If I had had shares in sky I think I would be pulling them out and looking at investing somewhere else by what is going on.

Mspec:

 

If I had had shares in sky I think I would be pulling them out and looking at investing somewhere else by what is going on.

 

So would you buy Spark on the basis of Lightbox's performance - and the parent having to give the product away for free?  

Or would you buy Netflix on the basis that it's growth at a reasonable price?

Or would you avoid the sector completely because of uncertainty over longevity of business models and the possibility of rampant value destruction in the medium term?

ockel:

 

Mspec:

 

If I had had shares in sky I think I would be pulling them out and looking at investing somewhere else by what is going on.

 

 

So would you buy Spark on the basis of Lightbox's performance - and the parent having to give the product away for free?  

 

Or would you buy Netflix on the basis that it's growth at a reasonable price?

 

Or would you avoid the sector completely because of uncertainty over longevity of business models and the possibility of rampant value destruction in the medium term?

 

None of the above I would invest in the below idea if I was able.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/80327929/area360-launches-ticketure-in-a-bid-to-disrupt-the-major-ticketing-companies

The "metrics" (as referenced above) for Sky look pretty good.  The share price isn't tied to those, dividends, PE ratios etc.  Apple paid no dividends for years.  Share price is based on future expectation.  IMO even after the recent drop, investors are unrealistically optimistic for the future.

Anyway, I broke the law last night.  We wanted to watch GoT latest episode, sat down, turned on TV in hope of seeing in on Neon, in all it's glorious near standard definition highly priced over-compressed glory.  It wouldn't load.  I retried several times, and it still wouldn't, so in the process of waiting, I d/l an HD torrent (at 4 mB/s) and had it on screen before Neon unclogged the servers on their cheapskate cynical system. 

ockel:

 

Dairyxox:

 

MikeB4:

 

Dairyxox:

 

So who in this thread holds shares in Sky? MikeB4? You seem to know their financials and stats a little too well...

 

 

 

 

They are a listed company, the metrics are freely available.

 

 

Of course, and those who have a vested interest will watch & know those metrics well. So do you?

 

 

Lets get a grip here.  Do we need to ask everyone who says a negative word whether they are short Sky shares?  As they have a vested interest in seeing the price go down.  Or whether they are own shares in an ISP that has relationship with Lightbox or Netflix as they have a vested interest in seeing higher churn away from Sky and onto streaming services?  

 

Yep .This thread is supposed to be about the drop in Sky subscribers. Where I imagine at a guess we would discuss why, and what Sky may do to react. Ive put forward my in detail feelings what they might do. Sometimes I get scuppered, well thats good, more info on  the table, throw that idea in File 166.

But mostly its about venting anti Sky rants. Adding incorrect info. Name calling anyone who goes against the grain. If someone starts a Sky rant thread, do that, I wont be there, i'll be here discussing what options Sky has available. Some yak about streaming, well here we have a major provider being affected by streaming and we will be able to see what they do. Thats pretty interesting. Its the real world at work. 

Mspec:

 

If I had had shares in sky I think I would be pulling them out and looking at investing somewhere else by what is going on.

 

If I did, I'd have pulled them out when NF came here, writing was on the wall then. Could buy short now if I felt or knew enough to feel that they will react and adapt and continue on profitably. 

Mspec:

 

ockel:

 

Mspec:

 

If I had had shares in sky I think I would be pulling them out and looking at investing somewhere else by what is going on.

 

 

So would you buy Spark on the basis of Lightbox's performance - and the parent having to give the product away for free?  

 

Or would you buy Netflix on the basis that it's growth at a reasonable price?

 

Or would you avoid the sector completely because of uncertainty over longevity of business models and the possibility of rampant value destruction in the medium term?

 

 

None of the above I would invest in the below idea if I was able.

 

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/80327929/area360-launches-ticketure-in-a-bid-to-disrupt-the-major-ticketing-companies

 

There is also Good TV a NZ startup doing online movies and TV. You pay $4 to $7 per movie, they had about 100 I think when I scanned it this morning. 

Its not an IPO so we all missed out! :-)

Fred99:

 

The "metrics" (as referenced above) for Sky look pretty good.  The share price isn't tied to those, dividends, PE ratios etc.  Apple paid no dividends for years.  Share price is based on future expectation.  IMO even after the recent drop, investors are unrealistically optimistic for the future.

 

Anyway, I broke the law last night.  We wanted to watch GoT latest episode, sat down, turned on TV in hope of seeing in on Neon, in all it's glorious near standard definition highly priced over-compressed glory.  It wouldn't load.  I retried several times, and it still wouldn't, so in the process of waiting, I d/l an HD torrent (at 4 mB/s) and had it on screen before Neon unclogged the servers on their cheapskate cynical system. 

 

I get that. Neon and Fanpass aren't the reaction, they are IMHO having the function in place for when it matters. 

Mspec:

 

ockel:

 

Mspec:

 

If I had had shares in sky I think I would be pulling them out and looking at investing somewhere else by what is going on.

 

 

So would you buy Spark on the basis of Lightbox's performance - and the parent having to give the product away for free?  

 

Or would you buy Netflix on the basis that it's growth at a reasonable price?

 

Or would you avoid the sector completely because of uncertainty over longevity of business models and the possibility of rampant value destruction in the medium term?

 

 

None of the above I would invest in the below idea if I was able.

 

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/80327929/area360-launches-ticketure-in-a-bid-to-disrupt-the-major-ticketing-companies

 

I looked at a similar business back in the late 1990's.  The fees charged then were just as annoying (and eye watering) and the process for buying was atrocious.  Still is.   The big barrier was the multi-year exclusive agreements that the ticket agencies had signed with the venues.  Would be interesting to know if thats changed (I seriously doubt it).  

tdgeek:

 

ockel:

 

Dairyxox:

 

MikeB4:

 

Dairyxox:

 

So who in this thread holds shares in Sky? MikeB4? You seem to know their financials and stats a little too well...

 

 

 

 

They are a listed company, the metrics are freely available.

 

 

Of course, and those who have a vested interest will watch & know those metrics well. So do you?

 

 

Lets get a grip here.  Do we need to ask everyone who says a negative word whether they are short Sky shares?  As they have a vested interest in seeing the price go down.  Or whether they are own shares in an ISP that has relationship with Lightbox or Netflix as they have a vested interest in seeing higher churn away from Sky and onto streaming services?  

 

 

Yep .This thread is supposed to be about the drop in Sky subscribers. Where I imagine at a guess we would discuss why, and what Sky may do to react. Ive put forward my in detail feelings what they might do. Sometimes I get scuppered, well thats good, more info on  the table, throw that idea in File 166.

 

But mostly its about vent

 

ing anti Sky rants. Adding incorrect info. Name calling anyone who goes against the grain. If someone starts a Sky rant thread, do that, I wont be there, i'll be here discussing what options Sky has available. Some yak about streaming, well here we have a major provider being affected by streaming and we will be able to see what they do. Thats pretty interesting. Its the real world at work. 

 

 

 

Considering the resources that they've got, with their "exclusive content" they are apparently and very clearly trying to fight against the concept of streaming services - as it's disruptive to their marketing model.  Generating contempt amongst potential future customers is a very bad decision.  Competition will keep the price (and Sky's margins) down, and it will get worse for them in future.

Lightbox also has resources, but were in a new venture in supplying content.  They were clearly not quite up to task (server bandwidth capacity etc) a year ago, but have improved to the point where they look like being a stayer in the market, along with Netflix.  I doubt there's room for more than a few players, and there's a dark horse on the horizon - Amazon.  They're throwing money at new ocean fibre, ostensibly for their cloud services, but I bet that's just one of their medium-term intentions.

Fred99:

 

The "metrics" (as referenced above) for Sky look pretty good.  The share price isn't tied to those, dividends, PE ratios etc.  Apple paid no dividends for years.  Share price is based on future expectation.  IMO even after the recent drop, investors are unrealistically optimistic for the future.

 

 

 

For every pessimistic seller, there is an optimistic buyer. I dont know if Sky can succeed. They have the money and the contacts and the tech to do what they feel is needed. They also have a brand believe it or not. If they do go down the track of becoming Sky Sports as compared to Sky TV, that will force the masses to adopt streaming, whether they want to, or know how. There are plenty of variables at play

tdgeek:

 

Fred99:

 

The "metrics" (as referenced above) for Sky look pretty good.  The share price isn't tied to those, dividends, PE ratios etc.  Apple paid no dividends for years.  Share price is based on future expectation.  IMO even after the recent drop, investors are unrealistically optimistic for the future.

 

 

 

 

For every pessimistic seller, there is an optimistic buyer. I dont know if Sky can succeed. They have the money and the contacts and the tech to do what they feel is needed. They also have a brand believe it or not. If they do go down the track of becoming Sky Sports as compared to Sky TV, that will force the masses to adopt streaming, whether they want to, or know how. There are plenty of variables at play

 

Yes - they have the contacts and as NZ is truly a one-horse town with the sheriff playing cards with the mayor every night in the local saloon, you can bet your horse that there will be intense lobbying going on between hands - and at that card table, they do not want competition - none of them do - even if that's supposed to be the "house rules".

Fred99:

 

 

 

Considering the resources that they've got, with their "exclusive content" they are apparently and very clearly trying to fight against the concept of streaming services - as it's disruptive to their marketing model.  Generating contempt amongst potential future customers is a very bad decision.  Competition will keep the price (and Sky's margins) down, and it will get worse for them in future.

 

Lightbox also has resources, but were in a new venture in supplying content.  They were clearly not quite up to task (server bandwidth capacity etc) a year ago, but have improved to the point where they look like being a stayer in the market, along with Netflix.  I doubt there's room for more than a few players, and there's a dark horse on the horizon - Amazon.  They're throwing money at new ocean fibre, ostensibly for their cloud services, but I bet that's just one of their medium-term intentions.

 

Interesting points. Although I don't buy the exclusive content. They all have that. They all have some must have stuff which is exclusive and not cheap. The rest is filler which I imagine is dirt cheap. Its hard to imagine Sky seeing the satellite as the core business. Maybe if they went sport only as then they will just charge what it costs which I feel is a minimum $60 per month. Nothing else to worry about. They could drop a lot of other costs if it was sport only as instead of a range of customers with varying plans and needs , they will have one plan. Maybe tack on Basic for cheap as its quite well genred. Neon could be a Basic +.  Somehow run over satellite and SVOD and see how the economies of scale hold up. They will have to expend big dollars t transition, but no hints yet. 

Fred99:

 

tdgeek:

 

Fred99:

 

The "metrics" (as referenced above) for Sky look pretty good.  The share price isn't tied to those, dividends, PE ratios etc.  Apple paid no dividends for years.  Share price is based on future expectation.  IMO even after the recent drop, investors are unrealistically optimistic for the future.

 

 

 

 

For every pessimistic seller, there is an optimistic buyer. I dont know if Sky can succeed. They have the money and the contacts and the tech to do what they feel is needed. They also have a brand believe it or not. If they do go down the track of becoming Sky Sports as compared to Sky TV, that will force the masses to adopt streaming, whether they want to, or know how. There are plenty of variables at play

 

 

 

 

Yes - they have the contacts and as NZ is truly a one-horse town with the sheriff playing cards with the mayor every night in the local saloon, you can bet your horse that there will be intense lobbying going on between hands - and at that card table, they do not want competition - none of them do - even if that's supposed to be the "house rules".

 

Are you referring to sport, or overall?  Overall, non sport, all the providers have shown they can get exclusive cool content. Sport, well that depends if anyone else wants to have go. What Sky adds to many sports is not just the feed , but pre and post game content and other "in week" extras, which they produce, which is pretty cool. I don't feel anyone will bother taking that on. If anyone took on a sport or two, it would have to be PPV, which is a bit messy, and on the surface, expensive. And a risk. 

tdgeek:

 

They all have some must have stuff which is exclusive and not cheap. 

 

Oh I disagree here.  I have a Netflix sub.  I actually haven't watched anything for weeks on NF, if it was "not cheap" I'd have cancelled my sub and waited to re-subscribe.  But it is cheap - hardly worth my bother to unsubscribe/resubscribe.  Only one show of interest to me on Neon.  $20 / month for an extremely poor quality service.

If Sky are being bashed for their quality:price performance, then they deserve everything thrown at them.