Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | ... | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | ... | 45
 
 
 

Affiliate link: Secure your WiFi connection with Norton VPN.
Rikkitic
Awrrr
12789 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

  #1551465 12-May-2016 13:28
Send private message

littleheaven:

 

tdgeek:

 

Netflix. Say you liked two genres, action and space. Why would you pay for NF is that has to include every other genre that you dont like?

 

 

Probably because they've priced their offering low enough that it doesn't hurt to do so. I'm quite happy to pay that amount for the proportion of content that is appealing to me. I wasn't prepared to do the same with Sky at $73 for the basic package with HD ticket and box rental. It got to the point where the content they were offering me was not worth the fee they were charging me for it. 

 

 

This is the point. It's not about how many channels are in the package or average cost per channel, but what it actually costs me to watch what I want. If Sky unlimited was available for $30 and I only watched 1% of it I would probably still consider it a bargain. I wouldn't care that there was another 99% that didn't interest me. I think most people feel in their gut that Sky is expensive and is charging more than it needs to. Whether that is true or not, it is how many perceive it and perception is everything.    

 

 





I don't think there is ever a bad time to talk about how absurd war is, how old men make decisions and young people die. - George Clooney
 


MikeAqua
6010 posts

Uber Geek


  #1551467 12-May-2016 13:30
Send private message

Sky seem to have streaming of sport sorted now.  I streamed some Abs games in the 2015 RWC as we were away from home and it was almost faultless. 

 

Reasonable resolution and there were a couple of stutters a few minutes before the start of each half (I'm guessing as large numbers of people logged on) but actual game time was never interrupted.





Mike


 
 
 
 


trig42
5038 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

  #1551469 12-May-2016 13:36
Send private message

I will be using FanPass this year for ABs games that I don't go to the pub/friends to watch.

 

Just have to decide best way to get it to the TV - AirPlay or Chromecast. I have iPad/iPhone and an ATV3. Happy to buy a Chromecast or a ATV4 (at the moment leaning to ATV for apps etc like Plex and Lightbox).


tdgeek
21401 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #1551486 12-May-2016 13:55
Send private message

trig42:

 

I will be using FanPass this year for ABs games that I don't go to the pub/friends to watch.

 

Just have to decide best way to get it to the TV - AirPlay or Chromecast. I have iPad/iPhone and an ATV3. Happy to buy a Chromecast or a ATV4 (at the moment leaning to ATV for apps etc like Plex and Lightbox).

 

 

 

 

Me too, I didnt realise it has last 24 hours sort of OD, so that makes it worthwhile for stuff I wont watch live


trig42
5038 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

  #1551489 12-May-2016 14:05
Send private message

I didn't realize that either. Handy.


andrew027
1270 posts

Uber Geek


  #1551535 12-May-2016 15:06
Send private message

ockel: Why do you need to be fixated on the number of channels offered or watched? 

 

Because somewhere along the line Sky are trying to recover the costs of acquiring and delivering all the content they send through the dish. Why should I give Sky my hard-earned money to recover whatever it costs them to supply me with horse racing, shopping channels, religious channels, etc.?

 

To go back to the supermarket analogy, you're right - I can browse through the aisles and only buy the stuff I want, but when I get to the checkout I'm being charged for items that I didn't put in my trolley, just because they chose to stock them on their shelves.


littleheaven
2084 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

  #1551601 12-May-2016 16:29
Send private message

andrew027:

 

ockel: Why do you need to be fixated on the number of channels offered or watched? 

 

Because somewhere along the line Sky are trying to recover the costs of acquiring and delivering all the content they send through the dish. Why should I give Sky my hard-earned money to recover whatever it costs them to supply me with horse racing, shopping channels, religious channels, etc.?

 

To go back to the supermarket analogy, you're right - I can browse through the aisles and only buy the stuff I want, but when I get to the checkout I'm being charged for items that I didn't put in my trolley, just because they chose to stock them on their shelves.

 

 

And to be fair you're in the same situation with Netflix, Hulu, etc, but the major difference is the price - they are less than 20% of what someone on non-promotional pricing would pay for just the Sky basic plan with HD and box rental. So, for me to return as a customer, either Sky would need to find a way to compete on price, or they find a way to make what they're offering me worth the money they're charging. I think they'd pick up more customers with a more flexible pricing programme that didn't involve the full expense of the basic package in order to get the juicy add-ons like Soho, Sport, etc. But would it cover their operating costs? This is the big question.

 

I really like the NowTV model. 11 live prime channels for $14 per month including OnDemand and Catch Up services. A movie pass is $20 per month. Sport is $60 per month, or you can do day or week passes. It's all contract free, turn any element on or off as you like. From what I can tell you don't have to have the entertainment package to get sport or movies - you can mix and match as budget allows, and depending on whether they're screening anything that interests you or not. Overall, no cheaper than Sky if you get the lot, but I think the cost distribution across the packages more accurately reflects their cost. You provide the hardware, they provide the programming. If Sky were offering something like that here, I'd be very tempted - especially if you could select which channels from their current stable made up your entertainment package and pricing was scaled depending on if you wanted extras.





Geek girl. Freelance copywriter and editor at Unmistakable.co.nz.

 

Currently using: Custom-built AMD Ryzen 7 3700X Desktop, HP M6-1017TX Laptop, iPad Pro, iPhone 7, iPhone XR, AppleTV4.


 
 
 
 


ockel
1780 posts

Uber Geek


  #1551665 12-May-2016 18:29
Send private message

andrew027:

 

ockel: Why do you need to be fixated on the number of channels offered or watched? 

 

Because somewhere along the line Sky are trying to recover the costs of acquiring and delivering all the content they send through the dish. Why should I give Sky my hard-earned money to recover whatever it costs them to supply me with horse racing, shopping channels, religious channels, etc.?

 

To go back to the supermarket analogy, you're right - I can browse through the aisles and only buy the stuff I want, but when I get to the checkout I'm being charged for items that I didn't put in my trolley, just because they chose to stock them on their shelves.

 

 

But you are subsidising the goods that you dont buy when you're paying for the high margin fresh (produce, meat, bakery, seafood, dairy).  And because the supermarket buys in bulk and offers a wide range of products to cater to all tastes and needs - you pay lower overall unit prices than, say the corner dairy.  You're paying for the supermarket to recover the costs of acquiring and delivering all the goods that the supermarket stocks.  Why would you give the supermarket your hard-earned cash to have gluten-free products that you'd never buy?  Or the spices that you'd never cook with?  Or the pet food that doesnt suit your pet - or worse still offering pet food when you dont have a pet.  You're not paying for the petfood - because its not in your $49 trolley when you get there - but the goods you do buy may be subsidising the range of pet foods offered to everyone else (especially the fresh items you're buying).

 

Sky arent trying to recover the costs of acquiring and delivering all the content from you.  If a channel doesnt get enough viewers it gets axed.  No point them offering content that noone is watching.  Things like Travel Channel - cut, not enough viewers.  Bloomberg TV.  Some of the MTV channels.   There is a balance.  You want to pay for the 15 channels you watch.  You are.  Just the right amount.  10c per day per channel.  Whoop.  


ockel
1780 posts

Uber Geek


  #1551671 12-May-2016 18:46
Send private message

littleheaven:

 

andrew027:

 

ockel: Why do you need to be fixated on the number of channels offered or watched? 

 

Because somewhere along the line Sky are trying to recover the costs of acquiring and delivering all the content they send through the dish. Why should I give Sky my hard-earned money to recover whatever it costs them to supply me with horse racing, shopping channels, religious channels, etc.?

 

To go back to the supermarket analogy, you're right - I can browse through the aisles and only buy the stuff I want, but when I get to the checkout I'm being charged for items that I didn't put in my trolley, just because they chose to stock them on their shelves.

 

 

And to be fair you're in the same situation with Netflix, Hulu, etc, but the major difference is the price - they are less than 20% of what someone on non-promotional pricing would pay for just the Sky basic plan with HD and box rental. So, for me to return as a customer, either Sky would need to find a way to compete on price, or they find a way to make what they're offering me worth the money they're charging. I think they'd pick up more customers with a more flexible pricing programme that didn't involve the full expense of the basic package in order to get the juicy add-ons like Soho, Sport, etc. But would it cover their operating costs? This is the big question.

 

I really like the NowTV model. 11 live prime channels for $14 per month including OnDemand and Catch Up services. A movie pass is $20 per month. Sport is $60 per month, or you can do day or week passes. It's all contract free, turn any element on or off as you like. From what I can tell you don't have to have the entertainment package to get sport or movies - you can mix and match as budget allows, and depending on whether they're screening anything that interests you or not. Overall, no cheaper than Sky if you get the lot, but I think the cost distribution across the packages more accurately reflects their cost. You provide the hardware, they provide the programming. If Sky were offering something like that here, I'd be very tempted - especially if you could select which channels from their current stable made up your entertainment package and pricing was scaled depending on if you wanted extras.

 

 

Really good thought on the NowTV.  I wondered why it hasnt been offered here.  Originally just a rebadged Roku but now app'd across other platforms.  Personally I think development cost would probably hamper it in a small market like NZ. 

 

Launched in mid 2012 it has garnered nearly 1m subscribers by the end of 2015.  Thats about 4% of UK households.  That translates to about 65,000 NZ households.  About $10m revenue per year just with the entertainment package.  Less content costs and the cost of distribution.  Could a project like that generate an acceptable Return on Capital for the development of the apps?  Or would it end up being subsidised by the satellite business?   Its like Lightbox being subsidised by Spark - parent throws $20-30m per year at the project, project needs ongoing subsidy from parent adinfinitum on the basis its used to reduce broadband subscriber churn.   Where does Sky get that subsidy from the business?  Cant say that it reduces churn on the satellite platform.  Attracting only 4% of households doesnt make it a subscriber acquisition tool unless the project generates an acceptable ROIC on a standalone basis.  

 

Wouldnt it be better to offer Neon across other platforms?  And FanPass?  

 

Isnt Neon kinda like Sky's answer to NowTV, without the need to offer live broadcasts of the content in a linear fashion?


littleheaven
2084 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

  #1551685 12-May-2016 19:22
Send private message

ockel:

Isnt Neon kinda like Sky's answer to NowTV, without the need to offer live broadcasts of the content in a linear fashion?



I did ponder that but it's a very poor substitute. More expensive and fewer features. NowTV's sport option and Fanpass are very similar indeed, though, so we're partway there. If Sky said to me that I could choose 10 of their 50 basic channels (with OnDemand/catch up) for $15 a month, HD streaming, I'd be signing up tomorrow. I'd pick the entertainment channels like The Zone, Comedy Central and Box, plus Living and a few news options. Maybe they could offer 15 channels for $20 for people who needed a few more. And perhaps an extra $10 for channels like Soho as a premium add-on. I think I'd happily ditch Netflix for that, given the hassle accessing US content these days, and the fact I hardly ever watch it anyway.




Geek girl. Freelance copywriter and editor at Unmistakable.co.nz.

 

Currently using: Custom-built AMD Ryzen 7 3700X Desktop, HP M6-1017TX Laptop, iPad Pro, iPhone 7, iPhone XR, AppleTV4.


ockel
1780 posts

Uber Geek


  #1551721 12-May-2016 19:45
Send private message

littleheaven:
ockel:

 

Isnt Neon kinda like Sky's answer to NowTV, without the need to offer live broadcasts of the content in a linear fashion?

 



I did ponder that but it's a very poor substitute. More expensive and fewer features. NowTV's sport option and Fanpass are very similar indeed, though, so we're partway there. If Sky said to me that I could choose 10 of their 50 basic channels (with OnDemand/catch up) for $15 a month, HD streaming, I'd be signing up tomorrow. I'd pick the entertainment channels like The Zone, Comedy Central and Box, plus Living and a few news options. Maybe they could offer 15 channels for $20 for people who needed a few more. And perhaps an extra $10 for channels like Soho as a premium add-on. I think I'd happily ditch Netflix for that, given the hassle accessing US content these days, and the fact I hardly ever watch it anyway.

 

But with NowTV you dont get to pick the channels.  And the channels that you've picked are good for you but may not be appealing for the next person.  SkyUK has selected 11 channels as its livestreamed offering with OnDemand/catchup.  And clearly its had very little traction with just 4% penetration in 3 years despite its attractive pricing.  

 

Channels : Sky 1, Sky Arts, Sky Atlantic, Sky Living, Comedy Central, Discovery Channel, Disney Channel, Fox, Gold, ITV Encore, MTV, Nickelodeon[11], Nick Jr. ABC Studios (on-demand only), and Nat Geo Wild.  


tdgeek
21401 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #1551773 12-May-2016 21:08
Send private message

littleheaven:

 

andrew027:

 

ockel: Why do you need to be fixated on the number of channels offered or watched? 

 

Because somewhere along the line Sky are trying to recover the costs of acquiring and delivering all the content they send through the dish. Why should I give Sky my hard-earned money to recover whatever it costs them to supply me with horse racing, shopping channels, religious channels, etc.?

 

To go back to the supermarket analogy, you're right - I can browse through the aisles and only buy the stuff I want, but when I get to the checkout I'm being charged for items that I didn't put in my trolley, just because they chose to stock them on their shelves.

 

 

And to be fair you're in the same situation with Netflix, Hulu, etc, but the major difference is the price - they are less than 20% of what someone on non-promotional pricing would pay for just the Sky basic plan with HD and box rental. So, for me to return as a customer, either Sky would need to find a way to compete on price, or they find a way to make what they're offering me worth the money they're charging. I think they'd pick up more customers with a more flexible pricing programme that didn't involve the full expense of the basic package in order to get the juicy add-ons like Soho, Sport, etc. But would it cover their operating costs? This is the big question.

 

I really like the NowTV model. 11 live prime channels for $14 per month including OnDemand and Catch Up services. A movie pass is $20 per month. Sport is $60 per month, or you can do day or week passes. It's all contract free, turn any element on or off as you like. From what I can tell you don't have to have the entertainment package to get sport or movies - you can mix and match as budget allows, and depending on whether they're screening anything that interests you or not. Overall, no cheaper than Sky if you get the lot, but I think the cost distribution across the packages more accurately reflects their cost. You provide the hardware, they provide the programming. If Sky were offering something like that here, I'd be very tempted - especially if you could select which channels from their current stable made up your entertainment package and pricing was scaled depending on if you wanted extras.

 

 

I feel your description of NowTV is where Sky will go. Sport will have to cover its cost rather than be subsidised by Basic. Existing MySky users will keep the box, but it will stream. Lesser cost for BYOD. AppleTV app as well as Xbox/PS3/4. They can provide one of these as part of a $20 per month contract till its paid. Thats a bonus for many. 


tdgeek
21401 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #1551776 12-May-2016 21:13
Send private message

ockel:

 

littleheaven:

 

andrew027:

 

ockel: Why do you need to be fixated on the number of channels offered or watched? 

 

Because somewhere along the line Sky are trying to recover the costs of acquiring and delivering all the content they send through the dish. Why should I give Sky my hard-earned money to recover whatever it costs them to supply me with horse racing, shopping channels, religious channels, etc.?

 

To go back to the supermarket analogy, you're right - I can browse through the aisles and only buy the stuff I want, but when I get to the checkout I'm being charged for items that I didn't put in my trolley, just because they chose to stock them on their shelves.

 

 

And to be fair you're in the same situation with Netflix, Hulu, etc, but the major difference is the price - they are less than 20% of what someone on non-promotional pricing would pay for just the Sky basic plan with HD and box rental. So, for me to return as a customer, either Sky would need to find a way to compete on price, or they find a way to make what they're offering me worth the money they're charging. I think they'd pick up more customers with a more flexible pricing programme that didn't involve the full expense of the basic package in order to get the juicy add-ons like Soho, Sport, etc. But would it cover their operating costs? This is the big question.

 

I really like the NowTV model. 11 live prime channels for $14 per month including OnDemand and Catch Up services. A movie pass is $20 per month. Sport is $60 per month, or you can do day or week passes. It's all contract free, turn any element on or off as you like. From what I can tell you don't have to have the entertainment package to get sport or movies - you can mix and match as budget allows, and depending on whether they're screening anything that interests you or not. Overall, no cheaper than Sky if you get the lot, but I think the cost distribution across the packages more accurately reflects their cost. You provide the hardware, they provide the programming. If Sky were offering something like that here, I'd be very tempted - especially if you could select which channels from their current stable made up your entertainment package and pricing was scaled depending on if you wanted extras.

 

 

Really good thought on the NowTV.  I wondered why it hasnt been offered here.  Originally just a rebadged Roku but now app'd across other platforms.  Personally I think development cost would probably hamper it in a small market like NZ. 

 

Launched in mid 2012 it has garnered nearly 1m subscribers by the end of 2015.  Thats about 4% of UK households.  That translates to about 65,000 NZ households.  About $10m revenue per year just with the entertainment package.  Less content costs and the cost of distribution.  Could a project like that generate an acceptable Return on Capital for the development of the apps?  Or would it end up being subsidised by the satellite business?   Its like Lightbox being subsidised by Spark - parent throws $20-30m per year at the project, project needs ongoing subsidy from parent adinfinitum on the basis its used to reduce broadband subscriber churn.   Where does Sky get that subsidy from the business?  Cant say that it reduces churn on the satellite platform.  Attracting only 4% of households doesnt make it a subscriber acquisition tool unless the project generates an acceptable ROIC on a standalone basis.  

 

Wouldnt it be better to offer Neon across other platforms?  And FanPass?  

 

Isnt Neon kinda like Sky's answer to NowTV, without the need to offer live broadcasts of the content in a linear fashion?

 

 

Thats where I was heading. It all goes to an SVOD migration over time. Neon is Basic, perhaps via Neulion to make it a better service. I assume that as Neon is kept/restrained at SD and Fanpass is very good apparently. 


ockel
1780 posts

Uber Geek


  #1551795 12-May-2016 21:31
Send private message

tdgeek:

 

ockel:

 

Really good thought on the NowTV.  I wondered why it hasnt been offered here.  Originally just a rebadged Roku but now app'd across other platforms.  Personally I think development cost would probably hamper it in a small market like NZ. 

 

Launched in mid 2012 it has garnered nearly 1m subscribers by the end of 2015.  Thats about 4% of UK households.  That translates to about 65,000 NZ households.  About $10m revenue per year just with the entertainment package.  Less content costs and the cost of distribution.  Could a project like that generate an acceptable Return on Capital for the development of the apps?  Or would it end up being subsidised by the satellite business?   Its like Lightbox being subsidised by Spark - parent throws $20-30m per year at the project, project needs ongoing subsidy from parent adinfinitum on the basis its used to reduce broadband subscriber churn.   Where does Sky get that subsidy from the business?  Cant say that it reduces churn on the satellite platform.  Attracting only 4% of households doesnt make it a subscriber acquisition tool unless the project generates an acceptable ROIC on a standalone basis.  

 

Wouldnt it be better to offer Neon across other platforms?  And FanPass?  

 

Isnt Neon kinda like Sky's answer to NowTV, without the need to offer live broadcasts of the content in a linear fashion?

 

 

Thats where I was heading. It all goes to an SVOD migration over time. Neon is Basic, perhaps via Neulion to make it a better service. I assume that as Neon is kept/restrained at SD and Fanpass is very good apparently. 

 

 

Neon is going HD.  Sky admitted it underestimated demand - and most rights were purchased SD.  It hasnt put a timeframe so no holding breath.  After all it took 12 months longer than first advertised to deliver OnDemand.  

 

Source: Screenscribe


littleheaven
2084 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

  #1551801 12-May-2016 21:47
Send private message

ockel:

But with NowTV you dont get to pick the channels.  And the channels that you've picked are good for you but may not be appealing for the next person.



Oh, I realise that. I was just stating what I'd like to see. A pool of channels that you could pick from to build your package. But I'd take the ones they're offering at the moment at $15 per month - seems like good value. It'll be interesting to see if Sky does start to morph towards that kind of model.




Geek girl. Freelance copywriter and editor at Unmistakable.co.nz.

 

Currently using: Custom-built AMD Ryzen 7 3700X Desktop, HP M6-1017TX Laptop, iPad Pro, iPhone 7, iPhone XR, AppleTV4.


1 | ... | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | ... | 45
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic




News »

Amazon introduces new Echo devices
Posted 25-Sep-2020 11:56


Mad Catz introduces new S.T.R.I.K.E. 13 Mechanical Gaming Keyboard
Posted 25-Sep-2020 11:34


Vodafone NZ upgrades international submarine network
Posted 25-Sep-2020 09:09


Jabra announces wireless noise-cancelling airbuds, upgrade existing model
Posted 24-Sep-2020 14:43


Nokia 3.4 to be available in New Zealand
Posted 24-Sep-2020 14:34


HP announces new HP ENVY laptops aimed at content creators
Posted 24-Sep-2020 14:02


Logitech introduce MX Anywhere 3
Posted 21-Sep-2020 21:17


Countdown unveils contactless shopping with new Scan&Go tech
Posted 21-Sep-2020 09:48


HP unveils new innovations for businesses adapting to rapidly evolving workstyles and workforces
Posted 17-Sep-2020 15:36


GoPro launches new HERO9 Black camera
Posted 17-Sep-2020 09:45


Telecommunications industry launches new 5G Facts website
Posted 17-Sep-2020 07:56


New Zealand ranks 3rd in world in GSMA index
Posted 15-Sep-2020 10:13


Trend Micro Security Suite adds web monitoring to prevent identity theft
Posted 14-Sep-2020 15:37


NVIDIA to acquire Arm for US$ 40 billion
Posted 14-Sep-2020 12:27


Epson launches its next gen A3+ colour EcoTank multi-function printer
Posted 10-Sep-2020 16:08



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.


Support Geekzone »

Our community of supporters help make Geekzone possible. Click the button below to join them.

Support Geezone on PressPatron



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.