Sky moving to IP TV

Forums › Sky, Neon, Lightbox › Sky moving to IP TV

1 | ... | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26

Smpl Mnmlst
7264 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2276837 15-Jul-2019 12:16

FineWine:
Mmmmm: In the Herald today 15 Jul 19 concerning an email sent to customers today, Sky said it would roll out the changes over two weeks from July 23.: Changes coming to Sky Box: more storage space, on-demand tweaks

Still think this is putting cheap lipstick on an expensive pig.

I was happy to give them the benefit of the doubt when they announced the puck - was it 18 months ago?

Then they canned it and talked about an app. At that point I was hoping for an app like Netflix that might give everything that’s available on their satellite STB but via IPTV.

Now it seems they’re talking about tweeking existing apps and giving more storage on the STB. FFS - really getting sick of this. On balance I like Sky but this is getting ridiculous.

Sometimes I just sit and think. Other times I just sit.

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

Rikkitic

Awrrr
17223 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2276840 15-Jul-2019 12:26

A great idea for Sky that would even appeal to me would be to make individual channels available for payment on IPTV. I would probably subscribe to the Arts Channel on its own if the price was reasonable but I am not prepared to pay for the whole Sky manure truck just for that one item. Since the majority of Sky's remaining subscribers probably aren't able to stream anyway, this wouldn't undercut the satellite bulk business.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

networkn

Networkn
30188 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2276850 15-Jul-2019 12:34

@eracode I believe an app is coming, probably not today or tomorrow, but in my estimation within a couple of months. This is just a intermediate step, likely planned for a long time.

@rikkitic what would you be happy to pay for Arts out of interest?

Rikkitic

Awrrr
17223 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2276909 15-Jul-2019 12:47

networkn:

@rikkitic what would you be happy to pay for Arts out of interest?

Absolutely, if the price was reasonable and I didn't have to take on all the other Sky baggage.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Benoire

2630 posts

Uber Geek

#2276912 15-Jul-2019 12:48

Rikkitic:

A great idea for Sky that would even appeal to me would be to make individual channels available for payment on IPTV. I would probably subscribe to the Arts Channel on its own if the price was reasonable but I am not prepared to pay for the whole Sky manure truck just for that one item. Since the majority of Sky's remaining subscribers probably aren't able to stream anyway, this wouldn't undercut the satellite bulk business.

They won't and cant financially make this happen, no different to Spark Sport bundling Wimbledon with my F1/EPL only requirement... bundling is a way in which to ensure a constant subscriber base by spreading the cost across a large consumer base / content. Releasing individual channels by themselves will make some channels truly costly as it would then be a user pays / volume environment unless the channel can stand on its own which is probably only available for the mainstream content.

Edit: doing this would probably require the owner of the content to operate on a fixed fee per watch and for the content distributors to pay only for what has been watched or part minute thereof..

networkn

Networkn
30188 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2276914 15-Jul-2019 12:49

Rikkitic:

networkn:

@rikkitic what would you be happy to pay for Arts out of interest?

Absolutely, if the price was reasonable and I didn't have to take on all the other Sky baggage.

Right, so how much is "reasonable"?

Rikkitic

Awrrr
17223 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2276926 15-Jul-2019 13:10

On the basis of what the Arts Channel was like when I last saw it, and what other services like Netflix and Neon charge, probably around $7-8 a month, more if they improve the offerings. What I remember about Arts was that there was a lot of filler content and repeats, interspersed by gems of real value. I would be paying just to see the gems but if the content warranted it, I might be prepared to go higher. The closest comparison to the Arts Channel would be Medici, which costs US$13 a month. Most, if not all, of their content is 'premium' but their range is narrower as they focus only on music (classical and opera), whereas the Arts channel has much broader coverage. But a lot of it is far from premium and can be found for free on YouTube and other public sources.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

networkn

Networkn
30188 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2276932 15-Jul-2019 13:17

They will probably never do what you ask, but based on commercial realities, I would be surprised if they charged $8 a month. I'd guess more like $12.95 or something.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
17223 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2276937 15-Jul-2019 13:20

Part of the commercial reality is what the market will bear. If people can get equal or better for less elsewhere, why would they come to Sky? I think Sky is already experiencing that market reality, which is why they are casting around, however feebly, for alternatives.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

networkn

Networkn
30188 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2276944 15-Jul-2019 13:29

Rikkitic:

Part of the commercial reality is what the market will bear. If people can get equal or better for less elsewhere, why would they come to Sky? I think Sky is already experiencing that market reality, which is why they are casting around, however feebly, for alternatives.

If you could get the same elsewhere, then you'd already have done so, surely?

Rikkitic

Awrrr
17223 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2276971 15-Jul-2019 13:47

Actually, I pretty much have. The only real difference is I have to go different places for different things. Having them all together was a convenience, like pre-packaged brussels sprouts, but the cost/benefit ratio of that quickly goes into the negative.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

networkn

Networkn
30188 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2276978 15-Jul-2019 13:53

Well, that doesn't make any sense since you only want the one thing from Sky, so you'd be piecemeal regardless :)

Rikkitic

Awrrr
17223 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2276980 15-Jul-2019 13:54

Benoire:

They won't and cant financially make this happen, no different to Spark Sport bundling Wimbledon with my F1/EPL only requirement... bundling is a way in which to ensure a constant subscriber base by spreading the cost across a large consumer base / content. Releasing individual channels by themselves will make some channels truly costly as it would then be a user pays / volume environment unless the channel can stand on its own which is probably only available for the mainstream content.

My idea was that the bundling is already taken care of by the satellite subscribers. This would just be a little extra cream on the top from those who could stream IPTV and were prepared to pay a small amount for an individual channel, but not the bundling charge.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos