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 | 2 | 3
toejam316
991 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #1567430 7-Jun-2016 19:55
Send private message

There's a reason I said Sky/SkyGO, and not just Sky. Neon's content rights are already being purchased for SkyGO.




Anything I say is the ramblings of an ill informed, opinionated so-and-so, and not representative of any of my past, present or future employers, and is also probably best disregarded.


UHD

UHD
656 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user


  #1567548 7-Jun-2016 23:30
Send private message

ockel:

 

scuwp: Twice the price for half the quality...sounds about right for a Sky offering.

 

Lets see.... something with the library of a Lightbox ($13) plus HBONow content (USD15 = 22) = $35 less 30% for SD rather than HD.  

 

And all offered for $20/mth.

 

My math is rusty but it looks cheaper than it should be.

 

 

Sky have already purchased the streaming rights (HBONow cost) for their SkyGO platform so there is no extra cost to Sky to use the rights on NEON. NEON is effectively a more expensive, SD, Lightbox with the drawcard that they offer the HBO lineup of programming.


 
 
 
 


ockel
1780 posts

Uber Geek


  #1567652 8-Jun-2016 08:12
Send private message

UHD:

 

ockel:

 

scuwp: Twice the price for half the quality...sounds about right for a Sky offering.

 

Lets see.... something with the library of a Lightbox ($13) plus HBONow content (USD15 = 22) = $35 less 30% for SD rather than HD.  

 

And all offered for $20/mth.

 

My math is rusty but it looks cheaper than it should be.

 

 

Sky have already purchased the streaming rights (HBONow cost) for their SkyGO platform so there is no extra cost to Sky to use the rights on NEON. NEON is effectively a more expensive, SD, Lightbox with the drawcard that they offer the HBO lineup of programming.

 

 

One could argue that Sky has purchased those streaming rights for Neon - and are offering the ability to stream for their Sky subscribers at no extra cost.  Especially given the Sky subscribers make no contribution to obtain SkyGo (or OnDemand).  Where is it appropriate to allocate the costs?  On a per-sub basis for each service?  Exclusively to one platform or another?  How would you calculate the project returns if you were allocating capital or determining whether to continue funding?  

 

The original comment was "Twice the price for half the quality...sounds about right for a Sky offering".  I dispute that - showing that its a Lightbox with HBO content offered in SD.  Its not hard to do the math but before you allocate costs put your project leader hat on an decide whether you should be saddled with the streaming costs and whether your Neon project leader colleague should get a free ride on costs and thus access to the capital that you think you deserve.


toejam316
991 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #1567653 8-Jun-2016 08:15
Send private message

The flaw with your train of thought re: cost allocation is you assume Sky TV is a sensible business run by sensible people. By now you should know that it isn't.




Anything I say is the ramblings of an ill informed, opinionated so-and-so, and not representative of any of my past, present or future employers, and is also probably best disregarded.


tdgeek
21525 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #1567656 8-Jun-2016 08:19
Send private message

toejam316: The flaw with your train of thought re: cost allocation is you assume Sky TV is a sensible business run by sensible people. By now you should know that it isn't.

 

Thats where anti Sky bias derails the thread

 

Please list the linear and SVOD services that serve NZ, that return a profit.


ockel
1780 posts

Uber Geek


  #1567667 8-Jun-2016 08:52
Send private message

toejam316: The flaw with your train of thought re: cost allocation is you assume Sky TV is a sensible business run by sensible people. By now you should know that it isn't.

 

It is a sensible business run by sensible people.  Just that the general public want expensive content provided for a pittance (or free) which just results in companies exiting the market.  If PLP was a sensible business run by sensible people using sensible pricing then maybe you'd still have English Premier League from 2016-2019 in NZ.  Instead it couldnt/wouldnt pay the new lower USD price for the rights than it paid previously - and exit stage left.

 

Allocate your costs properly, price properly to obtain an acceptable rate of return and you'll find that your shareholders will be able to support your business.  


toejam316
991 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #1567671 8-Jun-2016 08:57
Send private message

tdgeek:

toejam316: The flaw with your train of thought re: cost allocation is you assume Sky TV is a sensible business run by sensible people. By now you should know that it isn't.


Thats where anti Sky bias derails the thread


Please list the linear and SVOD services that serve NZ, that return a profit.


Let's be realistic here. In terms of linear services, with the infrastructure of NZ, until recently this has been a natural monopoly. As for SVOD, Sky TV should be smashing the competition, as they hold licenses for half the content already, and have a firm infrastructure in place to make deals with the rights holders to ensure they secure the Lions share of content.
Instead they've rested on their laurels, and have allowed not just one, but two major competitors to spring up in a market that by rights they should have cornered. So yes. Sky is incompetent, and while they may still be profitable, they've had a long time as the only option to secure that position. Spark gas done what Sky should have attempted to do - use their dominant market position to secure themselves in as many ways as possible.




Anything I say is the ramblings of an ill informed, opinionated so-and-so, and not representative of any of my past, present or future employers, and is also probably best disregarded.


 
 
 
 


UHD

UHD
656 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user


  #1567845 8-Jun-2016 11:42
Send private message

ockel:

 

UHD:

 

ockel:

 

scuwp: Twice the price for half the quality...sounds about right for a Sky offering.

 

Lets see.... something with the library of a Lightbox ($13) plus HBONow content (USD15 = 22) = $35 less 30% for SD rather than HD.  

 

And all offered for $20/mth.

 

My math is rusty but it looks cheaper than it should be.

 

 

Sky have already purchased the streaming rights (HBONow cost) for their SkyGO platform so there is no extra cost to Sky to use the rights on NEON. NEON is effectively a more expensive, SD, Lightbox with the drawcard that they offer the HBO lineup of programming.

 

 

One could argue that Sky has purchased those streaming rights for Neon - and are offering the ability to stream for their Sky subscribers at no extra cost.  Especially given the Sky subscribers make no contribution to obtain SkyGo (or OnDemand).  Where is it appropriate to allocate the costs?  On a per-sub basis for each service?  Exclusively to one platform or another?  How would you calculate the project returns if you were allocating capital or determining whether to continue funding?  

 

The original comment was "Twice the price for half the quality...sounds about right for a Sky offering".  I dispute that - showing that its a Lightbox with HBO content offered in SD.  Its not hard to do the math but before you allocate costs put your project leader hat on an decide whether you should be saddled with the streaming costs and whether your Neon project leader colleague should get a free ride on costs and thus access to the capital that you think you deserve.

 

 

I believe Sky Go was launched a few years before NEON. It is also important to note that if Sky did not purchase the rights to HBO content for streaming then another player would have. Finally, it is important to note that the original quote utilised hyperbole and was not intended to be mathematically sound.


ockel
1780 posts

Uber Geek


  #1567869 8-Jun-2016 12:25
Send private message

toejam316:
tdgeek:

 

toejam316: The flaw with your train of thought re: cost allocation is you assume Sky TV is a sensible business run by sensible people. By now you should know that it isn't.

 

 

 

Thats where anti Sky bias derails the thread

 

 

 

Please list the linear and SVOD services that serve NZ, that return a profit.

 


Let's be realistic here. In terms of linear services, with the infrastructure of NZ, until recently this has been a natural monopoly. As for SVOD, Sky TV should be smashing the competition, as they hold licenses for half the content already, and have a firm infrastructure in place to make deals with the rights holders to ensure they secure the Lions share of content.
Instead they've rested on their laurels, and have allowed not just one, but two major competitors to spring up in a market that by rights they should have cornered. So yes. Sky is incompetent, and while they may still be profitable, they've had a long time as the only option to secure that position. Spark gas done what Sky should have attempted to do - use their dominant market position to secure themselves in as many ways as possible.

 

In terms of linear services it has never been a natural monopoly - there have been players in the space since prior to deregulation - then the entrant of TV3 in the late 80's and the launch of Sky in 1990.  Sky has been the dominant and then the only paytv provider until the recent entrance in the pay-tv space.  It has acquired rights over time and developed its product.

 

And now you want, after everyone else bleats about market dominance by the market leader, Sky to use its market leading position to build the best offering and offer it at price to corner the market and thus prevent new entrants like Lightbox from even considering the NZ market.  Are you crazy?  You think that a company to use its market position to "corner" the market?  And "be smashing the competition"?  

 

To what end game?  And how would that be in the consumers interest?


tdgeek
21525 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #1567872 8-Jun-2016 12:28
Send private message

ockel:

 

toejam316:
tdgeek:

 

toejam316: The flaw with your train of thought re: cost allocation is you assume Sky TV is a sensible business run by sensible people. By now you should know that it isn't.

 

 

 

Thats where anti Sky bias derails the thread

 

 

 

Please list the linear and SVOD services that serve NZ, that return a profit.

 


Let's be realistic here. In terms of linear services, with the infrastructure of NZ, until recently this has been a natural monopoly. As for SVOD, Sky TV should be smashing the competition, as they hold licenses for half the content already, and have a firm infrastructure in place to make deals with the rights holders to ensure they secure the Lions share of content.
Instead they've rested on their laurels, and have allowed not just one, but two major competitors to spring up in a market that by rights they should have cornered. So yes. Sky is incompetent, and while they may still be profitable, they've had a long time as the only option to secure that position. Spark gas done what Sky should have attempted to do - use their dominant market position to secure themselves in as many ways as possible.

 

In terms of linear services it has never been a natural monopoly - there have been players in the space since prior to deregulation - then the entrant of TV3 in the late 80's and the launch of Sky in 1990.  Sky has been the dominant and then the only paytv provider until the recent entrance in the pay-tv space.  It has acquired rights over time and developed its product.

 

And now you want, after everyone else bleats about market dominance by the market leader, Sky to use its market leading position to build the best offering and offer it at price to corner the market and thus prevent new entrants like Lightbox from even considering the NZ market.  Are you crazy?  You think that a company to use its market position to "corner" the market?  And "be smashing the competition"?  

 

To what end game?  And how would that be in the consumers interest?

 

 

LOL

 

His post is the first wanting Sky to be a monopoly, in a Sky thread. Priceless!


ockel
1780 posts

Uber Geek


  #1567873 8-Jun-2016 12:30
Send private message

UHD:

 

ockel:

 

UHD:

 

ockel:

 

scuwp: Twice the price for half the quality...sounds about right for a Sky offering.

 

Lets see.... something with the library of a Lightbox ($13) plus HBONow content (USD15 = 22) = $35 less 30% for SD rather than HD.  

 

And all offered for $20/mth.

 

My math is rusty but it looks cheaper than it should be.

 

 

Sky have already purchased the streaming rights (HBONow cost) for their SkyGO platform so there is no extra cost to Sky to use the rights on NEON. NEON is effectively a more expensive, SD, Lightbox with the drawcard that they offer the HBO lineup of programming.

 

 

One could argue that Sky has purchased those streaming rights for Neon - and are offering the ability to stream for their Sky subscribers at no extra cost.  Especially given the Sky subscribers make no contribution to obtain SkyGo (or OnDemand).  Where is it appropriate to allocate the costs?  On a per-sub basis for each service?  Exclusively to one platform or another?  How would you calculate the project returns if you were allocating capital or determining whether to continue funding?  

 

The original comment was "Twice the price for half the quality...sounds about right for a Sky offering".  I dispute that - showing that its a Lightbox with HBO content offered in SD.  Its not hard to do the math but before you allocate costs put your project leader hat on an decide whether you should be saddled with the streaming costs and whether your Neon project leader colleague should get a free ride on costs and thus access to the capital that you think you deserve.

 

 

I believe Sky Go was launched a few years before NEON. It is also important to note that if Sky did not purchase the rights to HBO content for streaming then another player would have. Finally, it is important to note that the original quote utilised hyperbole and was not intended to be mathematically sound.

 

 

And SkyGo was launched as a streaming channels option primarily - it still has some 16 channels of streamed content plus espn3 which cant be viewed any other way.  However feel free to share your cost allocation, and justify your basis for capital allocation between the SkyGo and Neon projects.  Lets have a learned discussion about business models and acceptable ROIC's for the projects and how you'd do things differently.  

 

BTW I doubt, given the broadcast rights and HBO's global business model, that HBO would have chosen to sell the streaming rights separately.  It hasnt anywhere else in the world - although I'm happy to be corrected.  Where it hasnt partnered with the leading paytv operator(s) it has chosen to launch HBONow itself.  


toejam316
991 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #1567874 8-Jun-2016 12:32
Send private message

I never said I wanted Sky to be a monopoly, but they had all the advantages and used none of them. Is that good business? Also, I'm saying a solid attempt at competing benefits consumers more than the flippant effort we're getting from them now. Also, yes, Sky is a natural monopoly, because they owned the content rights to a lot of major channels and shows, and had implemented infrastructure. The outlay to compete with Sky would have been too great for any entrant who couldn't hemmoeage money for years on end to even consider, and the gain would have been marginal.




Anything I say is the ramblings of an ill informed, opinionated so-and-so, and not representative of any of my past, present or future employers, and is also probably best disregarded.


tdgeek
21525 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #1568090 8-Jun-2016 17:07
Send private message

toejam316: I never said I wanted Sky to be a monopoly, but they had all the advantages and used none of them. Is that good business? Also, I'm saying a solid attempt at competing benefits consumers more than the flippant effort we're getting from them now. Also, yes, Sky is a natural monopoly, because they owned the content rights to a lot of major channels and shows, and had implemented infrastructure. The outlay to compete with Sky would have been too great for any entrant who couldn't hemmoeage money for years on end to even consider, and the gain would have been marginal.

 

Quote: and have allowed not just one, but two major competitors to spring up

 

So you wanted Sky to quash anyone that comes here.

 

How about elaborating rather then being emotive "flippant" 

 

"because they owned the content rights to a lot of major channels and shows" Im not aware of major channels and shows. NF does old movies and old TV shows, and some new exclusives, thats not Skys core market. LB does newer TV shows, thats not Skys core market. Sky has a large range of content, but not a lot of everything. Smorgasbord if you will. I don't get how some seem to equate Sjy competing one on one with some SVOD services.

 

 


toejam316
991 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #1568094 8-Jun-2016 17:21
Send private message

When I say that I would have assumed you'd be able to work out from the context of what I was saying that they were allowed to spring up uncontested. And besides the point you'd be a fool to lament Sky only working to maintain their Monopoly. I'm not sure why you need to try discredit the actual words I'm using when you could instead talk about the ideas and concepts.




Anything I say is the ramblings of an ill informed, opinionated so-and-so, and not representative of any of my past, present or future employers, and is also probably best disregarded.


tdgeek
21525 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #1568100 8-Jun-2016 17:29
Send private message

toejam316: When I say that I would have assumed you'd be able to work out from the context of what I was saying that they were allowed to spring up uncontested. And besides the point you'd be a fool to lament Sky only working to maintain their Monopoly. I'm not sure why you need to try discredit the actual words I'm using when you could instead talk about the ideas and concepts.

 

Ive talked about real ideas and real concepts in these Sky threads. Instead of saying they are useless and flippant, describe why you think that. What they should have done and should do. BTW Sky isn't a monopoly, they never had god given rights to anything, they bid. others could have, and have. Every provider has exclusive content so therefore every provider is a monopoly. So its moot. 


1 | 2 | 3
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic





News »

Huawei launches IdeaHub Pro in New Zealand
Posted 27-Oct-2020 16:41


Southland-based IT specialist providing virtual services worldwide
Posted 27-Oct-2020 15:55


NASA discovers water on sunlit surface of Moon
Posted 27-Oct-2020 08:30


Huawei introduces new features to Petal Search, Maps and Docs
Posted 26-Oct-2020 18:05


Nokia selected by NASA to build first ever cellular network on the Moon
Posted 21-Oct-2020 08:34


Nanoleaf enhances lighting line with launch of Triangles and Mini Triangles
Posted 17-Oct-2020 20:18


Synology unveils DS16211+
Posted 17-Oct-2020 20:12


Ingram Micro introduces FootfallCam to New Zealand channel
Posted 17-Oct-2020 20:06


Dropbox adopts Virtual First working policy
Posted 17-Oct-2020 19:47


OPPO announces Reno4 Series 5G line-up in NZ
Posted 16-Oct-2020 08:52


Microsoft Highway to a Hundred expands to Asia Pacific
Posted 14-Oct-2020 09:34


Spark turns on 5G in Auckland
Posted 14-Oct-2020 09:29


AMD Launches AMD Ryzen 5000 Series Desktop Processors
Posted 9-Oct-2020 10:13


Teletrac Navman launches integrated multi-camera solution for transport and logistics industry
Posted 8-Oct-2020 10:57


Farmside hits 10,000 RBI customers
Posted 7-Oct-2020 15:32









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.