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 | ... | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23
Affiliate link
 
 
 

Affiliate link: Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies.
Rikkitic
Awrrr
15462 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

  #2209317 2-Apr-2019 11:05
Send private message

Here is what I hope will be my final comment on this:

 

To be honest, I’m not sure why we are even having this discussion. Like some other threads here, this is a thread about Sky. As I have done in the past on some of those other threads, I expressed an opinion based on my experience as a past subscriber. Several others have expressed similar sentiments so there is nothing unique in what I said. Several have also given my comments +1s, so at least some people seem to agree with me.

 

You have a different opinion, which you have also expressed. That is your good right, as indeed it is mine. So we disagree. Nothing new or surprising there. I have not gone back through all of those posts on all of those threads, but I do not recall ever attacking you for having a different opinion on this subject. I have disagreed with you, and tried to explain why, but I have never accused you of ‘whining’ or making up facts or other inappropriate behaviour. I don’t think I have even ever suggested you were actually wrong about anything, just that I see some things differently.

 

I also don’t think I have ever climbed on a high horse and cried personal attack before, though I am happy to be corrected on that. There have been many posts over the years. But I would certainly dispute that it is something I do ‘as usual, whenever someone questions my opinion’. Since you have made that assertion, I would be interested to see some evidence for it. Otherwise it might be appropriate for you to take that back.

 

I actually don’t understand what your second paragraph is about, so I will skip over that.

 

I do understand your third paragraph and I agree with it. I’m not sure why you stated it. That all seems pretty obvious to me.

 

At first I didn’t get the point you were making about my Android complaints on other threads. Now I see what you are getting at but I don’t agree that it is relevant or comparable to Sky. The technology I use for streaming is mainly Kodi, which I have no complaints about at all. With the right add-ons (NOT pirates) it works brilliantly for what I want. I use it on both Windows and Android platforms. I do have some issues with Android, but especially with the Shield, and I have gone into those at length. Why not? Is that not what Geekzone is for?

 

In fact, most of my issues have been solved, at least for the moment. I am not unhappy with the way things are working, though I have started having problems I don’t understand with Chromecast. But with the exception of the Shield, which is a one-time purchase, everything I use is free DIY software. Sky is a paid commercial service. The two cannot be directly compared.

 

I fully agree with your final statement. I did not think there was any dispute about that and I don’t know why you would. Have I suggested anywhere that your opinion is less relevant than mine? We simply disagree. That is all.

 

To bring this back to the thread subject and make it relevant, when I was a Sky subscriber, I felt I was not getting value for money because of the issues I have previously described, so like many others, I voted with my feet. The difference for me, which you seem to have such difficulty with, is not that I am still paying for things that I don’t watch, but that I have so much more choice and flexibility for the same money. With Sky, the documentary channels, the Arts Channel, the occasional film, and Freeview were the main things I watched. I used Sky for Freeview as a matter of convenience so I didn’t have to switch devices. I was paying around $100 a month for that.

 

Since then I have not rushed out to subscribe to a dozen other services, but I know that for the same money I could purchase a hell of a lot more content, including more content that would interest me, than what I was able to get from Sky. You want facts? That is a fact. You keep going on about how I would also be paying for a lot of stuff I don’t watch, but I would also be getting a lot more for that money that I would want to watch, except I probably wouldn’t have enough time. That is my point. I don’t know why you have such a hard time seeing that.

 

I suggest we end this discussion. We have made our points and it has gone on long enough. I have nothing to add unless I feel I have to respond to another personal attack.

 

 





Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

 


 


GV27
4207 posts

Uber Geek


  #2209372 2-Apr-2019 12:12
Send private message

Every time this thread moves I hope to see an actual product announcement i.e. Puck, PS4 app, whatever, but no, it's just arguments :P 


tdgeek
26292 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #2209378 2-Apr-2019 12:23
Send private message

GV27:

 

Every time this thread moves I hope to see an actual product announcement i.e. Puck, PS4 app, whatever, but no, it's just arguments :P 

 

 

I think they will appear before the arguments cease!  Its exactly like the old Apple vs Android days. Both sides has pros, both had cons, both were loved and hated




Rikkitic
Awrrr
15462 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

  #2209389 2-Apr-2019 12:55
Send private message

The real issue is simple and should have been easily resolved. With the exception of sport, are there alternatives to Sky these days that offer more choice for less money? I said there are. So have other people. Whether that choice is relevant to any one individual depends of course on that individual. For me there are better alternatives. That is pretty much all I was saying. 

 

Then for some reason I got jumped on and was accused of either whining or being inconsistent. I'm still not sure what the point of that was. The discussion was about choice and value for money. For some people, that means Sky. For others it doesn't. I don't know what the rest was about.

 

  





Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

 


 


Hammerer
2370 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

  #2209892 3-Apr-2019 06:59
Send private message

Right now I'm getting more entertainment from this thread than any TV/video service I'm currently using. 🤣  I'm again plumbing the turbid depths of Netflix after breaching the thin veneer of quality programming.

 

I'm not sure if this has been done before but I'd like to see some more objective comparisons. I'm wondering if there is any way to agree on some useful metrics. This could allow more useful comparison of different offerings and how they change in value over over time. We could, for example, weight features and score each service against an ideal 100 points. Then when Sky announces new services I c ould get an idea of proportional improvement.

 

If we did, what would be necessary or key features?

 

Hours of content?

 

For example, the following claim really changed the debate and I'm wondering how accurate it is. What are the actual content hours available from each service?

 

Rikkitic:

 

6x$15 is about what we used to pay for Sky. The difference is about 10,000x more content.

 

As a very rough guess, Sky TV NZ has 80+ channels with 75% repeated in any month. That would mean 25% non-repeated content which is 14,600+ hours each month.

 

[Edit] 80 channels * 365 days / 12 months * 24 hours * 25% non-repeated = 14,600

 

I can't see how I can access about 146,000,000 hours of content from competing services. I'm happy to have the calculation improved to be more accurate.

 

Quality of content?

 

How would we compare content quality? To me Sky still appears to have the highest quality content independent of pricing issues.

 

Maybe compare the top one-ten or top-hundred rated features.

 

Maybe comparisons by genre such as sport, movie, documentary, etc.

 

Quality of service delivery?

 

Ads versus ad-free

 

Video quality: HD, FHD, 4K

 

Audio quality: Audio

 

Service options: broadcast TV, SVOD, etc.

 

Economics/price?

 

The perennial issue that polarises most opinion seems to be price. So it makes sense to reduce some of the sting by considering that separately that from other features of each service.

 

 

[Edited to add formula]

tdgeek
26292 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #2209901 3-Apr-2019 07:29
Send private message

Hammerer:

 

 

 

The perennial issue that polarises most opinion seems to be price. So it makes sense to reduce some of the sting by considering that separately that from other features of each service.

 

[Edited to add formula]

 

Great post

 

I see its price and where that shuts some out so they complain. Then the Sky deals thread lights up and its busy, which means people want it.

 

Those who have it see value. those that don't, see low value or cannot afford it. The latter complain

 

Now, many find themselves with an array of SVOD options, but complain it costs too much. What it seems we need is those here that want everything for $20. That doesnt work for Sky and it doesnt work for SVOD


tdgeek
26292 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #2209902 3-Apr-2019 07:31
Send private message

Recently I was looking at TVNZ OD and Three OD, and there is a LOT of content there, and free. Choice is everywhere




ockel
1780 posts

Uber Geek


  #2209915 3-Apr-2019 07:41
Send private message

Hammerer:

 

Right now I'm getting more entertainment from this thread than any TV/video service I'm currently using. 🤣  I'm again plumbing the turbid depths of Netflix after breaching the thin veneer of quality programming.

 

I'm not sure if this has been done before but I'd like to see some more objective comparisons. I'm wondering if there is any way to agree on some useful metrics. This could allow more useful comparison of different offerings and how they change in value over over time. We could, for example, weight features and score each service against an ideal 100 points. Then when Sky announces new services I c ould get an idea of proportional improvement.

 

If we did, what would be necessary or key features?

 

Hours of content?

 

For example, the following claim really changed the debate and I'm wondering how accurate it is. What are the actual content hours available from each service?

 

Rikkitic:

 

6x$15 is about what we used to pay for Sky. The difference is about 10,000x more content.

 

As a very rough guess, Sky TV NZ has 80+ channels with 75% repeated in any month. That would mean 25% non-repeated content which is 14,600+ hours each month.

 

[Edit] 80 channels * 365 days / 12 months * 24 hours * 25% non-repeated = 14,600

 

I can't see how I can access about 146,000,000 hours of content from competing services. I'm happy to have the calculation improved to be more accurate.

 

Quality of content?

 

How would we compare content quality? To me Sky still appears to have the highest quality content independent of pricing issues.

 

Maybe compare the top one-ten or top-hundred rated features.

 

Maybe comparisons by genre such as sport, movie, documentary, etc.

 

Quality of service delivery?

 

Ads versus ad-free

 

Video quality: HD, FHD, 4K

 

Audio quality: Audio

 

Service options: broadcast TV, SVOD, etc.

 

Economics/price?

 

The perennial issue that polarises most opinion seems to be price. So it makes sense to reduce some of the sting by considering that separately that from other features of each service.

 

[Edited to add formula]

 

When you back out the Freeview channels, radio, popups Sky has 69 channels.  

 

 


ockel
1780 posts

Uber Geek


  #2209916 3-Apr-2019 07:42
Send private message

Rikkitic:

 

I actually don’t understand what your second paragraph is about, so I will skip over that.

 

 

This.  Totally this.  


richms
25145 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Subscriber

  #2209989 3-Apr-2019 09:33
Send private message

ockel:

 

When you back out the Freeview channels, radio, popups Sky has 69 channels.  

 

 

 

 

And when you take out the SD channels, they have how much?




Richard rich.ms

dafman
3746 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user


  #2209997 3-Apr-2019 09:51
Send private message

tdgeek:

 

Recently I was looking at TVNZ OD and Three OD, and there is a LOT of content there, and free. Choice is everywhere

 

 

The OD world is where Sky has been left behind relative to the newcomers.

 

  • If I want to watch a movie on Netflix (or Google, or Amazon), I choose the movie I want and the timing of when I want to watch it.
  • If I want to watch a movie on Sky, I have only one choice being the movie playing at the time, and I don't get to choose when I start watching.

(Yes, I know you can download stuff on Sky to watch on demand, but it's clunky, and to to do so requires pre-thought and preparation, which is not something I can be bothered with when given the ease of access from the OD competitors).

 

If Sky was a lot less expensive relative to the newer OD offerings, then fair enough. The problem is, they're not. And punters are voting with their feet.


tdgeek
26292 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #2210003 3-Apr-2019 10:01
Send private message

dafman:

 

tdgeek:

 

Recently I was looking at TVNZ OD and Three OD, and there is a LOT of content there, and free. Choice is everywhere

 

 

The OD world is where Sky has been left behind relative to the newcomers.

 

  • If I want to watch a movie on Netflix (or Google, or Amazon), I choose the movie I want and the timing of when I want to watch it.
  • If I want to watch a movie on Sky, I have only one choice being the movie playing at the time, and I don't get to choose when I start watching.

(Yes, I know you can download stuff on Sky to watch on demand, but it's clunky, and to to do so requires pre-thought and preparation, which is not something I can be bothered with when given the ease of access from the OD competitors).

 

If Sky was a lot less expensive relative to the newer OD offerings, then fair enough. The problem is, they're not. And punters are voting with their feet.

 

 

I find SVOD very klunky. Its all over the place. Too much content spread over too many thumbnails and too many categories, its a mess. When you look at the many top0ics here, its awash with VOD issues, whether that's a provider, devices, not working. FTA or pay. Sky should not be subsidising sport with Basic, then Basic would be cheap. Unlike almost every SVOD I read about Sky just works. The old saying about its old tech is rubbish, its reliable tech, that is a key issue with SVOD. You often need more then a remote. The odd thing is, if you want access to everything, or even just the latest and greatest shows, you will be paying more than what Sky costs, due to growing fragmentation, which is kinda ironic


tdgeek
26292 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #2210012 3-Apr-2019 10:19
Send private message

IMHO the providers are becoming less and less relevant. Fragmentation now means its about what will I forego. It used to be about what will I watch. With northwards of 6 or 7 providers, at $15 per month cheapest, likely to be $20 per month minimum, no one will be able to say that everything I want to enjoy is on one platform, or two, or three


Dial111
938 posts

Ultimate Geek


  #2210060 3-Apr-2019 11:39
Send private message

My monthly sub is $48.31 (inc VPN)

For just a quick pick up and go it’s Netflix (Lightbox is free via phone contract)
For sport it’s Kayo Sport

And for PPV I use Apple Movies or Google Play Movies which is obviously one off price.

Sky doesn’t meet my needs that’s all it is, nothing against them. I’m impatient I want to watch what I want when I want, that’s the luxury I’m willing to pay for. If Sky remodels into a catalogue type OD service like Netflix than I’d be considering that.

Which is better (Sky vs the rest) is a matter of opinion, some seem to think that their opinion is fact which is incorrect.

Anyway hurry up and announce something about this Puck!

networkn

27302 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified
Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #2210063 3-Apr-2019 11:44
Send private message

Dial111: My monthly sub is $48.31 (inc VPN)


Which is better (Sky vs the rest) is a matter of opinion, some seem to think that their opinion is fact which is incorrect.

Anyway hurry up and announce something about this Puck!

 

Actually some of what has been stated here IS fact.

 

Whether you like Sky or whatever service is opinion, but some of those opinions are based on incorrect facts.


1 | ... | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic





News and reviews »

D-Link G415 4G Smart Router Review
Posted 27-Jun-2022 17:24


New Zealand Video Game Sales Reaches $540 Million
Posted 26-Jun-2022 14:49


Github Copilot Generally Available to All Developers
Posted 26-Jun-2022 14:37


Logitech G Introduces the New Astro A10 Headset
Posted 26-Jun-2022 14:20


Fitbit introduces Sleep Profiles
Posted 26-Jun-2022 14:11


Synology Introduces FlashStation FS3410
Posted 26-Jun-2022 14:04


Intel Arc A380 Graphics First Available in China
Posted 15-Jun-2022 17:08


JBL Introduces PartyBox Encore Essential Speaker
Posted 15-Jun-2022 17:05


New TVNZ+ streaming brand launches
Posted 13-Jun-2022 08:35


Chromecast With Google TV Review
Posted 10-Jun-2022 17:10


Xbox Gaming on Your Samsung Smart TV No Console Required
Posted 10-Jun-2022 00:01


Xbox Cloud Gaming Now Available in New Zealand
Posted 10-Jun-2022 00:01


HP Envy Inspire 7900e Review
Posted 9-Jun-2022 20:31


Philips Hue Starter Kit Review
Posted 4-Jun-2022 11:10


Sony Expands Its Wireless Speaker X-series Range
Posted 4-Jun-2022 10:25









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.