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.

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: 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.

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.  

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.

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.

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?

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!

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: 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: 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.