tdgeek: They need a standard platform. That wont work as there is no default standard among Apple, Android, TV manufacturers.
Will TV manufacturers make app dev possible so that any company, such as Colliseum can add an app? Not sure as from what I have read, TV apps are cool but they do not evolve much compared to Android/Apple apps.
To me, the standard has to be smart device apps from Google, Apple, Microsoft. Even then we need 3 STBs to cover this, three Apple TV-esque devices. While inconvenient on the surface, these devices are cheap. Oh, plus the HDMI switcher!
Then it is problem solved I feel.
This is bugging me as I spent many years helping get TV into people's homes and while the linear broadcasting model remains with Freeview and Sky we seem to be going backwards with easy access to content on the home TV set. This may need a separate thread but for now we don't yet have an answer on how easily the EPL content can be consumed for the average fan (including remote functionality).
I had naively thought that there might be a universal answer in Adobe Flash in Smart TVs (plus the apps for portable devices) but some research today suggests that Flash support has got too hard for the TV manufacturers. Linux support for Flash seems to have been stopped at 11.2. The requirements of DRM will drive further evolution and risk of updates breaking services.
I fully endorse the need for a standard platform (3 STBs is crazy) so is there any hope that standard's based HTML5 with Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) might be widely supported on TVs a few years from now? Or is this just substituting another type of plug-in for Flash that may be difficult to load to the the TV? I appreciate there aren't easy answers but I can hope ....
I am in this space too. My Sky watching is now limited, and I can see the fragmentation of services causing issues for many, the non IT many. And even the IT few don't want varying devices, software, to watch 5 differing means of programming on the one TV
Fragmentation is really just going to increase costs for many. Lets say currently sky has all the content. If a competitor came in, and took half the content, and people needed to subscribe to two services, then would the cost of sky halve in price with more competition? Their costs in buying content may reduce, but they would still have fixed overheads. It would likely mean people would have to pay close to double
Fragmentation only really occurs when the rights holder (in this case the EPL) doesn't allow multiple purchasers per country. This is the biggest problem, what Sky 'could' have done is opened up Isky to various sports that you could purchase separately... That way you could watch online or on the box if you bought the entire sports package OR just subscribed to one via isky. However, that would still left sky as the 'monopoly'.
I think NZ is too small to allow to PPV operators to share a content, the best way is for one to resell to the other and I feel that may have to happen here as I've been asking people at work and most are not interested in this package as they can't justify it.
Benoire: Fragmentation only really occurs when the rights holder (in this case the EPL) doesn't allow multiple purchasers per country. This is the biggest problem, what Sky 'could' have done is opened up Isky to various sports that you could purchase separately... That way you could watch online or on the box if you bought the entire sports package OR just subscribed to one via isky. However, that would still left sky as the 'monopoly'.
I think NZ is too small to allow to PPV operators to share a content, the best way is for one to resell to the other and I feel that may have to happen here as I've been asking people at work and most are not interested in this package as they can't justify it.
If sky really wanted th EPL, they could have afforded it. I think it is more about creating a perception of competition, so regulation in the content market doesn't occur. Remember the world cup rugby, and how the free version of the content got shared around all the free TV providers, but it was just a single buyer. I think that is possibly the sort of thing that could occur with regulation under a single buyer model. That may not be a bad thing, if freeview channels could also get in on buying content, that was once exclusive to pay tv.
Of course they could have, and whether it was down to the threat of regulation or not, they felt the price was what they bid. My issue is with the EPL and them only licencing one purchaser in NZ as I think we would have seen an online and traditional model occur.
The rugby may have been different given it was a World Cup in NZ.
Great nfo dwl, answers a lot of questions. Smart phone/tablet capable, with TV apps and Apple TV app too. Covered all bases as I see it, now it depends on quality.
Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.
Sorry - this is a newbie question - not familiar with network infrastructure ...
Will the game files be hosted in nz so my ability to download / stream quality is reflected on my domestic speed rather than nz to uk? Single location ? How realistic is it to expect hundreds (thousands) people to stream the same file in HD at the same time without loss of quality
Second question, I have registered my interest on the premier pass website but haven't received any emails, not even the standard " thank you for registering your interest" type emails I have got other sites. What are others experiences ?
afe66: Will the game files be hosted in nz so my ability to download / stream quality is reflected on my domestic speed rather than nz to uk? Single location ?
From their website FAQ: "We're using a managed CDN solution that should ensure that the streaming is a lot better than what you're normally accustomed to at home."
This should mean that they are using NZ based servers, at multiple locations around the country. The exact number of servers and proximity to you will depend on the chosen CDN provider and ISP support and those details aren't obvious yet.
How realistic is it to expect hundreds (thousands) people to stream the same file in HD at the same time without loss of quality
I would expect that with only hundreds there shouldn't be any issue but if it is many thousands, each trying to use 3Mbps, then that is a very good question. This is the real challenge of via the Internet compared to Sky and I am not yet convinced there are enough CDN locations to cope with any major simultaneous HD load. Others will be more familiar than I am with CDN performance across the country and might wish to comment.
If I was being provocative, I could suggest that during the trial period from 1 Aug that prospective subscribers should coordinate their test sessions so that there is a realistic load (this might happen anyway if games of interest are shown). I am sure that the provider wants this to succeed and gain some comfort that their solution can cope with the load rather than finding out during an important game that there are undesirable constraints.
If rumours are correct, then Sky previously paid $300m for a 3 year licence so lets assume that the price paid by Coliseum was the same. Based on the price of $150 a subscription with a few paying the higher amount, we might take an average price of $175.00 per subscription. $100m divided by $175 = 571,428 subscribers needed. Even if you say they paid $150m over 3 years that is $50m divided by $175 = 285,714 subscribers.
Now I understand that there will be the deals done with Telecom and TVNZ and there will undoubtedly be some advertising revenue (I will be annoyed if I can't skip through half-time when using on-demand as I can do with sky), however these are huge subscriber no's in a small country which does not see football as its primary sport.
I'll be buying because I can afford it and I have UFB and a home network that allows 1080p blu-ray wireless/cat6 streaming through my appletv/boxee/PS3/xbox, however the majority of my mates who are kiwis, and who have spent time in the UK like me, who are big fans of English football have said they won't be getting it - principle reasons being:
* cost of the EPL package on top of Sky, which they won't be getting rid of as they still want Rugby, FA Cup, Champions League, NRL, Cricket, ESPN, wife/partner channels etc.
* lack of easy access - they would often get up Sun/Mon morning and either watch all or part of a game and use MySky to easily fast-forward through the game if they were time-restricted
* cost of upgrading broadband package
* crappy internet connection they have and no access to VDSL or UFB this year or in near future, so are worried about quality issues - some rural mates have no way to access it at decent speeds
So if these guys are the reasonably interested football fans in NZ and they aren't going to sign-up then its left to the ex-pat Poms/foreigners and the few hard-core kiwis like me and I can't see how there will be enough subscribers to make this viable - although we can probably add in a few geo-tag evading foreigners as well. What's the odds that Sky is already planning how it will "help-out" Coliseum in a year or two.
I know that a huge amount of market research will have been done and that the private equity firm behind it will have deepish pockets but I just can't see how the numbers stack up - and having acted for quite a few of the world's largest private equity firms over the past 15 years before my return to NZ, they expect to make sizeable profits (e.g. 10-20% minimum returns) on these type of investments.
Otagolad: What I'm struggling with is the cost anaylsis
If rumours are correct, then Sky previously paid $300m for a 3 year licence so lets assume that the price paid by Coliseum was the same. Based on the price of $150 a subscription with a few paying the higher amount, we might take an average price of $175.00 per subscription. $100m divided by $175 = 571,428 subscribers needed. Even if you say they paid $150m over 3 years that is $50m divided by $175 = 285,714 subscribers.
Now I understand that there will be the deals done with Telecom and TVNZ and there will undoubtedly be some advertising revenue (I will be annoyed if I can't skip through half-time when using on-demand as I can do with sky), however these are huge subscriber no's in a small country which does not see football as its primary sport.
I'll be buying because I can afford it and I have UFB and a home network that allows 1080p blu-ray wireless/cat6 streaming through my appletv/boxee/PS3/xbox, however the majority of my mates who are kiwis, and who have spent time in the UK like me, who are big fans of English football have said they won't be getting it - principle reasons being:
* cost of the EPL package on top of Sky, which they won't be getting rid of as they still want Rugby, FA Cup, Champions League, NRL, Cricket, ESPN, wife/partner channels etc.
* lack of easy access - they would often get up Sun/Mon morning and either watch all or part of a game and use MySky to easily fast-forward through the game if they were time-restricted
* cost of upgrading broadband package
* crappy internet connection they have and no access to VDSL or UFB this year or in near future, so are worried about quality issues - some rural mates have no way to access it at decent speeds
So if these guys are the reasonably interested football fans in NZ and they aren't going to sign-up then its left to the ex-pat Poms/foreigners and the few hard-core kiwis like me and I can't see how there will be enough subscribers to make this viable - although we can probably add in a few geo-tag evading foreigners as well. What's the odds that Sky is already planning how it will "help-out" Coliseum in a year or two.
I know that a huge amount of market research will have been done and that the private equity firm behind it will have deepish pockets but I just can't see how the numbers stack up - and having acted for quite a few of the world's largest private equity firms over the past 15 years before my return to NZ, they expect to make sizeable profits (e.g. 10-20% minimum returns) on these type of investments.
Where did you find the $300m figure? Morningstar think its closer to $2m over 3 years:
Otagolad: What I'm struggling with is the cost anaylsis
If rumours are correct, then Sky previously paid $300m for a 3 year licence so lets assume that the price paid by Coliseum was the same. Based on the price of $150 a subscription with a few paying the higher amount, we might take an average price of $175.00 per subscription. $100m divided by $175 = 571,428 subscribers needed. Even if you say they paid $150m over 3 years that is $50m divided by $175 = 285,714 subscribers.
Now I understand that there will be the deals done with Telecom and TVNZ and there will undoubtedly be some advertising revenue (I will be annoyed if I can't skip through half-time when using on-demand as I can do with sky), however these are huge subscriber no's in a small country which does not see football as its primary sport.
I'll be buying because I can afford it and I have UFB and a home network that allows 1080p blu-ray wireless/cat6 streaming through my appletv/boxee/PS3/xbox, however the majority of my mates who are kiwis, and who have spent time in the UK like me, who are big fans of English football have said they won't be getting it - principle reasons being:
* cost of the EPL package on top of Sky, which they won't be getting rid of as they still want Rugby, FA Cup, Champions League, NRL, Cricket, ESPN, wife/partner channels etc.
* lack of easy access - they would often get up Sun/Mon morning and either watch all or part of a game and use MySky to easily fast-forward through the game if they were time-restricted
* cost of upgrading broadband package
* crappy internet connection they have and no access to VDSL or UFB this year or in near future, so are worried about quality issues - some rural mates have no way to access it at decent speeds
So if these guys are the reasonably interested football fans in NZ and they aren't going to sign-up then its left to the ex-pat Poms/foreigners and the few hard-core kiwis like me and I can't see how there will be enough subscribers to make this viable - although we can probably add in a few geo-tag evading foreigners as well. What's the odds that Sky is already planning how it will "help-out" Coliseum in a year or two.
I know that a huge amount of market research will have been done and that the private equity firm behind it will have deepish pockets but I just can't see how the numbers stack up - and having acted for quite a few of the world's largest private equity firms over the past 15 years before my return to NZ, they expect to make sizeable profits (e.g. 10-20% minimum returns) on these type of investments.
Where did you find the $300m figure? Morningstar think its closer to $2m over 3 years:
Sky paid around $14m for NRL, so I doubt they'd spend $300m on EPL.
yeah. 300m over 3 years is ridiculous. Sky'a annual content budget is only around 250m, so there is no way they are blowing 100m of that on EPL. I've seen numbers of of $2-3m too. Not sure whether that was per year or spread across 3 years though.
That was the number Radio Sport and other media commentators mentioned - there was also quite a discussion in business circles about how that would make quite a difference to their bottom-line.
I think it would be higher than 666k per year but maybe they misquoted and meant $3m per year which would make sense. I note the following quotes from Forsyth Barr:
''Securing the EPL rights is a good headline win for Coliseum Sports Media but will it really be a profitable exercise? We don't think so,'' Mr Young [Forsyth Barr broker Peter Young] said.
Among the reasons he gave was the small revenue pool in New Zealand for a dedicated football channel, excluding the Phoenix, All Whites and A-League.
Forsyth Barr estimated the maximum revenue from a maximum subscription of 10,000 viewers, would be $3 million for an online New Zealand subscriber base paying $25 per month for just EPL and a few other international leagues. If Coliseum tried to buy the All Whites and A-League broadcasting rights - both of which had been recently renewed for three to four years - the operating costs would escalate because of the need to produce the local New Zealand content. That was where a significant part of Sky's programming costs sat, Mr Young said. "
So, sorry if I misquoted, but even at $3m a year its going to take quite a few fans to sign up once you take into account infrastructure and other costs.
In today's stuff article, John fellet reckons sky bid around $1m total for the rights, but these guys paid twice that, which would be $2m.
At 666k per year assuming content budget is around 50% of revenue, they need to be generating around $1.3m per year of revenue. By the time you take gst off the $150 price you get a very rough ballpark number of customers of 10-15k
That sounds plausible to achieve, especially if telecom are giving it away to every new broadband customer they sign up.
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.
Trusted
