies fighting over who get's to lose the most money.

Anything I say is the ramblings of an ill informed, opinionated so-and-so, and not representative of any of my past, present or future employers, and is also probably best disregarded.

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 545

#1568152 8-Jun-2016 18:55

toejam316: I can't recall anyone trying PayTV outside of Igloo, which was really just TVNZ trying to piggyback a bit off of Sky, and isn't worth calling a real attempt at all. Otherwise, everything I can think of has actually been SVOD attempts. As for profits from SVOD, I don't have any real inkling as to what any of the actual research done by the local bodies has said, but surely there must be some benefit to it if you've got Spark, Quickflix, Netflix, and Sky all having a go at it. You don't get companies fighting over who get's to lose the most money.

Lets start with First Media c/- Telecom.

And Saturn Communications (Kiwi Cable).

Telecom has also tried with its own offering developed in the mid 2000's right down to developing the STB and acquiring content to launch.

Tivo - Telecom and TVNZ in about 2009.

You've mentioned igloo.

Spark suggested it will throw $20-$30m into Lightbox. It may just be earning $20m in revenue pa on its customer base. Content costs and distribution will eat away at that plus the extensive marketing. It gave Lightbox away for 12 months to Spark customers. It went so well that Spark has decided to subsidise its customers indefinitely. "yeah right"

Quickflix is in voluntary administration(?) in Australia and its NZ office is either closed or substantially reduced in size. Read into that what you will. Unlikely to be printing money on either side of the Tasman.

Ezyflix has already exited the market.

Netflix NZ has between 246,000 and 400,000 subscribers. Netflix's International operations are still in the red.

Every operator in NZ is likely only still operating because their parent organisation is continuing to advance more and more capital to the project in the hope that it will, at some stage, in the future become profitable. You certainly do get companies fighting over who gets to lose the most money - it just takes years (usually 3) before someone says "when is that project going to give me the return you promised?" And then you get players either merging or exiting.

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

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 545

#1568159 8-Jun-2016 19:13

toejam316: I can't recall anyone trying PayTV outside of Igloo, which was really just TVNZ trying to piggyback a bit off of Sky, and isn't worth calling a real attempt at all. Otherwise, everything I can think of has actually been SVOD attempts. As for profits from SVOD, I don't have any real inkling as to what any of the actual research done by the local bodies has said, but surely there must be some benefit to it if you've got Spark, Quickflix, Netflix, and Sky all having a go at it. You don't get companies fighting over who get's to lose the most money.

Ooops. Missed Telecoms IPTV project from 2006-2008. It might have been the STB developed one though....

"October 2006 – April 2008 (1 year 7 months)Auckland, New Zealand

Team scoping out a Telecom entry into the Television business. Completed market sizing and discovery project including successful proof of concept. Prepared business case for board approval. Regulation of Telecom in 2008 resulted in this project being postponed."

Paul Reynolds was firmly against IPTV when he was in charge - there wasnt a compelling business case, either in the UK or in NZ.

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

tdgeek

29819 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9155

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1568177 8-Jun-2016 20:03

toejam316: I can't recall anyone trying PayTV outside of Igloo, which was really just TVNZ trying to piggyback a bit off of Sky, and isn't worth calling a real attempt at all. Otherwise, everything I can think of has actually been SVOD attempts. As for profits from SVOD, I don't have any real inkling as to what any of the actual research done by the local bodies has said, but surely there must be some benefit to it if you've got Spark, Quickflix, Netflix, and Sky all having a go at it. You don't get companies fighting over who get's to lose the most money.

Seen it all before. They all lose money, which is quite ok for a startup. get market share, learn the market. But it depends how many customers at 13 bucks it takes to break even.

Netflix has loads of super cheap content, as its old. It also has pricier new exclusives that they buy.

Lightbox is smaller, and TV only. Newer content and some exclusives.

Neon is HBO. Not that familiar but I gather if it was HD it would be quite ok

Sky has some movies, not many TV series. Its a wide range of content to satisfy everyone, but not a large number of latest and greatest "contents"

There isn't really a great deal of overlap I don't feel. But it is fragmented as many may see that to cover their needs they need all the SVOD, or they just miss out.

We don't know the costs, or the subscriber numbers in any reliable detail. But I have a gut feel that 13 bucks is too low. Thats an artificial price that NF charges, but is it a sustainable price? We now know from the US that the recent increase created anger. Wow. Was it 2 bucks a month? So, say the correct price was $20, I guess there would be international anger at being rorted?

Wise

Send money globally for less with Wise - one free transfer up to NZ$900 (affiliate link).

radomatic

93 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 27

#1569781 10-Jun-2016 21:27

ockel:

Tivo - Telecom and TVNZ in about 2009. An abject failure - let's be honest.

You've mentioned igloo. Also failed - you can't even buy an Igloo box now

Spark suggested it will throw $20-$30m into Lightbox. It may just be earning $20m in revenue pa on its customer base. Content costs and distribution will eat away at that plus the extensive marketing. It gave Lightbox away for 12 months to Spark customers. It went so well that Spark has decided to subsidise its customers indefinitely. "yeah right" Bang on. Lightbox is a black hole for more. $300k monthly revenue so$3.6m a year. Take costs out of that (ie your $20-30m). Not a pretty picture.

Quickflix is in voluntary administration(?) in Australia and its NZ office is either closed or substantially reduced in size. Read into that what you will. Unlikely to be printing money on either side of the Tasman. Another fail.

Ezyflix has already exited the market. And another.

Netflix NZ has between 246,000 and 400,000 subscribers. Netflix's International operations are still in the red. Successful - but not a money maker is it.

Every operator in NZ is likely only still operating because their parent organisation is continuing to advance more and more capital to the project in the hope that it will, at some stage, in the future become profitable. You certainly do get companies fighting over who gets to lose the most money - it just takes years (usually 3) before someone says "when is that project going to give me the return you promised?" And then you get players either merging or exiting. This is a fair call.

To your last point, you have to wonder when this will happen? Spark shareholders can't look into the black hole of Lightbox forever and watch the money disappear down it. Netflix can't sustain losses forever. The others are already gone. Sky (with Neon) are the only other player - I wonder if they can turn a profit with this?

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 545

#1569812 10-Jun-2016 23:04

radomatic:

ockel:

Tivo - Telecom and TVNZ in about 2009. An abject failure - let's be honest.

You've mentioned igloo. Also failed - you can't even buy an Igloo box now

Spark suggested it will throw $20-$30m into Lightbox. It may just be earning $20m in revenue pa on its customer base. Content costs and distribution will eat away at that plus the extensive marketing. It gave Lightbox away for 12 months to Spark customers. It went so well that Spark has decided to subsidise its customers indefinitely. "yeah right" Bang on. Lightbox is a black hole for more. $300k monthly revenue so$3.6m a year. Take costs out of that (ie your $20-30m). Not a pretty picture.

Quickflix is in voluntary administration(?) in Australia and its NZ office is either closed or substantially reduced in size. Read into that what you will. Unlikely to be printing money on either side of the Tasman. Another fail.

Ezyflix has already exited the market. And another.

Netflix NZ has between 246,000 and 400,000 subscribers. Netflix's International operations are still in the red. Successful - but not a money maker is it.

Every operator in NZ is likely only still operating because their parent organisation is continuing to advance more and more capital to the project in the hope that it will, at some stage, in the future become profitable. You certainly do get companies fighting over who gets to lose the most money - it just takes years (usually 3) before someone says "when is that project going to give me the return you promised?" And then you get players either merging or exiting. This is a fair call.

To your last point, you have to wonder when this will happen? Spark shareholders can't look into the black hole of Lightbox forever and watch the money disappear down it. Netflix can't sustain losses forever. The others are already gone. Sky (with Neon) are the only other player - I wonder if they can turn a profit with this?

When? I dunno. Timeframes for ROIC's is usually 3 years before projects get the hard word.

The poster had noted that they couldnt remember anyone having a crack at paytv. But there is a litany of attempts over the last 20 years - all with the capital and inclination to make it work. And a litany of value destruction.

People talk about a paytv monopoly. Its a myopic view. Broadcasting has been funded in one of two ways - either indirectly or directly. To look at one without looking at the other makes no sense. In this third age of broadcasting we're seeing a fragmentation of the directly funded model. But theres nothing to say that there wont also be a fragmentation of the indirectly funded model too. There hasnt been a monopoly - just a bunch of exclusively provided content funded by different mechanisms across different platforms.

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

Linuxluver

5828 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1632

Trusted

Subscriber

#1569859 11-Jun-2016 08:45

The funny part is that I'd pay for one license to see all the content. Like we used to.

Maybe we should set up a fund that all the money we pay goes into....and then it is distributed based on the proportion of viewing it got. Plus we get to rate each show we watch on a scale from 1 to 10. The higher the score relative to other shows, the fatter the payout. If everyone scores everything a 10, then it's the same as not scoring at all.

The fund could have categories and money paid in could be tagged. For example, I never, freakin' EVER, want to see a cooking show or other reality programme. So those shows aren't visible to me and I don't have the ability to give them any money unless I change my preferences. But I do want to see documentaries and good drama.

This would mean everyone would have access to what they wanted, wouldn't have to pay for what they don't, and can see the best (well.....most popular...choose wisely) programming rewarded....until people grow bored with it.

Sort of like a broadcasting fee with some 21st Century smarts wrapped around it.

TVs / Freeview boxes would have the selection / rating software added or built in.

The Internet messes this up, but that's a problem that could be solved. Perhaps via a content fee added to each device sold or each phone plan / account / pre-pay.

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 545

#1569951 11-Jun-2016 13:21

Linuxluver:

The funny part is that I'd pay for one license to see all the content. Like we used to.

Maybe we should set up a fund that all the money we pay goes into....and then it is distributed based on the proportion of viewing it got. Plus we get to rate each show we watch on a scale from 1 to 10. The higher the score relative to other shows, the fatter the payout. If everyone scores everything a 10, then it's the same as not scoring at all.

The fund could have categories and money paid in could be tagged. For example, I never, freakin' EVER, want to see a cooking show or other reality programme. So those shows aren't visible to me and I don't have the ability to give them any money unless I change my preferences. But I do want to see documentaries and good drama.

This would mean everyone would have access to what they wanted, wouldn't have to pay for what they don't, and can see the best (well.....most popular...choose wisely) programming rewarded....until people grow bored with it.

Sort of like a broadcasting fee with some 21st Century smarts wrapped around it.

TVs / Freeview boxes would have the selection / rating software added or built in.

The Internet messes this up, but that's a problem that could be solved. Perhaps via a content fee added to each device sold or each phone plan / account / pre-pay.

An interesting idea but how is this significantly different to what we have now? If you want Netflix content you pay Netflix - if you dont like what they offer you dont buy. If you want Lightbox content you pay Lightbox - if you dont like what they offer you dont buy. Similarly for Sky. It sends a clear signal as to the attractiveness of the content - and if it doesnt attract the eyeballs, they cull their content (or channels in the latter) and replace with content that attracts viewers.

Similarly with advertising funded television. If it attracts the eyeballs then the advertisers will buy the slots and fund purchase of future content, if it doesnt get the eyeballs it gets rescheduled or cancelled. And the broadcasters need to find something else that can get the viewers.

Indirect funding gets about 66% of the 92% of watched content. 33% of watched content is on paytv. about 8% is on streaming (some on adfunded, some pay).

Funding through licensing - or essentially selecting content based on a command structure would be a cumbersome and time ineffective method. It would mean that there would be significant delays with deciding what was being watched, then allocating funds and purchasing content.

And then how do you decide on funding allocation given 1 hour of local drama content is significanly more expensive than 1 hour of local reality content which is significantly more expensive than 1 hour of overseas content? You're essentially looking for a Pharmac model which is going to look for its "best bang for buck" which would kill the local content economy. And where does premium content (movies and sport) fit it? Even more expensive content.

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

quickymart

14141 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 11935

ID Verified

#1570071 11-Jun-2016 16:39

One difference though is that the broadcasting fee was compulsory for anyone who owned a TV, regardless of whether you even used it or not. I can choose not to have Sky, etc and not pay for it.

1 | 2 | 3