Netflix and Spark agreement

Forums › Online streaming services › Netflix and Spark agreement

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ... | 11

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1727493 28-Feb-2017 10:16

Jas777:

tdgeek:

Jas777:

tdgeek:

sen8or:

Neon has the HBO series that the others don't, Amazon has its own series also (although interestingly, Amazon in the US has some HBO series like Boardwalk Empire, Band of Brothers, The Pacific, True Blood all spring to mind but these aren't available with Amazon NZ). Then theres Quikflix, are they still around?

We don't particularly want to see a monopoly, but against such giants like Amazon and Netflix, and to a lesser extent Neon/Sky, I struggle to see a place for Lightbox

Some are big, some are smaller. I imagine Neon would be small, and smaller than Lightbox, if ignoring the free Lightbox offering

End of the day, its the competition everyone wanted, and we are free to pick and choose to have 1, or 2 or more subs

Is it competition though? I can't sign up to either company X or Y to watch TV shows A and B.

I have to sign up to X to watch A and Y to watch B if I want to watch both. And price to sign up to both will be more than sign to one.

So you prefer a monopoly? If one provider had everything, it won't be $15 per month. Its like when Sky gets bashed, we want sport elsewhere, then EPL was released, yay. The n it was , I have to pay for Sky and EPL now. Can't really have it both ways. If you want to save money, forego something. If you want it all, there is a cost

No I want that if you want to watch EPL only you can get for $20 but if you want to watch EPL, Rugby , Cricket , Darts etc you can get it for $80, not $80 + $20.

So you do want one provider, but also so you can watch an individual content for a smaller fee

Jas777

840 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 111

#1727527 28-Feb-2017 10:29

I know it not happen (for production reasons and money due to up front rights payments) but ideally it would be more than one provider.

But if not then yes one provider with a subset. But of course that is because it would the cheapest and best option for me as individual payments for each sport will be more than one provider.

It would interesting to see in NZ if people are multiple sports watchers or individual sports watchers and if there is a big difference.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1727530 28-Feb-2017 10:36

Jas777:

I know it not happen (for production reasons and money due to up front rights payments) but ideally it would be more than one provider.

But if not then yes one provider with a subset. But of course that is because it would the cheapest and best option for me as individual payments for each sport will be more than one provider.

It would interesting to see in NZ if people are multiple sports watchers or individual sports watchers and if there is a big difference.

If you paid Sky $60, you get all sports. if Sky went bust, you might pay $15 per sport for 4 sports

SVOD is the same, if one had everything it wont be $15

End of the day its about money. Business needs money to stay in business, consumer wants it all cheap as chips

andrew027

1286 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 557

#1727554 28-Feb-2017 11:02

@tdgeek: End of the day its about money. Business needs money to stay in business, consumer wants it all cheap as chips

Many consumers seem to think they're entitled to get it free, and are prepared to go to some lengths to bypass legal delivery options to get it.

Jas777

840 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 111

#1727555 28-Feb-2017 11:08

tdgeek:

Jas777:

I know it not happen (for production reasons and money due to up front rights payments) but ideally it would be more than one provider.

But if not then yes one provider with a subset. But of course that is because it would the cheapest and best option for me as individual payments for each sport will be more than one provider.

It would interesting to see in NZ if people are multiple sports watchers or individual sports watchers and if there is a big difference.

If you paid Sky $60, you get all sports. if Sky went bust, you might pay $15 per sport for 4 sports

SVOD is the same, if one had everything it wont be $15

End of the day its about money. Business needs money to stay in business, consumer wants it all cheap as chips

I know it is all about money. I don't think that it would be $15 per sport. I would think it would be more like $20 to $25 per sport. All 4 sports are going to have sunk overhead costs to get the content to you and it will not be 1/4 of one providers cost.

The one thing I do think will happen if sports in NZ do get unbundled is that some sports will lose out big time as opposed to others who might make even more money.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1727569 28-Feb-2017 11:17

Jas777:

tdgeek:

Jas777:

I know it not happen (for production reasons and money due to up front rights payments) but ideally it would be more than one provider.

But if not then yes one provider with a subset. But of course that is because it would the cheapest and best option for me as individual payments for each sport will be more than one provider.

It would interesting to see in NZ if people are multiple sports watchers or individual sports watchers and if there is a big difference.

If you paid Sky $60, you get all sports. if Sky went bust, you might pay $15 per sport for 4 sports

SVOD is the same, if one had everything it wont be $15

End of the day its about money. Business needs money to stay in business, consumer wants it all cheap as chips

I know it is all about money. I don't think that it would be $15 per sport. I would think it would be more like $20 to $25 per sport. All 4 sports are going to have sunk overhead costs to get the content to you and it will not be 1/4 of one providers cost.

The one thing I do think will happen if sports in NZ do get unbundled is that some sports will lose out big time as opposed to others who might make even more money.

Sports are not bundled. It happens that Sky has many sports as they paid the greedy sports owners stupid amounts of money

The sports wont lose out as they will still demand the huge amounts of money

The $ examples I gave are just examples. Sky sports has a cost to you of $60, made up of everything put into one place. Some sports will be dirt cheap. others a bit more, others a lot more, and some stupid amounts, all of which average to $60 per month. I'd love to know what Super 14 and other big name rugby matches would cost if they were split to a sub only. I imagine so much that no one would buy them, but built into a Sky Sport package, it averages out to something reasonable.

Apple TV

Stream your favourite shows now on Apple TV (affiliate link).

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19064 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16304

Lifetime subscriber

#1727577 28-Feb-2017 11:24

andrew027:

@tdgeek: End of the day its about money. Business needs money to stay in business, consumer wants it all cheap as chips

Many consumers seem to think they're entitled to get it free, and are prepared to go to some lengths to bypass legal delivery options to get it.

This argument keeps coming up and I think it is true to an extent, but not to the extent often claimed. Some people make a sport of getting everything they can for free regardless of the legalities. Others are prepared to pay something, but they feel the prices sometimes being demanded are a rip-off by greedy intermediaries out to squeeze them for everything they can get. A fair distribution system with prices generally perceived as fair would probably go a long way towards reducing piracy.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

andrew027

1286 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 557

#1727578 28-Feb-2017 11:24

@tdgeek: Sports are not bundled. It happens that Sky has many sports as they paid the greedy sports owners stupid amounts of money

The sports wont lose out as they will still demand the huge amounts of money.

The smaller sports will miss out if individual providers decide they won't get enough subscribers to cover licence costs and make a profit, e.g. rugby, soccer and cricket will do alright. But what about bowls, hockey, maybe even netball?

Jas777

840 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 111

#1727583 28-Feb-2017 11:27

I didn't explain myself that well sorry. I should have said local NZ covered sports. I mean if SKY was to get less from subs then they might not cover as much NZ sports and especially the more grass roots sports. A example would be the softball tournament 2 weeks ago which would not get covered

Of course I will probably be wrong though.

Anyway the next years until 2020 will be interesting.

As an aside I think that with some sports Rugby and Cricket as an example that less might be better as there is an awful lot that must not be watched. Super 18 with the non NZ and blowout matches would be a classic example.

Jas777

840 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 111

#1727592 28-Feb-2017 11:43

andrew027:

@tdgeek: Sports are not bundled. It happens that Sky has many sports as they paid the greedy sports owners stupid amounts of money

The sports wont lose out as they will still demand the huge amounts of money.

The smaller sports will miss out if individual providers decide they won't get enough subscribers to cover licence costs and make a profit, e.g. rugby, soccer and cricket will do alright. But what about bowls, hockey, maybe even netball?

You could end up with the situation where individual providers cut out the low revenue sports to make more and the government ends up funding the coverage of minor sports which were previously covered.

wasssupppp

54 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 20

#1727593 28-Feb-2017 11:44

Seems like I'd be about $20 a month better off for a year by switching to this deal.

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1727594 28-Feb-2017 11:46

andrew027:

@tdgeek: Sports are not bundled. It happens that Sky has many sports as they paid the greedy sports owners stupid amounts of money

The sports wont lose out as they will still demand the huge amounts of money.

The smaller sports will miss out if individual providers decide they won't get enough subscribers to cover licence costs and make a profit, e.g. rugby, soccer and cricket will do alright. But what about bowls, hockey, maybe even netball?

Thats the price of removing a so called monopoly that Sky is always called. If they were all subscroiber only, i.e. the sports provided the VOD, they may all not do wekll, rugger included, as I feel the SANZAR etc prices they demand divided by a LOT of users would still be high. Sky has 800,000 to absorb that, I dunno if an individual feed would do that

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1727595 28-Feb-2017 11:47

Rikkitic:

andrew027:

@tdgeek: End of the day its about money. Business needs money to stay in business, consumer wants it all cheap as chips

Many consumers seem to think they're entitled to get it free, and are prepared to go to some lengths to bypass legal delivery options to get it.

This argument keeps coming up and I think it is true to an extent, but not to the extent often claimed. Some people make a sport of getting everything they can for free regardless of the legalities. Others are prepared to pay something, but they feel the prices sometimes being demanded are a rip-off by greedy intermediaries out to squeeze them for everything they can get. A fair distribution system with prices generally perceived as fair would probably go a long way towards reducing piracy.

I agree. But it depends whats fair or not. If the sport got a fair amount of money, and if the provider of the feed wasnt rorting, then the resultant cost is fair.

I expect many would still say its unfair as its more than what they wish to pay

andrew027

1286 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 557

#1727596 28-Feb-2017 11:50

Thought I'd share a conversation I just had with Spark via online chat [with some comments not directly relevant edited out]. It doesn't say much, except either Spark haven't worked through all the options, or they haven't trained their customer service folk yet, particularly as the CSR had to go away twice to ask someone else my questions.

Me: I have an open unlimited broadband plan with Spark. I'm interested in the Netflix offer but understand I have to change from an open plan to a 24-month contract. If I do this, what happens to my account at the end of the 24 months?

Spark: At the end of your 24 month contract your plan will go to open term.

Me: Would it stay on the same rate/price, or would it be changed to a different plan if the one I'm on now isn't available in 24 months?

Spark: At this stage in time we cannot guarantee that the price will stay the same after the 24 month contract.

Me: Does it stop me from changing the plan during that time, say if a cheaper unlimited one is released, even if I sign up to the new plan for another 24 months, or what’s left of the original 24 months at the time I change?

Spark: For downgrading the service to a cheaper plan, at the moment we are not certain if the early termination fee will apply as you are not completely disconnecting your account with us.

Wheelbarrow01

1784 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2638

Trusted

Chorus

#1727605 28-Feb-2017 12:09

andrew027:

Thought I'd share a conversation I just had with Spark via online chat [with some comments not directly relevant edited out]. It doesn't say much, except either Spark haven't worked through all the options, or they haven't trained their customer service folk yet, particularly as the CSR had to go away twice to ask someone else my questions.

It's worth mentioning that this new offer was dropped on all Spark staff at exactly the same time it was made public. In fact I read about it on this very GZ before the official announcement email to Spark staff had even been sent to me. So it's fair to say that our frontline staff will be furiously playing catch-up at the moment - they virtually know little more about the offer than anybody on the street.

This is not a product that has been trained out to frontline staff weeks in advance - pretty much nobody on the Spark frontline knew anything about it until it was launched. This is great for keeping things under wraps - but not so great when the public calls up with questoins 5 minutes after the launch announcement....

The views expressed by me are not necessarily those of my employer Chorus NZ Ltd

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ... | 11