Sky moving to IP TV

Forums › Sky, Neon, Lightbox › Sky moving to IP TV

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | ... | 26

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1989685 6-Apr-2018 19:07

dafman:

tdgeek:

To expand

The vast majority of viewing is not sport

The vast majority of sport is not rugby

The vast majority of rugby, is not the 6 weeks/208 weeks RWC

I assume daf was referring to losing the RWC

Viewing hours sport vs non-sport is irrelevant.

The vast majority subscribe because of sport. Having done so, because there are only one or two rugby matches each week to watch, of course the majority of their watching will be non-sport during the remainder of the week.

However, if Sky loses sport, these users will ditch Sky (because that was the draw card that saw them paying $100+ per month when all other media choices are around $20 per month), and the non-sport stuff they were watching because they had Sky will simply shift to a combination of Freeview/Netflix/Lightbox etc.

And, now, this is me well and truly over and out for this thread.

:-) No need to leave, its a debate.

I agree, while sport watching hours are low, they do dominate the need. Me, I watch F1, so thats a bit of FP1, a bit of FP2 or not, and at least the last half-hour of FP3. And quali and the race. MotoGP the three races. NRL, the Warriors. Maybe a bit of this or that. You are right, sport hours are low but needed.

If Sky had no sport I would have no need. I do like the doco channels, CNN, etc. If that was $20, I am in.

NF has old movies and old TV shows, it also as you say has new stuff, originals. They are not Netflix originals, they are rights protected, exclusive. Many dont like exclusive. LB has TV, newer, and moving to movies and sport. Both are cheap so grab both.

Now, while any Sky topic is "eventful" say Sky priced Neon and Basic as cheap as chips. Nice. Sport costs bigly. Thats how it should be.

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 545

#1989695 6-Apr-2018 19:28

dafman:

Ha, I knew you couldn't resist throwing in another ignorance salvo. Sorry, not me.

Neon: does anyone actually pay for this overpriced offering?! (feel free to post subscription numbers relative to Lightbox & Netflix)?

Lightbox: I suspect a significant number get this for free as part of their Spark internet contract.

Netflix: Old movies - err, what about all their original new release movies getting rave reviews for the critics? Or maybe you are subscribing to a different Netflix to the rest of us.

And, just curious, suspect you either work for Sky or are a shareholder? Probably the only two groups of people left holding out any hope for an ongoing Sky future.

Anyway, that's me over and out for this Sky thread - see you on the next one (-;

Naturally if you arent in the anti-Sky brigade then you must be either working for Sky or a shareholder. As I have stated many times before I am neither a Sky employee nor a former Sky employee nor am I employed (or have been employed) by any media firm nor any supplier to.

I am not a Sky shareholder but I am currently a Sky subscriber (but as in the past I may or may not be a subscriber at times in the future), nor a Spark shareholder (or Lightbox subscriber) nor a Netflix subscriber (and I am not currently a Netflix shareholder).

Going on your gross generalisation you must therefore be an ex-Sky subscriber with envy issues coveting the content that you want but are unwilling to pay for.

None of Sky, Spark or Netflix disclose their subscribers in the NZ marketplace. Lightbox will tell you that it has more than 300,000 but will not say how many are paying vs free (Spark has 650,000 broadband subscribers plus more than 2m mobile subscribers so its potential free subscriber base is well in advance of 300,000). Roy Morgan has provided survey results in the past as to the number of probable subscribers so I'd suggest you find some source information to help with your education.

Netflix's original movie base is growing. It had to take the risk itself as it has already ditched agreements with studios citing the desire not to have non-exclusive content. And we all know that Disney decided to terminate its content agreement with Netflix. hence the requirement to start taking the risk on movies. It's new release movie library pales compared to others.

I cant wait for you to throw comments around in the next thread - and then run away when the debate gets too cerebral. Thats par for the course.

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

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12768

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1989698 6-Apr-2018 19:31

Can we please debate the issues and leave the personal attacks and jibes at the door. It's getting tiresome

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1989708 6-Apr-2018 20:01

MikeB4: Can we please debate the issues and leave the personal attacks and jibes at the door. It's getting tiresome

I agree. Its a debate, lets debate. I recall the days of Apple vs Android, lets not go there.

There are pros and cons with Sky, with the weather and with [insert something here]

Lets talk about our opinions.

sdav

846 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 193

#1989710 6-Apr-2018 20:06

dafman:

tdgeek:

To expand

The vast majority of viewing is not sport

The vast majority of sport is not rugby

The vast majority of rugby, is not the 6 weeks/208 weeks RWC

I assume daf was referring to losing the RWC

Viewing hours sport vs non-sport is irrelevant.

The vast majority subscribe because of sport. Having done so, because there are only one or two rugby matches each week to watch, of course the majority of their watching will be non-sport during the remainder of the week.

However, if Sky loses sport, these users will ditch Sky (because that was the draw card that saw them paying $100+ per month when all other media choices are around $20 per month), and the non-sport stuff they were watching because they had Sky will simply shift to a combination of Freeview/Netflix/Lightbox etc.

And, now, this is me well and truly over and out for this thread.

I know you have gone from the thread (rip :-P) but I totally agree. I can only imagine Sky losing sports is a huge risk to the company. One stat I would be interested in is the % of total residential customers who subscribe to Sports.

If satellite/linear entertainment (outside of live sport) was so successful they wouldn't need to do what they are doing now.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1989711 6-Apr-2018 20:14

sdav:

If satellite/linear entertainment (outside of live sport) was so successful they wouldn't need to do what they are doing now.

No detail, please explain.

To help. Satellite is awesome. Its also costly. Not just the Optus fee but the malarky and cost with dishes, the inevitable "we will cover the cost for a contract as you the subscriber are too cheap to pay for the dish and install and cabling, but when you cancel we are still at a $ loss"

Sky isnt NF.

Linear? I have Sky and FTA, both linear. I dont watch linear, I watch SVOD or OD or recorded, so in reality its not linear.

If Optus contract ended 3 years ago, it will likely be different. It ends next year I believe.

Just let me know your opinions

Samsung

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

sdav

846 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 193

#1989713 6-Apr-2018 20:26

tdgeek:

If Sky had no sport I would have no need. I do like the doco channels, CNN, etc. If that was $20, I am in.

I love doco's too. Sky currently costs $50 for its doco channels without the ability to record or series link shows (not sure if you can get OD docos? Can you?). Kind of pointless without that so make it $75 for My Sky. I had a quick look on my Netflix account and I have 12 docos (that number does not account for ones that are a multi-episode series) on my list that I have not watched yet. I'm picking this is what Sky's new products aims to sort out.

sdav

846 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 193

#1989742 6-Apr-2018 20:53

tdgeek:

sdav:

If satellite/linear entertainment (outside of live sport) was so successful they wouldn't need to do what they are doing now.

No detail, please explain.

To help. Satellite is awesome. Its also costly. Not just the Optus fee but the malarky and cost with dishes, the inevitable "we will cover the cost for a contract as you the subscriber are too cheap to pay for the dish and install and cabling, but when you cancel we are still at a $ loss"

I reject the fact that people are too cheap to pay for a dish. In today's world why would you pay an install fee for a dish when you are more than likely already connected to appropriate infrastructure (internet). Even better, Sky doesn't even have to look after your internet connection. The rural places it's a different story due to having average internet but you see that issue reflected in satellite ISP prices too.

Satellite is fantastic for Sport and people who have Sky already. It's coverage in NZ is 100% and it's more reliable/consistent than internet (ignoring rain fade). It's perfect for sports broadcasting but for everything else it's horribly old fashioned.

tdgeek:

Linear? I have Sky and FTA, both linear. I dont watch linear, I watch SVOD or OD or recorded, so in reality its not linear.

If Optus contract ended 3 years ago, it will likely be different. It ends next year I believe.

Just let me know your opinions

I actually removed a comment in that reply about how Sky offer pseudo OD by way of their decoders if you pay extra for it. What needs to change is what this whole thread is about. Moving to big data/OD for entertainment with their huge collection of content and rights. Sport will continue to be linear, it has to be. What I would like to see is more creative options offered though. It looks like they are offering a cheap mobile only option for sport. So keeping sport on a big screen through their decoder seems to be their plan. Because those are the people that keep Sky relevant in this OD world. I guess we will wait and see!

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1989771 6-Apr-2018 21:08

sdav:

tdgeek:

If Sky had no sport I would have no need. I do like the doco channels, CNN, etc. If that was $20, I am in.

I love doco's too. Sky currently costs $50 for its doco channels without the ability to record or series link shows (not sure if you can get OD docos? Can you?). Kind of pointless without that so make it $75 for My Sky. I had a quick look on my Netflix account and I have 12 docos (that number does not account for ones that are a multi-episode series) on my list that I have not watched yet. I'm picking this is what Sky's new products aims to sort out.

I checked OD, there are a few, Jersey Shore?? But not all that Id expect from the lineup.

What I find with docos, re NF and Curiositystream is that many are fillers. A doco for the sake off it, including Michio Kaku which I found surprising.

I feel from what little I have read (haven't taken in the presentation yet) is that they are cutting costs with satellite, which wont kick in for a wee while, adding quality content (from the new deals) and adjusting packages to allow low cost entry via SVOD BYOD. I feel their SVOD will be a step up from the standard "images on a UI, click here" self help.

Time will tell a

Me, I watch sport, I dont feel much will change price wise, maybe it will if live OD works well. But a big added value is an app, I can watch multi TV's, iPads which will show all content.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1989774 6-Apr-2018 21:20

sdav:

I reject the fact that people are too cheap to pay for a dish. In today's world why would you pay an install fee for a dish when you are more than likely already connected to appropriate infrastructure (internet). Even better, Sky doesn't even have to look after your internet connection. The rural places it's a different story due to having average internet but you see that issue reflected in satellite ISP prices too.

Satellite is fantastic for Sport and people who have Sky already. It's coverage in NZ is 100% and it's more reliable/consistent than internet (ignoring rain fade). It's perfect for sports broadcasting but for everything else it's horribly old fashioned.

Old fashioned? It works and it works well. If its perfect for live sports, what happens if live sports is OD? I guess you are referring to linear? I dont watch linear, I record, so satellite or OD it doesnt matter. But the point is, you have implied that satellite is better. Sky OD is also reliable as it downloads to the MySky so any internee foibles are removed. All in all, its a solid approach IMO

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1989776 6-Apr-2018 21:31

sdav:

I actually removed a comment in that reply about how Sky offer pseudo OD by way of their decoders if you pay extra for it. What needs to change is what this whole thread is about. Moving to big data/OD for entertainment with their huge collection of content and rights. Sport will continue to be linear, it has to be. What I would like to see is more creative options offered though. It looks like they are offering a cheap mobile only option for sport. So keeping sport on a big screen through their decoder seems to be their plan. Because those are the people that keep Sky relevant in this OD world. I guess we will wait and see!

What is pseudo OD? I dont pay any more. Or do you mean its not realtime OD? Its not, it download stop your MySky so you play off the HDD. Perfect. If they have an app, I want that to buffer as long as I choose or to DL to my iPad.

Move to OD? Thats always been the plan, but who will pay satellite costs AND OD costs? Sky can be as creative as they want to be but someone has to pay the fees. Cheap mobile only is just that. If you want that, get it. If not get the full app, for out smart TV, iPad, Android device and so on

Dell

Shop now for Dell laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

sdav

846 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 193

#1989797 6-Apr-2018 22:37

tdgeek:

sdav:

I reject the fact that people are too cheap to pay for a dish. In today's world why would you pay an install fee for a dish when you are more than likely already connected to appropriate infrastructure (internet). Even better, Sky doesn't even have to look after your internet connection. The rural places it's a different story due to having average internet but you see that issue reflected in satellite ISP prices too.

Satellite is fantastic for Sport and people who have Sky already. It's coverage in NZ is 100% and it's more reliable/consistent than internet (ignoring rain fade). It's perfect for sports broadcasting but for everything else it's horribly old fashioned.

Old fashioned? It works and it works well. If its perfect for live sports, what happens if live sports is OD? I guess you are referring to linear? I dont watch linear, I record, so satellite or OD it doesnt matter. But the point is, you have implied that satellite is better. Sky OD is also reliable as it downloads to the MySky so any internee foibles are removed. All in all, its a solid approach IMO

Yeah, satellite delivery of non-sport content is old fashioned is what I am saying. Sure, you can up-sell a device that records but better still is everything is available OD through whatever connected device a person has. This benefits Sky as well because they can tailor suggestions to you and have a better idea of what customers are watching.

I can tell I watch sport differently to you! I will very rarely watch sport delayed (with the exception of F1 due to some of the time differences but even then, not every GP). Fan Pass is so close to being viable for me because I've set a figure of less than $10 p/m per sport I follow. I follow about 5 sports but (due to the nature of my work) aren't able to watch each game (hence I don't want to pay more than $10 for something I won't use). If Fan Pass goes to or below $50 p/m and they enable Playback on the Apple TV app (currently only on browser only) I would be so on board.

sdav

846 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 193

#1989800 6-Apr-2018 22:43

tdgeek:

sdav:

I actually removed a comment in that reply about how Sky offer pseudo OD by way of their decoders if you pay extra for it. What needs to change is what this whole thread is about. Moving to big data/OD for entertainment with their huge collection of content and rights. Sport will continue to be linear, it has to be. What I would like to see is more creative options offered though. It looks like they are offering a cheap mobile only option for sport. So keeping sport on a big screen through their decoder seems to be their plan. Because those are the people that keep Sky relevant in this OD world. I guess we will wait and see!

What is pseudo OD? I dont pay any more. Or do you mean its not realtime OD? Its not, it download stop your MySky so you play off the HDD. Perfect. If they have an app, I want that to buffer as long as I choose or to DL to my iPad.

Move to OD? Thats always been the plan, but who will pay satellite costs AND OD costs? Sky can be as creative as they want to be but someone has to pay the fees. Cheap mobile only is just that. If you want that, get it. If not get the full app, for out smart TV, iPad, Android device and so on

By pseudo OD I mean time-shifting (if you pay the extra $). Rather than it being available immediately you must wait for it to be broadcast, record it, and then you watch it when you want. Perfectly fine but not as good as the instant access OD offers.

I get there are satellite costs. Maybe you pay for your sport via satellite and I'll pay for mine via the internet. Truth is Sky won't do that because it will A, screw over the satellite customers who have no choice and B, Sky want to keep the big screen (aka a TV) the premium option. See my post above about Fan Pass. It's so close to being there for me but I'm selfish and I only care about what I'm willing to pay for my use case.

Apsattv

2453 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 725

#1989809 6-Apr-2018 22:49

Linear can be enhanced by catchup allowing you to scroll back through the epg up to a week..

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1989874 7-Apr-2018 08:16

sdav:

tdgeek:

sdav:

I actually removed a comment in that reply about how Sky offer pseudo OD by way of their decoders if you pay extra for it. What needs to change is what this whole thread is about. Moving to big data/OD for entertainment with their huge collection of content and rights. Sport will continue to be linear, it has to be. What I would like to see is more creative options offered though. It looks like they are offering a cheap mobile only option for sport. So keeping sport on a big screen through their decoder seems to be their plan. Because those are the people that keep Sky relevant in this OD world. I guess we will wait and see!

What is pseudo OD? I dont pay any more. Or do you mean its not realtime OD? Its not, it download stop your MySky so you play off the HDD. Perfect. If they have an app, I want that to buffer as long as I choose or to DL to my iPad.

Move to OD? Thats always been the plan, but who will pay satellite costs AND OD costs? Sky can be as creative as they want to be but someone has to pay the fees. Cheap mobile only is just that. If you want that, get it. If not get the full app, for out smart TV, iPad, Android device and so on

By pseudo OD I mean time-shifting (if you pay the extra $). Rather than it being available immediately you must wait for it to be broadcast, record it, and then you watch it when you want. Perfectly fine but not as good as the instant access OD offers.

I get there are satellite costs. Maybe you pay for your sport via satellite and I'll pay for mine via the internet. Truth is Sky won't do that because it will A, screw over the satellite customers who have no choice and B, Sky want to keep the big screen (aka a TV) the premium option. See my post above about Fan Pass. It's so close to being there for me but I'm selfish and I only care about what I'm willing to pay for my use case.

You dont wait till its broadcast, then watch it, you can record when its starts if you wish. If I make a coffee, I pause it live, then continue to watch. Its instant access.

If your instant access OD, you miss 10 minutes of the start, can you rewind that right now?

When I had Fanpass I found it very average. The video quality which was 720p from memory was a poor 720p. It had jitter. I.e. it felt that out issued a frame every second or two. As if it was truly live streaming with no buffer. No idea what its like now

The things you say Sky wont do, well, you need to read the presentation as that is exactly what they are doing. You can choose satellite, or you can choose the puck and watch everything OD, or you can choose the app and BYOD

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | ... | 26