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 | ... | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | ... | 54
10534 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1746

Trusted

  Reply # 1853375 27-Aug-2017 19:37
Send private message quote this post

ascroft:

 

 

 

Biggest measure of Sky future success is still for me average age of their customers... I would bet it keeps going up as they don't have a proposition in the market for the next generation let alone the one after that. 

 

They are the classic incumbent sweating their assets and keeping prices high for as long as possible. Presumably they have done the numbers to see if they could remake themselves in the future as a sport only offering over the internet. Key question is how much revenue would be lost versus uptake in customers vs cost reduction. For all we know they may be ready to do that, but why not make as much money as possible for as long as possible - esp. if you have a stranglehold on sports.

 

For right now, if I were them, I would have continued with their previous Fanpass offering - would be surprised if it would have been cannabilising too many people with the set top boxes and it gives them options for the future and keep in good with the Govt. I used it intermittently and it seemed to work pretty well. I think they gave up on that too soon. 

 

I suspect they lost direction with Murdoch sold out - not a fan of that lot but their input loss would have been a blow. 

 

Mark

 

 

 

 

If you read this and other Sky hate threads, you can get an idea of the real facts. Or let us know what you think they need to do, using real numbers, we can advise of the facts behind the fiction

 

They arent a monopoly, or overcharge.


10534 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1746

Trusted

  Reply # 1853376 27-Aug-2017 19:41
Send private message quote this post

dafman:

 

networkn:

 

 

 

I hope they can find a way to optimize their offering to lower their prices, but at $3 a day, which is less than a cup of coffee, it's not a terrible value, if you watch some of the content. 

 

 

I reckon my $3 coffee is way better value:

 

- it's the same price as all other coffees

 

- the person serving my coffee does not hold me in contempt

 

- I don't have to put my coffee down continuously to watch advertisements between sips.

 

 

So hows does the sports coffee taste compared to the cheaper Netflix coffee?

 

Id like to know how Sky holds you to contempt


 
 
 
 


10534 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1746

Trusted

  Reply # 1853400 27-Aug-2017 19:50
Send private message quote this post

bmt:

 

Maybe more sports will eventually go the way of football (especially EPL) on Sky. What was once free is now offered as a $16.10/month add on.

 

Imagine that, another company* outbids Sky then offers it back to them as a channel. Sky says to customers "the premium Rugby Channel was available for a small fee in addition to Sky Sports, however rugby was only a small component of our overall Sports offering so therefore we will not be reducing the cost of Sky Sports. Also, if you now want to watch Super Rugby / All Blacks you can subscribe to our new premium channel for $3x.xx per month".

 

* Highly unlikely that would happen if it was Amazon due to their web services infrastructure already in place..

 

 

 

 

Fragmentation can do that. You could save money unless Sky had other value for the family. Centralisation can help, as compared to a monopoly. YMMV as some like   two sports, some like 6 sports. 


15331 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4046

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1853407 27-Aug-2017 20:03
Send private message quote this post

tdgeek:

 

 

 

Yep, thanks. 

 

I think Basic is $47? Sport is $27? Add HD add MySky you get to about $100

 

Basic should be $20. Maybe $15 if you had Sports or Movies (Unsure who would pay $27 for movies though.)

 

So if Basic was $15 (not bad value IMO) Sport has to be circa $60, same price overall. This pricing would not affect Sky sports subscribers as its the same. It should add Sky Basic subscribers though as its cheap and versatile. If you want Sport ONLY, you pay more aka Fanpass.  

 

AsI said in a recent previous post, Sky is boxed in by the money that sports rights holders want. IMO if NZ population was double, the sports rights holders will want more, but less per capita so Sky Sport wouldn't be as costly.

 

I feel aggregation is a mistake. It stops families getting g just Sky Basic, which is convenient FTA in one box, kids stuff, nature stuff, docos, other stuff, its a nice party mix to supplement FTA, and if it was $15 or so, good value. 

 

 

Basic @ $20 would be crazy cheap. I'd suggest $30. $1 a day seems reasonable value for 30 channels. 


10534 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1746

Trusted

  Reply # 1853412 27-Aug-2017 20:09
Send private message quote this post

networkn:

 

tdgeek:

 

 

 

Yep, thanks. 

 

I think Basic is $47? Sport is $27? Add HD add MySky you get to about $100

 

Basic should be $20. Maybe $15 if you had Sports or Movies (Unsure who would pay $27 for movies though.)

 

So if Basic was $15 (not bad value IMO) Sport has to be circa $60, same price overall. This pricing would not affect Sky sports subscribers as its the same. It should add Sky Basic subscribers though as its cheap and versatile. If you want Sport ONLY, you pay more aka Fanpass.  

 

AsI said in a recent previous post, Sky is boxed in by the money that sports rights holders want. IMO if NZ population was double, the sports rights holders will want more, but less per capita so Sky Sport wouldn't be as costly.

 

I feel aggregation is a mistake. It stops families getting g just Sky Basic, which is convenient FTA in one box, kids stuff, nature stuff, docos, other stuff, its a nice party mix to supplement FTA, and if it was $15 or so, good value. 

 

 

Basic @ $20 would be crazy cheap. I'd suggest $30. $1 a day seems reasonable value for 30 channels. 

 

 

I feel that too, but these days, Netflix is the standard price that is NOW acceptable and ok. Although as sport is subsidised by Basic, keeping Basic cheap is a good option. Just add it to Sport the end sport price is unchanged. Im sure they would get a bit of take up at cheap Basic, its a very good family option, something for everyone.


3394 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 653


  Reply # 1853417 27-Aug-2017 20:57
Send private message quote this post

Basic at $30 a month would be much more appealing than the closer to $50 it is currently.


20578 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3963

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1853420 27-Aug-2017 21:03
Send private message quote this post

Would be better if they segmented it furthur. Eliminate the need to get kids channels for people with no need for them, no news channels if you dont want them etc.





Richard rich.ms

610 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 119


  Reply # 1853464 27-Aug-2017 21:19
Send private message quote this post

I still don't believe paying for a whole heap of rubbish channels when you might watch 5-10% of them is worth the money.

 

The sooner Sky are gone, the quicker we can have more Internet capacity on satellite and more bandwidth for free to air.

 

Will Sky completely go? Nah I doubt it, unless TVNZ splash out for a subscription sports and movie channel on one of the D1 transponders Sky is currently using if they do some tightening up on bandwidth expenses and it changes hands.

 

Will we see a decline in Sky's bandwidth on D1 from falling profits? Eventually. There's new opportunity with that, Sky just don't see it.

 

 


2074 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 961

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1853490 27-Aug-2017 21:32
Send private message quote this post

tdgeek:

 

ascroft:

 

 

 

Biggest measure of Sky future success is still for me average age of their customers... I would bet it keeps going up as they don't have a proposition in the market for the next generation let alone the one after that. 

 

They are the classic incumbent sweating their assets and keeping prices high for as long as possible. Presumably they have done the numbers to see if they could remake themselves in the future as a sport only offering over the internet. Key question is how much revenue would be lost versus uptake in customers vs cost reduction. For all we know they may be ready to do that, but why not make as much money as possible for as long as possible - esp. if you have a stranglehold on sports.

 

For right now, if I were them, I would have continued with their previous Fanpass offering - would be surprised if it would have been cannabilising too many people with the set top boxes and it gives them options for the future and keep in good with the Govt. I used it intermittently and it seemed to work pretty well. I think they gave up on that too soon. 

 

I suspect they lost direction with Murdoch sold out - not a fan of that lot but their input loss would have been a blow. 

 

Mark

 

 

 

 

If you read this and other Sky hate threads, you can get an idea of the real facts. Or let us know what you think they need to do, using real numbers, we can advise of the facts behind the fiction

 

They arent a monopoly, or overcharge.

 

 

You asked the question - "let us know what you think they need to do?"

 

Here's what I think. Sky should pull up sticks, liquidate and pay out shareholders while there is still some cash to do so. They are in death throws, put them out of misery I reckon.

 

Someone else will buy the rugby rights and offer far better value for punters than what we currently endure with Sky.


1366 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 143

Subscriber

  Reply # 1853494 27-Aug-2017 21:37
Send private message quote this post

The problem with this is that its not all about Rugby - what about F1, A-league, NRL, etc. I'm biased though as I benefit greatly from the agglomeration of users as without all the subscribers my access to sports in NZ would be severely limited via legal and easy means as Sky would not have the capital to compete or perhaps even purchase... Also remember that while Rugby may get snatched up, similar to the way EPL has with BEin, the many other sports shown may not.


2475 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 559


  Reply # 1853521 27-Aug-2017 23:05
Send private message quote this post

i have said it before , i watch sport from 7 in the morning till 11 at night , 7 days a week . My pc is set up so  i can see the tv. I have worked it out and to pay separate subscriptions to what i watch works out to be close to $2,00 a year and no easy way to record live sport to watch later if there are 2-3 sports on at same time. I dread Sky changing the way they broadcast sport. Best value for money i can find.


2258 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 248

Trusted

  Reply # 1853537 28-Aug-2017 01:08
Send private message quote this post

dafman:

tdgeek:


ascroft:


 


Biggest measure of Sky future success is still for me average age of their customers... I would bet it keeps going up as they don't have a proposition in the market for the next generation let alone the one after that. 


They are the classic incumbent sweating their assets and keeping prices high for as long as possible. Presumably they have done the numbers to see if they could remake themselves in the future as a sport only offering over the internet. Key question is how much revenue would be lost versus uptake in customers vs cost reduction. For all we know they may be ready to do that, but why not make as much money as possible for as long as possible - esp. if you have a stranglehold on sports.


For right now, if I were them, I would have continued with their previous Fanpass offering - would be surprised if it would have been cannabilising too many people with the set top boxes and it gives them options for the future and keep in good with the Govt. I used it intermittently and it seemed to work pretty well. I think they gave up on that too soon. 


I suspect they lost direction with Murdoch sold out - not a fan of that lot but their input loss would have been a blow. 


Mark


 



If you read this and other Sky hate threads, you can get an idea of the real facts. Or let us know what you think they need to do, using real numbers, we can advise of the facts behind the fiction


They arent a monopoly, or overcharge.



You asked the question - "let us know what you think they need to do?"


Here's what I think. Sky should pull up sticks, liquidate and pay out shareholders while there is still some cash to do so. They are in death throws, put them out of misery I reckon.


Someone else will buy the rugby rights and offer far better value for punters than what we currently endure with Sky.



And exactly how are you so sure that whoever buys the rugby rights after Sky will offer it cheaper than Sky themselves??




2258 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 248

Trusted

  Reply # 1853538 28-Aug-2017 01:10
Send private message quote this post

So summing up the thread, the people who don't think Sky is of value to them only watch one or two sports. Yet there are many more sports to watch other than just the rugby or golf or whatever as part of your subscription to them.




953 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 127


  Reply # 1853543 28-Aug-2017 01:37
Send private message quote this post

The reason for the basic package is they way channels are traditionally paid for. The content providers such as Discovery negotiate set fees based on say $x.xx per subscriber, when you have 700000 subscribers forced to get it as part of basic package its cheaper for Sky to get it.

 

If you have a pick and choose arrangment where only 200000 subscribers want Discovery then Sky have to pay more for it.

 

my quick idea of lineup and pricing for the satellite service

 

$50 Sports pack -include all sky sport channels +rugby channel +sport popups (available on its own)

 

$20 Basic (includes movies, soho and others) available on its own or $10 with sports pack

 

$0 Freeview pack available on its own

 

$10 Ethnic pack addon

 

$10 extra decoders

 

no hd fee no record fee

 

 

 

 





 


10534 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1746

Trusted

  Reply # 1853571 28-Aug-2017 06:40
Send private message quote this post

kiwirock:

 

I still don't believe paying for a whole heap of rubbish channels when you might watch 5-10% of them is worth the money.

 

The sooner Sky are gone, the quicker we can have more Internet capacity on satellite and more bandwidth for free to air.

 

Will Sky completely go? Nah I doubt it, unless TVNZ splash out for a subscription sports and movie channel on one of the D1 transponders Sky is currently using if they do some tightening up on bandwidth expenses and it changes hands.

 

Will we see a decline in Sky's bandwidth on D1 from falling profits? Eventually. There's new opportunity with that, Sky just don't see it.

 

 

 

 

I find that on every SVOD too, I pay for all the content but so many movies and  series I find as rubbish, except for 5-10% that are worth the money.


1 | ... | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | ... | 54
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic



Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:





News »

New Zealand hits peak broadband data
Posted 18-Jan-2018 12:21


Amazon Echo devices coming to New Zealand early February 2018
Posted 18-Jan-2018 10:53


$3.74 million for new electric vehicles in New Zealand
Posted 17-Jan-2018 11:27


Nova 2i: Value, not excitement from Huawei
Posted 17-Jan-2018 09:02


Less news in Facebook News Feed revamp
Posted 15-Jan-2018 13:15


Australian Government contract awarded to Datacom Connect
Posted 11-Jan-2018 08:37


Why New Zealand needs a chief technology officer
Posted 6-Jan-2018 13:59


Amazon release Silk Browser and Firefox for Fire TV
Posted 21-Dec-2017 13:42


New Chief Technology Officer role created
Posted 19-Dec-2017 22:18


All I want for Christmas is a new EV
Posted 19-Dec-2017 19:54


How clever is this: AI will create 2.3 million jobs by 2020
Posted 19-Dec-2017 19:52


NOW to deploy SD-WAN to regional councils
Posted 19-Dec-2017 19:46


Mobile market competition issues ComCom should watch
Posted 18-Dec-2017 10:52


New Zealand government to create digital advisory group
Posted 16-Dec-2017 08:47


Australia datum changes means whole country moving 1.8 metres north-east
Posted 16-Dec-2017 08:39



Geekzone Live »

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



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.