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 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | ... | 57

962 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#1851757 24-Aug-2017 10:20

Only problem I had was when I wanted to cancel, it's not the same team and they worked much shorter week day only hours. May have changed since then...

I don't have a problem with Sky, I can choose to/not to use them. But the complaining about the public (their consumers) is not doing them any favours, instead of blaming, provide something people want, instead of taking it away/charging more for it/delivering it in crap Quality/not being able to deliver it at all.

I now have subscriptions to Prime video, Netflix and Lightbox, so my money is going elsewhere. I can access my account from anywhere with an internet connection (or plan ahead for offline viewing), on multiple devices, in great quality. I've also purchased movies from Google Play, for all of the same reasons as above. I'm not saying their poor delivery method/standard etc is an excuse for me to 'pirate' but competition is there for our good. They need to play the game. As mentioned earlier, Telecom > Spark has seen some revitalisation. The introduction of 2degrees has (arguably) provided some competition, and rather than Spark/VF complaining about 'pirates' they came to the table with competitive offerings of their own (some opinions may differ).

Sky Go has been pretty average at delivering what people want. Neon, when I looked at it early on, wasn't suitable for me. Fan Pass, I heard good things, and considered I might utilise it for short term openings to match sports, but then they changed the model and IMO ruined that option too.

Competition is great for us, some companies are better than others.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18660 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1851770 24-Aug-2017 10:49

networkn:

The reality is that Sky isn't making massive profits, so if they substantially drop their revenues by offering a discount of 50% which is what I see most people are saying they think Sky is worth when they complain, then they would be out of business in a matter of 2-3 years I'd imagine.

.....

Bottom line is, I'd love Sky to be cheaper, but in reality, I can't see it happening anytime soon. Having access to 50 Channels, 24 hours a day, ability to record in HD, 4 Channels at the same time, plus on demand content they are adding etc, works out at $3 a day.

If you don't see the value in that, unsubscribe, but I don't think Sky are ripping consumers off in NZ.

The sense I get from a lot of the comments, which is also my own, is not just that Sky is too expensive, but that it doesn't give value for money. Maybe it does for you and some people, but not for others. This has to do with the way their services are organised and presented. An aggravating factor is that a lot of the services they do offer, seem to be technically inferior and lackadaisical. It may not be entirely Sky's fault that they are trapped in an expensive cost structure, but they seem to be doing a very poor job of dealing with that.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18660 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1851779 24-Aug-2017 11:05

Apsattv:

I would like to know what has happened to the planned decoder swapout? so that everyone has DVB-S2 compatible receivers and they can then proceed to swapover to DVB-S2 along with the removal of SD feeds of duplicated channels this should result in freeing up over %50 of their satellite capacity.

One thing that has happened is that people like us have not taken up the offer. Why? Because one of us (not me) can't live without Sky but we don't care about the quality, especially since what we want to watch is only available in blurry SD anyway. The picture quality we get through upscaling via our antique DVR is almost as good. We also get unrestricted copy and playback functionality and no other Sky BS like incompatible remote controls that can't be programmed into our Harmony. All our stuff is old and it is integrated into our current system. We can't afford a new hot-shot HDMI home theatre system but our elderly Yamaha receiver produces excellent sound quality from the discrete digital inputs. Everything fits together and works well for our purposes and would all have to be replaced with the upgraded but crippled Sky box. Instead of SD with unlimited flexibility, we would exchange that for SD with all kinds of restrictions. Where is the gain in that?

We have already agreed that if Sky ever does cut off the old mpeg service, that will finally be the moment we cut off Sky.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1851796 24-Aug-2017 11:26

NzBeagle:

Only problem I had was when I wanted to cancel, it's not the same team and they worked much shorter week day only hours. May have changed since then...

I don't have a problem with Sky, I can choose to/not to use them. But the complaining about the public (their consumers) is not doing them any favours, instead of blaming, provide something people want, instead of taking it away/charging more for it/delivering it in crap Quality/not being able to deliver it at all.

I now have subscriptions to Prime video, Netflix and Lightbox, so my money is going elsewhere. I can access my account from anywhere with an internet connection (or plan ahead for offline viewing), on multiple devices, in great quality. I've also purchased movies from Google Play, for all of the same reasons as above. I'm not saying their poor delivery method/standard etc is an excuse for me to 'pirate' but competition is there for our good. They need to play the game. As mentioned earlier, Telecom > Spark has seen some revitalisation. The introduction of 2degrees has (arguably) provided some competition, and rather than Spark/VF complaining about 'pirates' they came to the table with competitive offerings of their own (some opinions may differ).

Sky Go has been pretty average at delivering what people want. Neon, when I looked at it early on, wasn't suitable for me. Fan Pass, I heard good things, and considered I might utilise it for short term openings to match sports, but then they changed the model and IMO ruined that option too.

Competition is great for us, some companies are better than others.

If the content that you want is on the SVOD services and not Sky, then dont get Sky, surely?

What I bolded is one thing they want. Its cheap cheap Sky.

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1851799 24-Aug-2017 11:29

Rikkitic:

networkn:

The reality is that Sky isn't making massive profits, so if they substantially drop their revenues by offering a discount of 50% which is what I see most people are saying they think Sky is worth when they complain, then they would be out of business in a matter of 2-3 years I'd imagine.

.....

Bottom line is, I'd love Sky to be cheaper, but in reality, I can't see it happening anytime soon. Having access to 50 Channels, 24 hours a day, ability to record in HD, 4 Channels at the same time, plus on demand content they are adding etc, works out at $3 a day.

If you don't see the value in that, unsubscribe, but I don't think Sky are ripping consumers off in NZ.

The sense I get from a lot of the comments, which is also my own, is not just that Sky is too expensive, but that it doesn't give value for money. Maybe it does for you and some people, but not for others. This has to do with the way their services are organised and presented. An aggravating factor is that a lot of the services they do offer, seem to be technically inferior and lackadaisical. It may not be entirely Sky's fault that they are trapped in an expensive cost structure, but they seem to be doing a very poor job of dealing with that.

Seems to me that the costs that are expensive is sport, so sport needs to be standalone. Basic can be cheap, and for many, Basic is good, something for everyone. NZ is too small, its that simple. If they can double subscriber numbers then there is a lot of room to move, price wise and featurewise, but we are too small

Dratsab

3946 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1851816 24-Aug-2017 11:47

tdgeek: If the content that you want is on the SVOD services and not Sky, then dont get Sky, surely?

This is it in a nutshell.

We have Sky basic at work and I'll sometimes watch History or Discovery etc during breaks and I'm constantly horrified/annoyed/amused at the sheer volume and frequency of adverts they show. While I'm amazed that so many people obviously quite happy to pay for this constant stream of adverts, I do have to wonder how much money Sky could generate by not constantly screening them, instead focusing on quality of content to help retain or even boost viewership.

On a related note in terms of them going to svod - I'm currently halfway through a free 3 month subscription of Neon and have hardly watched it because it's, quite frankly, pathetic. Less than half-hearted attempts like this are brand damaging and should Sky actually happen to come up with a decent streaming service (yeah, ok, stop laughing) people won't flock to it as they'll remember "yeah, I looked at it ages ago and it was sh*t...".

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1851820 24-Aug-2017 11:53

Dratsab:

tdgeek: If the content that you want is on the SVOD services and not Sky, then dont get Sky, surely?

This is it in a nutshell.

We have Sky basic at work and I'll sometimes watch History or Discovery etc during breaks and I'm constantly horrified/annoyed/amused at the sheer volume and frequency of adverts they show. While I'm amazed that so many people obviously quite happy to pay for this constant stream of adverts, I do have to wonder how much money Sky could generate by not constantly screening them, instead focusing on quality of content to help retain or even boost viewership.

On a related note in terms of them going to svod - I'm currently halfway through a free 3 month subscription of Neon and have hardly watched it because it's, quite frankly, pathetic. Less than half-hearted attempts like this are brand damaging and should Sky actually happen to come up with a decent streaming service (yeah, ok, stop laughing) people won't flock to it as they'll remember "yeah, I looked at it ages ago and it was sh*t...".

Whats wrong with Neon? I dont have it, Ive read some here who like it. Is it not yet HD? Or the content?

Edit: Oh and if they went full SVOD, thats not Neon based, its all the current channels via SVOD not via satellite

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

WyleECoyoteNZ

1049 posts

Uber Geek

#1851822 24-Aug-2017 11:55

I'm a bit late to this thread, but there isn't an easy answer.

As it stands right now, Sky has a big convenience factor, in terms of billing. It's bundled up with my monthly Vodafone phone\net\TV\Sky bill.

I can watch the AB's when I turn on the TV, the V8's, the A-League (once it starts), Cricket in the summer, darts and the list goes on.

Say in the future, Sky is outbid, and Amazon get the AB's\NZRU, Netflix get the cricket, and Foxtel keep the V8s. As these are credit card subscription services, it's going to become a bit of a pain to stop one and start another as the seasons start and end, and if you forget, well, they'll still happily charge you.

And if it did go this way, are you really going to be paying less than what you do (if you do) to Sky now? I doubt it, the code will go to the highest bidder, and they'll pass on the cost exactly like Sky are now (as others have said)

And the other cost in all this streaming, is really a smart TV, circa for a decent one 1000-1400 (smart, >43", 4K)

In my current setup, sky\Vodafone TV goes through my AV receiver's HDMI pass through and to my old dumb (non smart) TV. In day to day viewing, the receiver generally is in it's standby mode. If in my above scenario, Amazon got the rugby, Netflix got the cricket etc, sure the Xbox one could handled those, but in the current setup really require the receiver to be on. Something still needs to do\provide the FTA TV as well (1,2,3 etc). Although the Amazon\Netflix content could be streamed (via Xbox One) in my current configuration, it's fiddly for the kids\wife.

As for FTA sport, in this professional era of sport, I can't see it ever happening, and with NZ's smallish population I can't see the government funding it. User pays, if you want to watch, you'll have to pay someone, whether that be Sky, Netflix, Amazon, or whoever.

gehenna

8506 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1851831 24-Aug-2017 12:00

Why would I use Sky? I don't watch sport, and I don't want to pay for 50 useless channels just to get 2 or 3 with content I want. I'd rather buy Blu-rays and use Netflix/Lightbox and Freeview. Sky is ridiculous. Have they not been watching the market for the last 10+ years? It's not like EVERYONE IN THE WORLD hasn't been signalling which way the wind is blowing for media monoliths. Besides all that, my in-laws have been Sky customers for 20 years and even they are ready to throw in the towel because the programming is so shit, and full of advertisements for Sky, and the sport that they DO watch is consistently shitty quality because Sky can't seem to handle a the Wellington weather up in the hills.

Piss off Sky, you can't die soon enough. If it meant I couldn't have any new cool TV shows to watch for the next 5 years I'd suffer that pain just to see you dead and buried.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18660 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1851832 24-Aug-2017 12:04

tdgeek:

Seems to me that the costs that are expensive is sport, so sport needs to be standalone. Basic can be cheap, and for many, Basic is good, something for everyone. NZ is too small, its that simple. If they can double subscriber numbers then there is a lot of room to move, price wise and featurewise, but we are too small

The only reason we are too small is because of the ridiculous greed-driven chopping up of the world into copyright jurisdictions. At the least we should be part of Australia for IP purposes.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1851833 24-Aug-2017 12:04

I get the feeling you don't like Sky, I might be wrong but I sense a subtle dislike

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1851834 24-Aug-2017 12:08

Rikkitic:

tdgeek:

Seems to me that the costs that are expensive is sport, so sport needs to be standalone. Basic can be cheap, and for many, Basic is good, something for everyone. NZ is too small, its that simple. If they can double subscriber numbers then there is a lot of room to move, price wise and featurewise, but we are too small

The only reason we are too small is because of the ridiculous greed-driven chopping up of the world into copyright jurisdictions. At the least we should be part of Australia for IP purposes.

what about production costs? the equipment required just to broadcast the ANZAC day service in Wellington is staggering.

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1851837 24-Aug-2017 12:12

Rikkitic:

tdgeek:

Seems to me that the costs that are expensive is sport, so sport needs to be standalone. Basic can be cheap, and for many, Basic is good, something for everyone. NZ is too small, its that simple. If they can double subscriber numbers then there is a lot of room to move, price wise and featurewise, but we are too small

The only reason we are too small is because of the ridiculous greed-driven chopping up of the world into copyright jurisdictions. At the least we should be part of Australia for IP purposes.

With that, maybe an option for their service? Sky merge with them, whoever the latest pay tv provider is, and its an Australasian company? Well really an AUS company that we can live off?

afe66

3181 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1851843 24-Aug-2017 12:26

Like many I have sky for sports and mysky solves the issue to some degree with ads. It is convenient. Turn on and go, vrs using htpc and various streaming sources.

The thing that strikes me over the last year or so is just the ongoing decline in quality.

Screaming flashing ads especially overlaying other programme.

The extra charge for HD! Why OK in 2009 when it was new and sexy but now it should be default. Can you buy sd only tvs any more? (warehouse not count)

There are loads of seriously stupid channels which I have no interest in. Teenagers getting pregnant in no where USA. MTV doesn't have music

Documentary channel and history channel are full of crap that have negative educational value. Alien abduction and Nazi conspiracies FFS.

That sad program where they talk about sky delivering promotions for movies pizza. Looks tacky and screams we are running out of money.

The minute sky looses all blacks they are fxxxd.

A.

MikeAqua

7785 posts

Uber Geek

#1851845 24-Aug-2017 12:27

tdgeek:

NF has now made a good profit, 178 million on just under 100 million subscribers. This "standard and accepted" pricing that everyone is now happy with , equates to $1-87 per month profit per subscriber

Seems like a pretty awful per customer profit. There net income (2016) is about 2% of revenue which isn't flash.

To the balance sheet ...

Assets of 13.5b includes 11b of content (9b of which is offset by content liabilities) and there is 1.8b of actual money in the bank but they owe 3.3b.

But the revenue and stock price are heading up so the market likes them.

Mike

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | ... | 57