rb99:

 

Suppose if there was one service providing everything there'd be lots of moaning about monopolies and cartels etc

 

That's what Sky was.. A monopoly and still is to a degree. 

After listening to Mr Fellet's  interviews I had the feeling that the gentlemen is out of touch with the current market place and should really consider stepping down and allowing a new up to date CEO take the reigns. It would be no disgrace, it is a very fast changing sector and it would be very difficult for anyone to remain current.

Sky should consider the rotating CEO concept with two year terms for the CEO and other senior managers.

rb99:

 

This may well be irrelevant (and wrong) but it baffles me how you can claim copyright (and the billions in fees) for soccer or rugby anyway - where's the creativity in that, the artful zoom in on a player just as he spits on the floor or sneezes into his shirt ?

 

I think you've gotten a bit wrapped around the axels in regard to what is Intellectual Property. It is more than art - it can be technical (such as a patent) or entertainment, such as a video game or a game played on a grassy field.

At the end of the day, if you can sell customers tickets to watch it at the stadium, you can sell the rights for customers to watch it on TV.

rb99:

 

This may well be irrelevant (and wrong) but it baffles me how you can claim copyright (and the billions in fees) for soccer or rugby anyway - where's the creativity in that, the artful zoom in on a player just as he spits on the floor or sneezes into his shirt ?

 

Content does not need to be creative in the artistic sense, you just need to own the rights. 

surfisup1000:

 

 

 

I tend to both agree and disagree with you. 

 

Don't you think being the owner of something should give you some rights over how they sell to their customers?  Do we have the right to pirate just because we don't like how it is being sold to us?

 

I prefer the idea of spotify for video type service.    Where one monthly fee gets you access to pretty much anything.    Having to join amazon/lightbox/netflix/getflix etc etc is just too cumbersome. It is easier to join one and pirate the rest. 

 

I pretty much do think that. NZ has some awesome consumer protection laws, we have legalised circumvention of DVD regions, legalised parallel importing, commerce commission etc. When companies want to sell things in a way that's not in the best interests of consumers, we as a country are quite willing to legislatively slap them down in most areas, but this really hasn't happened in this particular area, and it's about time it did. I've openly said before we should bring in legislation reshaping the TV/streaming landscape into a consumer friendly one. Customers choose their poison of provider be that Sky, Netflix, Lightbox, etc, and get _all_ the things on that, content providers get paid based on plays, and if content providers refuse to participate it becomes legal to pirate their product(s). We have a regulated power system that gives consumers a choice, we have a regulated internet system that gives consumers a choice, we need a regulated video content system, because unlike the music/gaming markets, the private sector has shown itself of being incapable of sorting itself out.

rb99:

 

Suppose if there was one service providing everything there'd be lots of moaning about monopolies and cartels etc

 

My vision isn't one company providing everything.. it's every media provider providing everything. Consumers pick Sky, NetFlix, Lightbox etc, and each of those has all the content available, and consumers just pick the package they like. Just like picking an ISP or a power company, , you look at the price, the service, the addons, and decide which suits you best. 

I think that Sky regards 'piracy' as any content people are got getting from them.

If 'piracy' was the issue, then why have the online streaming services taken off big time? Recent reports suggest that the online streaming services are (if anything) actually killing traditional 'piracy'. Certainly anecdotally this is what I have observed amongst people I know.

Sky seem to have no ability to read the market and adapt to what the market wants - and seem to be heading rapidly to a dead end as a product.

The posts on this thread cannot of course be seen as a 'poll'. Geekzone users represent a self-selected minority and anyone responding to this thread even more so. Yet I still find it intriguing how unsympathetic to Sky all the comments here are. I think that says something and it is something that Sky ignores at its peril.

Bung: The reason Sky lost me as a customer is the ad telling me that Sky values its customers so has arranged "deals" with a range of partners. I'm not interested in a price cut by one of Sky's advertisers.

the reason they lost me is they can continually offer deals to new customers but would only hike the price on those that had been with them for years. its gets to the point where you can just find the content elsewhere

Personally never used Sky, but over years I was always tempted to sign-up, never did just because they use old 80-90s model to server content. if someone want perks (HD, save content, etc) - pay more. this just does not make sense to me, HD is everywhere now and it's standard and anything below HD should be considered as shame-product and should be served free or even discarded.

Now we are in 2017. People consume content on the go. phones/tablets/laptops/etc. Sky, to win market back, should serve ALL its content via aerial (satellite) + Internet to NZ market only for one flat price ($50-100), including 3-4 days archive. On Demand for movies/documentary when it becomes available.

make it package type thing: movies, sports, news, documentary, etc each package sold individually or buy all as bundle with some discount.

If they do that - they certainly will get public attention, people will see benefits, clear price structure, etc.

Being old grumpy corporation turns customers away nowdays.

Look at ugly Telecom and shiny Spark now. Same company, changed its customer orientation and boom, once hated monopoly is seen as great customer orientated young company now :)

Lias:

 

rb99:

 

Suppose if there was one service providing everything there'd be lots of moaning about monopolies and cartels etc

 

 

My vision isn't one company providing everything.. it's every media provider providing everything. Consumers pick Sky, NetFlix, Lightbox etc, and each of those has all the content available, and consumers just pick the package they like. Just like picking an ISP or a power company, , you look at the price, the service, the addons, and decide which suits you best. 

 

I think the above would be great, but while the content owners sells the rights to a single provider to make the most money, and that is protected by law, it won't happen. 

I have never understood why people have allowed their viewing pleasure to be held for ransom. In the days of no Ad's on Sky, the viewer got something for their money - now they pay to receive nothing extra.

When the Rugby then the V8's got snaffled up by Sky, I refused to start paying for something that I used to be able to watch for free. If every other kiwi did the same and refused to pay the ransom, the programming would shortly return to FTA. You are effectively financing someone to continue raiding your wallet which is crazy. While people are parted from their money so easily, the poor old FTA channels put in the hard yards to build up the NZ fan base of a show, then when it get popular Sky poaches the show and reaps both the advertising revenue and the subscriptions.

Edit: Spelling.

Sport is the big issue for Sky as it is so costly, and few would subscribe to Sport if they had to pay the true cost.

IMO....national games like rugby should be free to air so everyone can watch..not just those that can afford the $100/month plus. More than happy to pay to watch other programming via "affordable" services like Netflix. Until then people will pirate as they dont have any other choice. Fellet wants it all for himself and wont share....well there is news for him and its not good.

tripper1000:

 

 

 

I think the above would be great, but while the content owners sells the rights to a single provider to make the most money, and that is protected by law, it won't happen. 

 

 

 

I agree, and that's why we need legislative intervention. We need to balance the rights of consumers with the rights of content providers and right now the laws are out of whack and the balance is with the creators. We as a society have shown content creators time and time again we are willing to pay them for their content, just maybe not how much they want us to pay.