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.

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 

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.  

Rikkitic:

 

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

 

This.  Totally this.  

ockel:

 

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

 

 

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.

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

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: 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.