SKY NZ CEO Fellet to retire

Forums › Sky, Neon, Lightbox › SKY NZ CEO Fellet to retire

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1983806 26-Mar-2018 20:44

surfisup1000:

networkn:

surfisup1000:

Maybe sky needs to dump satellite content distribution? That is radical and maybe a lifesaver if done properly.

Compare sure, suggest they are the same, but that Sky is just ripping people off, no.

Screw all those people who live in areas without decent internet? Great.

How about this? How about those who find the content they want on NF, get NF, and those who find value in their Sky Subscription, buy Sky, and those with a chip on their shoulder about Sky, get a subscription to NF and don't worry about a service they don't use?

I agree that sky are probably not ripping people off.

But, skys pricing model tricks people into believe they are being ripped off (why can't i just get sky sports etc...).

Maybe sky should have used a fixed fee to cover transmission costs (like an electricity line charges). Then, subscribers could purchase one or more channels/packages on top of the transmission fee.

At least that way, you separate transmission costs from content costs and people can see that. And, if they want, they can order just sky sport.

Thats not a bad idea. Cost Plus. Sky needs the ARPU, about $80 per month. Basic at the old prices helps that, but not now. But it still needs it. Sport is what $30? If stand alone it cant be $30. Maybe they can run Sky as two entities. Not legal entities as per the Cpmpanys Act but internally. Sky Sport and Basic, Basic then being a Netflix and FTA competitor.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1983809 26-Mar-2018 20:47

Oblivian:

If one thing is for sure

Is that people feel so strongly that every time there is a pricing/management or SKY public announcement. GZ is sure to turn into yet another opinion filled thread on their business model and feelings toward it :)

This would be... the 5th?

There are so many onions expressed here, it makes me cry

richms

29099 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10213

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1983810 26-Mar-2018 20:50

Anyway, on the topic of the CEO, He did try to get that vodafone deal thru while he was driving, that was stopped by meddling govt so not his fault it didnt happen, I see it as him jumping off the titanic before it sinks and the inertia takes him down too. As he has seen thru all the sports stuff and broadcasting probably has the connections to get something on the board of whatever it is that is the iceburg. Perhaps chorus or whatever the new offering that spins off from their announcement today is?

Richard rich.ms

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1983811 26-Mar-2018 20:50

hairy1:

networkn:

I'd find it hard to believe that Sky hasn't already considered a huge number of scenarios. Chances are if they didn't undertake the changes you suggested, there is likely a good reason. The board is made up of some very well thought of people but I'd suggest the issues are very complex and

there are factors that most people wouldn't even conceive of shaping their decision making.

They are moving to digital distribution, slower admittedly than most people would have preferred. I think they thought the VF merger would have sped this up and now don't have this option. They are looking at Amazon and other platforms too.

The problem is that every time Sky go near digital it doesn't go well. The world is going digital. My kids don't know what broadcast TV is.

The latest venture which was going to be the product of the Sky Vodafone merger has not exactly changed the world.

People don't want to run coax to all the TV's in their house and buy multiroom. Everyone want an app on all devices that can stream sky channels. Netflix don't care how many devices I am signed in on. That's why everyone wants to be friends with Netflix. Because it is easy and it works.

If Sky get that part going then viewers will return.

Unlike you, I watch what I watch for the content. Content is king. This movie six but its digital. This movie is great, but its via coax, yuk?

I watch coax. 80's technology I'm told. On a god knows how old plasma, it doesnt even have Freeview built in. I view a superb picture and the content I like.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1983813 26-Mar-2018 20:54

jfanning:

stinger:

That's never going to happen. There is a significant proportion (wild guess about 10%) of the population that will never get unlimited fast Internet. Interesting to see that Foxtel in Australia have decided to move all their HFC customers on to Satellite. You're also not going to get Sky Go features (including watching FTA channels, and delayed playback) on an online only service.

What Sky do need is a product like Foxtel Now, and priced a approximately the same pricing point. Currently, you can get FanPass - which is riddled with bugs - for $99 per month. I can get Fox Sports + premium drama (think SoHo type content) + a handful of other channel for less than half that in Australia. This is definitely the direction Sky need to move to, Foxtel and BSkyB have both done this.

10% isn't significant

Chorus announced this a while back

https://company.chorus.co.nz/chorus-trial-live-4k-broadcasting-service-over-fibre

Also, why would you lose things like Sky Go? other countries with a similar population level to ours provide features like that, say Virgin Media Ireland for example.

Agree. Sky isnt here to provide TV to remote areas, although that is a very nice bonus.

Isnt Sky Go vis the interwebs? Cricket the other day, Radio gets coverage very quick, Sky Go a bit behind, Satellite a bit further behind. Given satellite has extra latency, it seems Sky Go is quicker and thus via IP

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1983815 26-Mar-2018 20:59

Dratsab:

networkn: Yes, NF does care how many devices. Check your subscription details.

No NF does not care how many devices you have registered - I've got about 11. What it cares about is the amount of devices viewing consecutively.

networkn: I am not saying that Sky has done an awesome job with it's digital platforms to date. They were too slow to see the need, then didn't commit to it fully. They waited for things to happen (relying on mergers etc which would have given them a platform) rather than making something happen. I think they are doing the right thing in partnering with an established platform rather than making their own

In an ideal situation what you mention would be amazing, but NF doesn't need to cater for anyone that doesn't have an internet connection (and has an near unlimited number of customers), Sky has chosen to provide this (for a long time before SVOD was a thing) and understandably (to those who don't only care about themselves) and will continue to for the foreseeable future. This makes their strategy more complicated and the risks higher.

Also, Netflix is a loss-making organization and expect it's prices to jump (some analysts believe by up to 80%) over the next 5 years. They can't make a profit (or even close) charging what they charge.

As has been pointed out numerous other times, it's word and oranges. NF only competes with a segment of Sky. If be interested to see links to back up your claims of NF being a kid making organisation.

https://www.stock-analysis-on.net/NASDAQ/Company/Netflix-Inc/Ratios/Profitability

Kid making, you mean loss? Letters close together. I believe they now turn a profit. Miniscule per revenue. A teeny downturn or rights cost increase, its gone. They do need to increase the price by a few dollars, its still cheap as chips but it will be a high %. Remember when it went up by 2 bucks? The world nearly ended. People are cheap. Apart from realists who are happy to enjoy good value, or pay more for a premium service, you work that out.

Mighty Ape

Shop now at Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1983816 26-Mar-2018 21:04

quickymart: Personally delivery methods of Sky would not convince me to return - if they had something I wanted to watch I would get it. I guess for me content is king, not the delivery method.

1000%

Content is king, at least for those that comment on content providers.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1983817 26-Mar-2018 21:05

stinger:

dafman:

That's life, get over. I don't see why in this day and age why the vast bulk of Sky subscribers should have to pay extra to subsidise the rural population.

Once you have one customer on satellite, the transmissions cost will be the same as 1,000,000 customers. If Sky did have an online solution that worked and was comparably priced, the two would co-exist for many decades to come. Both Foxtel (Australia) and BSkyB (UK) have both satellite and online only options available to their customers. Neither are seen as online first, and I don't think Sky intend to be a guinea pig.

NZ 5 million

OZ 25

OK 65 odd

Bit different

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1983819 26-Mar-2018 21:10

hairy1:

networkn:

Yes, NF does care how many devices. Check your subscription details.

I am not saying that Sky has done an awesome job with it's digital platforms to date. They were too slow to see the need, then didn't commit to it fully. They waited for things to happen (relying on mergers etc which would have given them a platform) rather than making something happen.

I think they are doing the right thing in partnering with an established platform rather than making their own.

My kids don't care how their content is delivered behind the scenes. I didn't know what broadcast tv was as a kid, I knew that my content was available in our 1 device in the house (tv).

In an ideal situation what you mention would be amazing, but NF doesn't need to cater for anyone that doesn't have an internet connection (and has an near unlimited number of customers), Sky has chosen to provide this (for a long time before SVOD was a thing) and understandably (to those who don't only care about themselves) and will continue to for the foreseeable future. This makes their strategy more complicated and the risks higher.

Also, Netflix is a loss-making organization and expect it's prices to jump (some analysts believe by up to 80%) over the next 5 years. They can't make a profit (or even close) charging what they charge.

It's simply not apples with apples. If NF works for you and you don't see the value in Sky, then no-one is forcing you, or anyone to remain a subscriber.

I have both and am happy to pay for both. I'd take my Rugby over transmission before streaming every day of the week. I can't imagine how freaking frustrated I'd be if for some reason my bandwidth mid game was affected and I got buffering and definition changes as a result.

I have a 70Mbps connection and my Netflix would have an issue at least once or twice a week or more even.

I'm wasn't talking about the Netflix service. I was talking about the platform. Sky needs a digital platform. I gather that transmission works for you but to be honest you are not the future. The digital natives are. The baby boomers are keeping the Sky boat going but they are going to become a limited commodity in the future.

Who cares about the platform??? You should care about the content.

Satellite is awesome 1980's tech. It works. What you should want is the content you want. Fibre, VDSL Satellite, who cares. Sometimes Id love Sky to dump Optus, turn on 4k, halve prices then see who whines about how much national bandwidth Sky uses.

richms

29099 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10213

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1983822 26-Mar-2018 21:13

tdgeek:

quickymart: Personally delivery methods of Sky would not convince me to return - if they had something I wanted to watch I would get it. I guess for me content is king, not the delivery method.

1000%

Content is king, at least for those that comment on content providers.

But the contract on sky is the killer. If you get it, you usually have at least 6 months of it without penalty. When I last had it the penalty was paying out the whole amount which I understand isn't legal now, but they still want a significant install cost to get that content if you dont go on a term commitment. Content comes and goes. Game of thrones was a popular one that got people onboard, once its over, no reason to stay.

Richard rich.ms

richms

29099 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10213

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1983825 26-Mar-2018 21:17

tdgeek:

Who cares about the platform??? You should care about the content.

Satellite is awesome 1980's tech. It works. What you should want is the content you want. Fibre, VDSL Satellite, who cares. Sometimes Id love Sky to dump Optus, turn on 4k, halve prices then see who whines about how much national bandwidth Sky uses.

Satellite only works for live content, where everyone is watching at the same time as everyone else. Sports, live news, live talk shows. Live.

Anything not live is pointless over DVB-S satellite as a real time stream being played off a hard drive at some central place, re-encoded at a worse quality to fit in the limited pipe regardless of what the content demands, and then the degraded version with adverts put onto a hard drive in your house for you to watch later, but only if you remember to set an option to record it which is quite likly to miss part of the real time playback because of scheduling issues.

Watch cartoons only at a certain time? What is this madness you talk of kids think, they have youtube which has all they could ever want at any time they want. They have twitch to watch and interact with broadcasters. Cartoon network is for babies and the other channels are just something to put on in the background while on the gaming computer, laptop, ipad and voicechat on their phone simultaneously.

Richard rich.ms

Geekzone support

Support Geekzone with one-off or recurring donations Donate via PressPatron.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1983828 26-Mar-2018 21:20

richms:

Anyway, on the topic of the CEO, He did try to get that vodafone deal thru while he was driving, that was stopped by meddling govt so not his fault it didnt happen, I see it as him jumping off the titanic before it sinks and the inertia takes him down too. As he has seen thru all the sports stuff and broadcasting probably has the connections to get something on the board of whatever it is that is the iceburg. Perhaps chorus or whatever the new offering that spins off from their announcement today is?

Wow, but ok. Bit alarmist IMHO

VF had a means to get more online quicker, no go.

Chorus has a new option.

They had already advised weeks ago that the new box or upgrade due in a year will be online with all the goodies. It was in detail.

The app you are talking about.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1983830 26-Mar-2018 21:22

richms:

tdgeek:

quickymart: Personally delivery methods of Sky would not convince me to return - if they had something I wanted to watch I would get it. I guess for me content is king, not the delivery method.

1000%

Content is king, at least for those that comment on content providers.

But the contract on sky is the killer. If you get it, you usually have at least 6 months of it without penalty. When I last had it the penalty was paying out the whole amount which I understand isn't legal now, but they still want a significant install cost to get that content if you dont go on a term commitment. Content comes and goes. Game of thrones was a popular one that got people onboard, once its over, no reason to stay.

If you like the content, buy, if not don't buy. Did you get Sky just for GoT?

richms

29099 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10213

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1983832 26-Mar-2018 21:26

tdgeek:

If you like the content, buy, if not don't buy. Did you get Sky just for GoT?

But you cant just buy for the content, I pirated GOT and decided it was not worth the hype.

Sky is like being told that KFC have hot and spicy on one day of the week, but you have to commit to paying for it for a month, if you eat there or not. Content isnt consistantly the same. Same with sports, seasons come and go, still have to pay for months of nothing of interest to you.

Richard rich.ms

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1983843 26-Mar-2018 21:35

richms:

tdgeek:

If you like the content, buy, if not don't buy. Did you get Sky just for GoT?

But you cant just buy for the content, I pirated GOT and decided it was not worth the hype.

Sky is like being told that KFC have hot and spicy on one day of the week, but you have to commit to paying for it for a month, if you eat there or not. Content isnt consistantly the same. Same with sports, seasons come and go, still have to pay for months of nothing of interest to you.

I get that.

I have Sky for sport. A small number of sports which becomes annual more or less. I had Sky earlier as it was an overall benefit for me, wife, young kids. Now, its just me, (wife still here lol, kids gone!) but its value to me. If there is one or a couple of contents, its a hard sell for sure. As TV gets more fragmented that will continue.

One is on NF, one on Hulu, one on LB and so on.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6