Big drop in Sky subscribers

Forums › Sky, Neon, Lightbox › Big drop in Sky subscribers

1 | ... | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | ... | 45

29643 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1558879 24-May-2016 18:53

Fred99:

tdgeek:

They all have some must have stuff which is exclusive and not cheap.

Oh I disagree here. I have a Netflix sub. I actually haven't watched anything for weeks on NF, if it was "not cheap" I'd have cancelled my sub and waited to re-subscribe. But it is cheap - hardly worth my bother to unsubscribe/resubscribe. Only one show of interest to me on Neon. $20 / month for an extremely poor quality service.

If Sky are being bashed for their quality:price performance, then they deserve everything thrown at them.

OK, Ive read here about others cancelling as its old stuff, with some exclusives. Others said Neon was good, as at the end of the day its very individual as to what content exists on any platform that appeals.

Harsh words! When I had it, the quality was great. HD was great. I had sports too, great. Yep there is stuff that is SD,but I never found it anywhere unwatchable which is what I have read here. The price is normal. Its always been costly. The fact that you can get NF for chips is what people see. Until the last annual results, nobody was throwing anything at them, they were complaining like many do, but also paying their 830,000 monthly bills. So they have to change. If sport wasnt subsidised Basic could well be $15. Easily. At that its a nice option, a party pack of lollies, something for everyone thats easy to use. Sport costs what it costs, $60 + like it does elsewhere, thats a start. $15 would allow it to compete.

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek

#1558916 24-May-2016 20:02

Fred99:

tdgeek:

They all have some must have stuff which is exclusive and not cheap.

Oh I disagree here. I have a Netflix sub. I actually haven't watched anything for weeks on NF, if it was "not cheap" I'd have cancelled my sub and waited to re-subscribe. But it is cheap - hardly worth my bother to unsubscribe/resubscribe. Only one show of interest to me on Neon. $20 / month for an extremely poor quality service.

If Sky are being bashed for their quality:price performance, then they deserve everything thrown at them.

They all have their own exclusive stuff. Lightbox have exclusive content (some acquired from AMC, some from Amazon, some from other distributors), Netflix has exclusive content (some 600 hours of Netflix original this year plus the exclusive contracts they that have on the pay 1 window, Sky has its own exclusive stuff. There is no monopoly on content - never has been. What there has been, and will continue to be, in this free market (untethered by political meddling as seen in other markets to the detriment of the consumer) is that content will be bought by the highest bidder. Whether they can make that expensive content into a business is always the big question.

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

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1558920 24-May-2016 20:10

tdgeek:

Others said Neon was good, as at the end of the day its very individual as to what content exists on any platform that appeals.

If any sane person (without an agenda to support SKT) said Neon was good, then they need to visit an optometrist - and/or stop watching streaming TV on their 4" cellphone.

It's blindingly obvious how poor the service is. My skeptical (but in this case I'm sure is right on the mark) mind tells me that Neon only exists because there's a lot of money (make that potential losses for SKT) at stake, other streaming providers will be hammering content owners for streaming rights, and SKT's plan is to defend themselves by saying - "it's all good - we've got our own streaming service".

As for the NZ consumer. Name me another country where access to live "National Sports" international games is not only not FTA, but costs >US$60/month to access. We're a fairly apathetic lot in NZ, somewhat resigned to an inevitability that we'll be screwed over perhaps. In other countries, that would have caused riots.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1558924 24-May-2016 20:16

ockel:

There is no monopoly on content - never has been.

That's a completely ridiculous comment. "Exclusive" rights are everything and totally about (buying / trading in) monopoly rights for content delivery.

If the business, performance, ethics, and future of how it works are to be discussed, then I suggest that some honest agreement on the fundamental business model behind it is needed.

(edit - to tone down my response a little)

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek

#1558928 24-May-2016 20:27

Fred99:

tdgeek:

Others said Neon was good, as at the end of the day its very individual as to what content exists on any platform that appeals.

If any sane person (without an agenda to support SKT) said Neon was good, then they need to visit an optometrist - and/or stop watching streaming TV on their 4" cellphone.

It's blindingly obvious how poor the service is. My skeptical (but in this case I'm sure is right on the mark) mind tells me that Neon only exists because there's a lot of money (make that potential losses for SKT) at stake, other streaming providers will be hammering content owners for streaming rights, and SKT's plan is to defend themselves by saying - "it's all good - we've got our own streaming service".

As for the NZ consumer. Name me another country where access to live "National Sports" international games is not only not FTA, but costs >US$60/month to access. We're a fairly apathetic lot in NZ, somewhat resigned to an inevitability that we'll be screwed over perhaps. In other countries, that would have caused riots.

Anti-siphoning is a perversion of the free market. MCH examined this AGAIN somewhere around 2008-2010. Restricting rights to designated sellers does not create consumer benefit. Channel Seven played "The Sound of Music" rather than a live Bledisloe Test because more people would watch the movie. Excluding other bidders on "national interests" grounds meant that people could not see it live. How does that help? In Australia more and more sport have drifted onto paytv through "creative" deals that dont violate the anti-siphoning legislation. Consumers dont know even 14 days prior to an event whether it will be broadcast for them. How helpful is that? Sports are not "national interest" content.

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

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1558929 24-May-2016 20:28

By definition there has never been a monopoly in the NZ market.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1558931 24-May-2016 20:31

ockel:

Fred99:

tdgeek:

Others said Neon was good, as at the end of the day its very individual as to what content exists on any platform that appeals.

If any sane person (without an agenda to support SKT) said Neon was good, then they need to visit an optometrist - and/or stop watching streaming TV on their 4" cellphone.

It's blindingly obvious how poor the service is. My skeptical (but in this case I'm sure is right on the mark) mind tells me that Neon only exists because there's a lot of money (make that potential losses for SKT) at stake, other streaming providers will be hammering content owners for streaming rights, and SKT's plan is to defend themselves by saying - "it's all good - we've got our own streaming service".

As for the NZ consumer. Name me another country where access to live "National Sports" international games is not only not FTA, but costs >US$60/month to access. We're a fairly apathetic lot in NZ, somewhat resigned to an inevitability that we'll be screwed over perhaps. In other countries, that would have caused riots.

Anti-siphoning is a perversion of the free market. MCH examined this AGAIN somewhere around 2008-2010. Restricting rights to designated sellers does not create consumer benefit. Channel Seven played "The Sound of Music" rather than a live Bledisloe Test because more people would watch the movie. Excluding other bidders on "national interests" grounds meant that people could not see it live. How does that help? In Australia more and more sport have drifted onto paytv through "creative" deals that dont violate the anti-siphoning legislation. Consumers dont know even 14 days prior to an event whether it will be broadcast for them. How helpful is that? Sports are not "national interest" content.

There's no such thing as a free market @Ockel. It's always subject to regulation, except in the imaginary utopia made for zealots and disciples of Ayn Rand.

Quic Broadband

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

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek

#1558932 24-May-2016 20:32

Fred99:

ockel:

There is no monopoly on content - never has been.

That's a completely ridiculous comment. "Exclusive" rights are everything and totally about (buying / trading in) monopoly rights for content delivery.

If the business, performance, ethics, and future of how it works are to be discussed, then I suggest that some honest agreement on the fundamental business model behind it is needed.

(edit - to tone down my response a little)

Make up your mind - either there is exclusive content that everyone has been buying and offering (I believe you disagreed with the comment that everyone has their own exclusive content), or there isnt. Anyone can purchase the rights to content as witnessed by TVNZ buying Fox content recently previously held by TV3. TV3, Prime and TVNZ buying BBC content. Lightbox buying from Sony, Netflix buying from ABC-Disney. LightboxSport buying EPL, PGAGolf etc etc. There is no monopoly on content - anyone can buy from anyone and anyone can sell to anyone. Its an open and free market.

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

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1558933 24-May-2016 20:33

MikeB4: By definition there has never been a monopoly in the NZ market.

Those who remember the NZBC may disagree with that.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1558934 24-May-2016 20:36

ockel:

Fred99:

ockel:

There is no monopoly on content - never has been.

That's a completely ridiculous comment. "Exclusive" rights are everything and totally about (buying / trading in) monopoly rights for content delivery.

If the business, performance, ethics, and future of how it works are to be discussed, then I suggest that some honest agreement on the fundamental business model behind it is needed.

(edit - to tone down my response a little)

Make up your mind - either there is exclusive content that everyone has been buying and offering (I believe you disagreed with the comment that everyone has their own exclusive content), or there isnt. Anyone can purchase the rights to content as witnessed by TVNZ buying Fox content recently previously held by TV3. TV3, Prime and TVNZ buying BBC content. Lightbox buying from Sony, Netflix buying from ABC-Disney. LightboxSport buying EPL, PGAGolf etc etc. There is no monopoly on content - anyone can buy from anyone and anyone can sell to anyone. Its an open and free market.

You're deeply confusing a wholesale market with a retail market.

I never disagreed with any comment that "everybody has their own exclusive content". Sheesh - even I do. If you use one of my photos commercially without asking, I'll sue you.

tdgeek

29643 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1558935 24-May-2016 20:39

Fred99:

tdgeek:

Others said Neon was good, as at the end of the day its very individual as to what content exists on any platform that appeals.

If any sane person (without an agenda to support SKT) said Neon was good, then they need to visit an optometrist - and/or stop watching streaming TV on their 4" cellphone.

It's blindingly obvious how poor the service is. My skeptical (but in this case I'm sure is right on the mark) mind tells me that Neon only exists because there's a lot of money (make that potential losses for SKT) at stake, other streaming providers will be hammering content owners for streaming rights, and SKT's plan is to defend themselves by saying - "it's all good - we've got our own streaming service".

As for the NZ consumer. Name me another country where access to live "National Sports" international games is not only not FTA, but costs >US$60/month to access. We're a fairly apathetic lot in NZ, somewhat resigned to an inevitability that we'll be screwed over perhaps. In other countries, that would have caused riots.

Ive been looking through Neon posts and they don't mirror your description, Fred. They mention SD off course but not as harshly. In fact it was "ok" I haven't watched it myself.

Others here mentioned sport overseas at circa $60, I was looking at F1 with NowTV the sport option there was I think STG 32-99 Day and week passes too

Ah you said national sports, dint catch that. Rugger WC was FTA via Sky's Prime. Bit I do get your point. Who would pay for it, Govt? The $60 I mention was a well featured sports channel.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1558937 24-May-2016 20:42

Fred99:
MikeB4: By definition there has never been a monopoly in the NZ market.

Those who remember the NZBC may disagree with that.

That was back when broadcast was a utility in NZ not a market.

tdgeek

29643 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1558939 24-May-2016 20:44

Fred99:

ockel:

There is no monopoly on content - never has been.

That's a completely ridiculous comment. "Exclusive" rights are everything and totally about (buying / trading in) monopoly rights for content delivery.

If the business, performance, ethics, and future of how it works are to be discussed, then I suggest that some honest agreement on the fundamental business model behind it is needed.

(edit - to tone down my response a little)

Exclusivity is the major draw for Pay TV. While it is technically a monopoly, it doesnt have the same effect as a traditional monopoly. The latter controls the market, pricing, do what they like. Pay TV (Sky, SVOD) are competing, and their monopolies in that industry are just differentiation. IMO.

Benoire

2776 posts

Uber Geek

#1558940 24-May-2016 20:44

English internationals are generally not FTA in the UK, only competitions and even then you're not getting everything has Sky/BT has them... A lot of sports in the UK are in fact not FTA now.

dafman

3919 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1558945 24-May-2016 20:51

MikeB4:

There is greater than 800,000 Sky customers can you please show me the metrics that support a claim that a significant number do not like Sky. The recently announced churn is not indicative of that as there will be various reason why those folks moved on including but not exclusively those that were unsatisfied.

I think any large supplier of consumer goods would consider a 5% fall in customer base in a 12 month period as pretty significant.

1 | ... | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | ... | 45