Igloo launch

Forums › Sky, Neon, Lightbox › Igloo launch

1 | ... | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | ... | 31

499 posts

Ultimate Geek

#646327 26-Jun-2012 12:03

Jaxson: Freeview approved? ie will it get the EPG for instance?

One off, no ongoing fees and then PPV for a wide range of sporting events will work for me.

I need F1 (ideally as a delayed replay?) NRL and Rugby matches only.
In an ideal world I'd pay $10 or so for a 1 day subscription to the Sky Sports channels!

I am confused.

How does Igloo get to show Freeview channels on their box if it uses a different broadcast standard (DVB-T2) to Freeview?

I guess if Sky or TVNZ are already providing the channel then that is easy for them to make it available on Igloo (assuming Mediaworks, Maori etc etc agree), but what if it is a Freeview channel that is not on Sky.

If every Freeview channel ends up by default on Igloo then there is no point to paying for TV's with in-built Freeview receiver (although you probably won't have any choice now) or buying a Freeview set top box - other than for the fact that you can get a PVR for Freeview.

In other words if Igloo did have a PVR version it would almost certainly kill dedicated Freeview devices as why would you not (for the same price) go for the Igloo box (with PVR) as it gives you the added option of PPV or some extra channels for a small fee.

Gee it must have been tempting for Igloo to push really hard for a PVR version - but as others have said Sky would have pushed back strongly on this due to canibalising their existing business.

eXDee

4032 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#646360 26-Jun-2012 12:55

steve2222:How does Igloo get to show Freeview channels on their box if it uses a different broadcast standard (DVB-T2) to Freeview?

I make the assumption that a DVB-T2 tuner can receive DVB-T. They could just tune it to the freeview frequencies.

silverlake

142 posts

Master Geek

#646372 26-Jun-2012 13:14

This is why the government will be very reluctant to regulate sports content, since antisyphoning or enforced wholesale would naturaly hugely reduce the value of the sports rights to Sky and other parties, thus reducing the revenue for the NZRFU and other sporting bodies, which will put many NZ sporting bodies under extreme financial pressure.

Don't try to convince me that we need to pay Sky TV $80 per month in order to support the NZRFU and other sports!
This is a very poor argument for allowing Sky to operate a monopoly.

mm1352000

1149 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#646375 26-Jun-2012 13:19

eXDee:
steve2222:How does Igloo get to show Freeview channels on their box if it uses a different broadcast standard (DVB-T2) to Freeview?

I make the assumption that a DVB-T2 tuner can receive DVB-T. They could just tune it to the freeview frequencies.

I think DVB-T2 is a superset of DVB-T, so that assumption would be valid. Certainly I've never heard of DVB-T2 tuners that don't support DVB-T. Same applies with DVB-S2 and DVB-S.

jonherries

1396 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#646383 26-Jun-2012 13:53

Jaxson: You can't really compare a live sports event with a movie or bluray can you?
You can say you'd rather spend the money on something else for sure but you can't compare them really.

Personally I am not interested in movies, TV maybe, but basically if it's a movie I want a low compression HD picture and uncompressed HD audio. That's just me, but I'm happy to go to my local movie store to pick up a disc for $4 max. Streaming is the future for sure, but I'm not getting a Bluray equivalent via that method.

Where I have a void is live sports, and for me that's all I'm interested in SKY for, but as mentioned earlier, at $75 minimum per month/$900 per year that's just not working for me currently. A small one off payment and $10 - $15 per event would be ideal. To only get it in SD is a big downer, given the source is HD. And that's the beef really, in that NZ needs real competition in this area, and not some quasi competition where it's all the same company who doesn't want to encroach on it's real money earner product.

The whole reason money was invented was to compare things, so in a market you had an independent decision-making construct to evaluate your potential purchases...

If that is the case, I can't help but compare a live sports event to a movie.

At this price sometimes the sports event will win (but not often), but most of the time it won't.

Jaxson

8044 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#646391 26-Jun-2012 14:17

jonherries: The whole reason money was invented was to compare things, so in a market you had an independent decision-making construct to evaluate your potential purchases...

You're not wrong, but also not particularly relevant either, to some degree. I mean $15 buys you a bottle of wine, one sporting event on igloo or a donation to the red cross etc. Saying the sports is overpriced compared to something completely different seems a bit abstract.

Live sports is only live only once, where as a movie can be viewed at any time in the future, so whilst they are both purchasable content, they are fundamentally different products.

The fact that I am not restricted to SKY to buy a movie appeals to me and they are $3 at my local library and $4 for new releases/$1 for weeklies at my video store. I can't buy live sport legally anywhere else in NZ. I do think there are some valid points of difference there.

Finch

2851 posts

Uber Geek

#646397 26-Jun-2012 14:36

If I bought one of these Igloo boxes when they go on sale, would I still need my freeview one..?

Cheers

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.

mm1352000

1149 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#646403 26-Jun-2012 14:46

M_I_C_H_A_E_L: If I bought one of these Igloo boxes when they go on sale, would I still need my freeview one..?

Cheers

No, I expect you would not. You could think of Igloo as Freeview + some Sky channels (if you pay for them) + on demand content (if you pay for it).

crackrdbycracku

1168 posts

Uber Geek

#646418 26-Jun-2012 15:07

mm1352000:
M_I_C_H_A_E_L: If I bought one of these Igloo boxes when they go on sale, would I still need my freeview one..?

Cheers

No, I expect you would not. You could think of Igloo as Freeview + some Sky channels (if you pay for them) + on demand content (if you pay for it).

Considering the box is $300, the services are PPV, the quality of sport is SD and that it doesn't record I won't be buying one.

JB is doing 32" HD ready TVs for less than $100 more so as a Set Top Box solution I don't see it.

Didn't anybody tell you I was a hacker?

Jas777

838 posts

Ultimate Geek

#646432 26-Jun-2012 15:26

Lets face it SKY is the only organisation that is going to pay what the NZRFU wants for their rights, so they get them. TVNZ or TV3 isn't going to pay what they want. As for someone else getting the rights, if it was another PAYTV operator do you really think they would charge you less to watch the rugby?

One thing I wonder about is if SKY was to do PPV for TV programmes on IGLOO and you thought want they wanted was too expensive would you still download?

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#646433 26-Jun-2012 15:28

crackrdbycracku:
mm1352000:
M_I_C_H_A_E_L: If I bought one of these Igloo boxes when they go on sale, would I still need my freeview one..?

Cheers

No, I expect you would not. You could think of Igloo as Freeview + some Sky channels (if you pay for them) + on demand content (if you pay for it).

Considering the box is $300, the services are PPV, the quality of sport is SD and that it doesn't record I won't be buying one.

JB is doing 32" HD ready TVs for less than $100 more so as a Set Top Box solution I don't see it.

$300, I thought it was $199

crackrdbycracku

1168 posts

Uber Geek

#646442 26-Jun-2012 15:33

KiwiNZ:
crackrdbycracku:
mm1352000:
M_I_C_H_A_E_L: If I bought one of these Igloo boxes when they go on sale, would I still need my freeview one..?

Cheers

No, I expect you would not. You could think of Igloo as Freeview + some Sky channels (if you pay for them) + on demand content (if you pay for it).

Considering the box is $300, the services are PPV, the quality of sport is SD and that it doesn't record I won't be buying one.

JB is doing 32" HD ready TVs for less than $100 more so as a Set Top Box solution I don't see it.

$300, I thought it was $199

Correct, my bad.

Still, even at that price.

Didn't anybody tell you I was a hacker?

JimmyH

2886 posts

Uber Geek

#646719 26-Jun-2012 22:38

NonprayingMantis:
grolschie: Question: do the sport provider companies sell the rights for an event/season to only one single network, forcing a monopoly for whoever buys the rights? Or do they sell the rights to multiple networks within a country, allowing competition?

Entirely up to them, but naturally exclusive rights will be worth considerably more than non-exclusive rights.

Would they make more money selling non-exclusive rights to Sky and another party (e.g. TVNZ) than they make selling exclusive rights to Sky? Very doubtful (or they would already be doing it)

This is why the government will be very reluctant to regulate sports content, since antisyphoning or enforced wholesale would naturaly hugely reduce the value of the sports rights to Sky and other parties, thus reducing the revenue for the NZRFU and other sporting bodies, which will put many NZ sporting bodies under extreme financial pressure.

They might make more money if the structured the selling to segment the market. For instance, they could sell the live rights to a payTV operator, and the rights to show the game delayed to a FTA operator. On the assumption that most sports fanatics want the games live and uninterrupted, this might not materially reduce what the payTV operator was willing to pay. They would then get some extra revenue from the FTA operator, who was pitching for casual fans who weren't willing to pay to have the game live and without someone shouting "RUGS, RUGS, THREE DAYS ONLY GET YOUR CHEAP RUGS!" at them every five minutes.

There presumably isn't a one size fits all approach for all sporting codes, and I would imagine that each code goes to market and tries to sell the rights (either as a packages or broken up) in the manner that suits them best. And good luck to them, they are professional organisations with bills and players to pay - personally I would be pretty annoyed if I trained hard and only had a few playing years in me, and was made to work for half what I could get on the market because some vocal clown thought they were entitled to have the government compel me to entertain them for free rather than sell letting my the match rights for what they were worth on the open market.

crackrdbycracku

1168 posts

Uber Geek

#646853 27-Jun-2012 10:07

JimmyH:
They might make more money if the structured the selling to segment the market. For instance, they could sell the live rights to a payTV operator, and the rights to show the game delayed to a FTA operator. On the assumption that most sports fanatics want the games live and uninterrupted, this might not materially reduce what the payTV operator was willing to pay. They would then get some extra revenue from the FTA operator, who was pitching for casual fans who weren't willing to pay to have the game live and without someone shouting "RUGS, RUGS, THREE DAYS ONLY GET YOUR CHEAP RUGS!" at them every five minutes.

I think the issue here is that with sports the value of the live rights are significantly higher than delayed, because people would know the result when they are watching the delayed coverage.

The live rights would be worth less as they are not exclusive and the gain from selling to two operators wouldn't cover the drop.

Didn't anybody tell you I was a hacker?

grolschie

911 posts

Ultimate Geek

#647774 28-Jun-2012 19:28

I was told via email that SNAP, Orcon, Slingshot and Xnet have agreed to uncap Igloo On Demand data.

1 | ... | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | ... | 31