Sky blames piracy for lost customers. Sky: it's time to wake up and smell the coffee.

Forums › Sky, Neon, Lightbox › Sky blames piracy for lost customers. Sky: it's time to wake up and smell the coffee.

1 | ... | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | ... | 57

Networkn
32871 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15469

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1876513 3-Oct-2017 09:18

JimmyH:

@tdgeek - Just out of interest, and in the interests of disclosure given your strong support for Sky in this thread, do you work for or are you otherwise connected to Sky?

@jimmyh Asking this is a breach of the FUG.

I am a strong advocate for the value of Sky and I can tell you I do not work for Sky. I am critical of some of their decisions, esp communication and the slow adoption of better web technologies, but mostly my belief in their product is just common sense.

If you compare NF/LB etc to Sky, you aren't comparing apples to apples.

As has been said before, if those services meet your needs, then vote with your feet, but for 700,000+ people including me, Sky presents reasonable value and given the state of their financials it's clear they aren't taking the p1ss price wise either. Sky offers *different* things to NF/LB. I also have NF.

They can't get off the satellite service without hurting tens of thousands of subscribers who have no way to make reasonable use of Internet-only services.

I feel like I have made this point about 10 times already.

old3eyes

9158 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1365

Subscriber

#1876541 3-Oct-2017 10:19

richms:

old3eyes:

So you want to see Prime become a Sky only channel and take all it's programs with it??

I wouldnt miss it.

I would . There are some programs on there that I watch like Dr Who, Top Gear and some others. No way would I sub to Sky just for these . It would be back to P2P..

Regards,

Old3eyes

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 545

#1876568 3-Oct-2017 10:43

old3eyes:

ockel:

afe66:

ockel:

[

SkyGo has been a dog from day 1. Sky should stop p'ing more money against the wall and just axe it. Then no problem for you or anyone else that it doesnt work properly for.

And get rid of Prime too. If TVNZ struggles to make a profit, Mediaworks makes a loss then Prime must be losing money too, so why bother. Just play sports replays and highlights. Add a bit of news and run promos the rest of the time. There arent any eyeballs watching it anyhow so why bother with the programming.

I argue that sky bought prime as a hedge against those that say all blacks games are too important to be locked behind a paywall and agitate for games of national importance to be free to air.

With owning Prime, sky can say get the live game is on sky for extra cash but joe public can still watch on the delayed free prime channel.

A.

In the days before Sky owned Prime FTA was broadcast on TVNZ and TV3. Eventually the price offered by those two parties was insufficient for Sky to bother onselling the FTA replay rights - Channel Nine (which owned Prime) decided that throwing good money after bad didint make sense and had the choice to either sell or close Prime. That gave Sky the opportunity to have an outlet for FTA replay rights and the opportunity to advertise its product (at a time when the other FTA's didnt want to let Sky advertise on their channels).

Arguably the FTA replays could still be shown on Prime and/or offered for free online via SkySports website or even free on FanPass (although there would be a cost via Neulion), just chop out the other dross (which costs money to buy and cant be cost neutral on advertising in a declining viewership market). The rest of the time could be filled with the Sky preview channel and infomercials.

Prime no longer makes sense. Not that it really did anyway.

So you want to see Prime become a Sky only channel and take all it's programs with it??

Nope. Just relinquish the rights to the "currently wasted" content that might get more of an audience somewhere else like on TVNZ and Mediaworks. Why waste good content on a fragmented audience, lose money and bid up future FTA general entertainment rights in a struggling industry. Poor industry structure doesnt make economic sense.

Keep it FTA but not as a general entertainment channel. Just FTA sports replays, promos and infomercials.

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

stinger

628 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 169
Inactive user

#1876580 3-Oct-2017 11:10

ockel:

Keep it FTA but not as a general entertainment channel. Just FTA sports replays, promos and infomercials.

This model has proven not to work. One (Australia) moved from a FTA sports channel to a general programming channel. TVNZ Sports Extra and Sommet Sports have both closed down in New Zealand. I can't see the revenue from advertising and infomercials covering the costs of providing the channel, even given the premium content that Sky could offer the channel.

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 545

#1876654 3-Oct-2017 13:53

stinger:

ockel:

Keep it FTA but not as a general entertainment channel. Just FTA sports replays, promos and infomercials.

This model has proven not to work. One (Australia) moved from a FTA sports channel to a general programming channel. TVNZ Sports Extra and Sommet Sports have both closed down in New Zealand. I can't see the revenue from advertising and infomercials covering the costs of providing the channel, even given the premium content that Sky could offer the channel.

Revenue from advertising doesnt cover the current cost of the channel, does it? So shed the general entertainment costs. Costs are reduced to FTA sports (of which Sky already has the rights to, not acquire additional rights like Sports Extra and Sommet had to to be in business), promos (already produced), infomercials which are generally advertising and pay reasonable money as seen in previous latenight, graveyard and morning TV. The revenue from infomercials offsets the broadcasting cost for satellite (c500k pa) and DTT (costs pa?). Then you go from loss-making to cost neutral.

Sky already replays rugby, league, netball, EPL. Add to that its replayed sports discussion shows, Crowd Goes Wild and Prime News (produced by Mediaworks) and you've only got a bit of schedule to fill with Sky Sports highlights and Sky Movies promos. If you can understand the basics of CPT then creating a cost neutral schedule is not rocket science.

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

sonyxperiageek

2984 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 397

Trusted

#1876816 3-Oct-2017 19:10

I never got the point of infomercials... Who would be up at night just to watch these anyway? So they can't be worth that much money.

Sony

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 545

#1876818 3-Oct-2017 19:19

sonyxperiageek:

I never got the point of infomercials... Who would be up at night just to watch these anyway? So they can't be worth that much money.

And yet 3 out of 4 channels run back-to-back infomercials during graveyard. And sporadically have them during the morning - one until late morning.

The broadcasters dont pay them..... so there must be a crust in there somewhere.

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

sonyxperiageek

2984 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 397

Trusted

#1876826 3-Oct-2017 19:37

ockel:

sonyxperiageek:

I never got the point of infomercials... Who would be up at night just to watch these anyway? So they can't be worth that much money.

And yet 3 out of 4 channels run back-to-back infomercials during graveyard. And sporadically have them during the morning - one until late morning.

The broadcasters dont pay them..... so there must be a crust in there somewhere.

I thought it would be the other way round - the infomercials pay the broadcaster?

Sony

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 545

#1876834 3-Oct-2017 20:04

sonyxperiageek:

ockel:

sonyxperiageek:

I never got the point of infomercials... Who would be up at night just to watch these anyway? So they can't be worth that much money.

And yet 3 out of 4 channels run back-to-back infomercials during graveyard. And sporadically have them during the morning - one until late morning.

The broadcasters dont pay them..... so there must be a crust in there somewhere.

I thought it would be the other way round - the infomercials pay the broadcaster?

Yep. And so its worthwhile for the broadcaster to run the infomercials rather than let the time amortise with either programming or no signal. Hence the idea that Prime pulls its programming (that it pays for) and run infomercials (where it gets paid).

And if it wasnt economic for the infomercial company to buy time....... it wouldnt run the TVC's!

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

evilengineer

466 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 367

#1877941 5-Oct-2017 15:38

Personally I'm not interested in paying for sport.

Or $50 per month for a basic package full of crap that I'm not going to watch (eg. lifestyle and home reno rubbish etc.)

But movies on the other hand.....

With the lack of new release movies on Netflix/Lightbox, the death of Fatso (which I liked) and the increasing rarity of the old school video shop it seems to be that there's an opening in the market for a decent SVOD version of Sky Movies.

I'd be willing to pay $30-40 a month for that.

They could tier the service: $15 for three streams a month, $30 for six and $50 for unlimited etc.

They could even have an additional three month delay on the Satellite version to differentiate the services and still beat Netflix.

How about it Sky? Show some imagination.

rugrat

3142 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 945

Lifetime subscriber

#1877952 5-Oct-2017 16:05

I'm using Apple TV for latest to a couple year old movies.
Would subscribe to Sky movies but with basic would cost $70 a month. Same not interested in. Basic.

It's all pay per view but doesn't cost $70 a month for what watch.

All movies HD, movie of week 2016 one 99 cents, some theme movies around $4 which change each week.
Month to watch once rented and 48 hours after first play.

Apple TV

Stream your favourite shows now on Apple TV (affiliate link).

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 545

#1877970 5-Oct-2017 16:25

evilengineer:

Personally I'm not interested in paying for sport.

Or $50 per month for a basic package full of crap that I'm not going to watch (eg. lifestyle and home reno rubbish etc.)

But movies on the other hand.....

With the lack of new release movies on Netflix/Lightbox, the death of Fatso (which I liked) and the increasing rarity of the old school video shop it seems to be that there's an opening in the market for a decent SVOD version of Sky Movies.

I'd be willing to pay $30-40 a month for that.

They could tier the service: $15 for three streams a month, $30 for six and $50 for unlimited etc.

They could even have an additional three month delay on the Satellite version to differentiate the services and still beat Netflix.

How about it Sky? Show some imagination.

Isnt that what Neon offers at $20/mth? It includes Skys movies on an SVOD basis. Dunno where it sits re: release window but it's gotta be close to what Sky Movies and the old school video shops offer.

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

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1878062 5-Oct-2017 19:41

evilengineer:

Personally I'm not interested in paying for sport.

Or $50 per month for a basic package full of crap that I'm not going to watch (eg. lifestyle and home reno rubbish etc.)

But movies on the other hand.....

With the lack of new release movies on Netflix/Lightbox, the death of Fatso (which I liked) and the increasing rarity of the old school video shop it seems to be that there's an opening in the market for a decent SVOD version of Sky Movies.

I'd be willing to pay $30-40 a month for that.

They could tier the service: $15 for three streams a month, $30 for six and $50 for unlimited etc.

They could even have an additional three month delay on the Satellite version to differentiate the services and still beat Netflix.

How about it Sky? Show some imagination.

Your not into sport, thats ok

You think Basic is crap? Many disagree.

Sky has movies, but its $27 odd I believe, plus you need Basic. Now, if you feel Sky has an option here, you are saying that Netflix isn't great? iTunes is out there, I dont feel Sky has an interest in movies, its an add-on, but they dont have 4000 movies to show, nor are $14, so its WAY too expensive.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1878063 5-Oct-2017 19:43

rugrat: I'm using Apple TV for latest to a couple year old movies.
Would subscribe to Sky movies but with basic would cost $70 a month. Same not interested in. Basic.

It's all pay per view but doesn't cost $70 a month for what watch.

All movies HD, movie of week 2016 one 99 cents, some theme movies around $4 which change each week.
Month to watch once rented and 48 hours after first play.

You didnt say what you watched through on the ATV4, I assume iTunes Movies?

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 545

#1878082 5-Oct-2017 20:12

tdgeek:

evilengineer:

Personally I'm not interested in paying for sport.

Or $50 per month for a basic package full of crap that I'm not going to watch (eg. lifestyle and home reno rubbish etc.)

But movies on the other hand.....

With the lack of new release movies on Netflix/Lightbox, the death of Fatso (which I liked) and the increasing rarity of the old school video shop it seems to be that there's an opening in the market for a decent SVOD version of Sky Movies.

I'd be willing to pay $30-40 a month for that.

They could tier the service: $15 for three streams a month, $30 for six and $50 for unlimited etc.

They could even have an additional three month delay on the Satellite version to differentiate the services and still beat Netflix.

How about it Sky? Show some imagination.

Your not into sport, thats ok

You think Basic is crap? Many disagree.

Sky has movies, but its $27 odd I believe, plus you need Basic. Now, if you feel Sky has an option here, you are saying that Netflix isn't great? iTunes is out there, I dont feel Sky has an interest in movies, its an add-on, but they dont have 4000 movies to show, nor are $14, so its WAY too expensive.

Seriously???!!! Look, I totally get the whole aversion to PPV thing. If you're not going to pay $10-18 to watch a 2 hour flick at the cinema then chances are that you dont want to pay $7-8 to watch that 2hr movie on Apple's iTunes or Google Play.

What you want is the recent release movies not at $20/mth but at the old-movie-catalogue price of $14/mth. Surely you get that, right?!

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

1 | ... | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | ... | 57