The ShowmeTV thread

Forums › Online streaming services › The ShowmeTV thread

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8

838 posts

Ultimate Geek

#993913 25-Feb-2014 10:16

Benoire,

True competition in TV would have to be like the supermarket/dairy style model where you buy the content off the owner and sell for what you think it is worth.

However this relies on the the owner to be willing to sell to everyone and not just one and that will most likely depend on what they will get for their content from mutliple sources as opposed to one exclusive source.

A by-product of selling to multiple sources may that the supplier has to accept a pay per views fee rather than a set fee or a rebate system. And some cases where the supplier is strong and can demand a up front fee then only 1 or 2 retailers supply the product with a premium price attached.

An interesting situation with what some people think should happen especially with specific programmes would be similar to having 2 restaurants but one has a better chef and making it so both get equal time with the chef.

Benoire

2798 posts

Uber Geek

#993917 25-Feb-2014 10:19

Indeed Jas, otherwise you end up trading monopolies for others. The content rights holders are negotiating to get the most money and exclusive single region deals reinforce that but restrict the consumers ability to watch what they want how they want.

A very annoying problem for the consumer but perfectly logical for a business.

Jas777

838 posts

Ultimate Geek

#993951 25-Feb-2014 10:40

Benoire,

And even if they did get rights to sell as well as someone else they all still have overheads and profits to build into the price so I don't think it will be that much cheaper.

I sometimes also wonder if the multiple suppliers, pay for what you want model will actually end up with less content available eventually and having users ration viewing.

Benoire

2798 posts

Uber Geek

#993954 25-Feb-2014 10:45

Jas777:
I sometimes also wonder if the multiple suppliers, pay for what you want model will actually end up with less content available eventually and having users ration viewing.

I've quoted this bit as I feel it is important. Unless all providers have the same content available for you to pick and choose (unlikely given the content rights holders view of exclusivity to drive up price), we may end up in the position of paying more to get the same as we have now for those that consume a normal amount of media. People who exclusively watch one type i.e. movies, dramas, HBO style tv series could be better off but as soon as they would want to watch multiple types it could be more expesive should they have to move across providers.

While we have gone slightly off topic, it is interesting to watch how ShowmeTV will evolve given the current draconian rights usages that come from the owners of the content, but I do fear for MY personal viewing if we get providers taking multiple products away as MY viewing cost could increase by a large amount.

Jas777

838 posts

Ultimate Geek

#994000 25-Feb-2014 11:32

Benoire,

Part of the problem also is that people perceive competition as being able to get the same product from different sources but confuse the product with the brand.

Case in point is Rugby, the product is Rugby, the brand is Super 15. People think they should be able to get Super 15 from multiple sources even though only 1 of the sources is actually manufacturing the product so to speak and by that I mean recording the games. Why would that company let another sell it and undercut them unless made to?

old3eyes

9120 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#994072 25-Feb-2014 12:51

Jas777: Benoire,

True competition in TV would have to be like the supermarket/dairy style model where you buy the content off the owner and sell for what you think it is worth.

Bet the TV networks couldn't put the hard word on the studios to pay them to have the program put on prime time..

Regards,

Old3eyes

Jas777

838 posts

Ultimate Geek

#994118 25-Feb-2014 13:33

old3eyes,

Not for the premium stuff from overseas but you could imagine doing it to NZ made content.

Sharesies

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

tdgeek

29753 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#994125 25-Feb-2014 13:47

Benoire:
Jas777:
I sometimes also wonder if the multiple suppliers, pay for what you want model will actually end up with less content available eventually and having users ration viewing.

I've quoted this bit as I feel it is important. Unless all providers have the same content available for you to pick and choose (unlikely given the content rights holders view of exclusivity to drive up price), we may end up in the position of paying more to get the same as we have now for those that consume a normal amount of media. People who exclusively watch one type i.e. movies, dramas, HBO style tv series could be better off but as soon as they would want to watch multiple types it could be more expesive should they have to move across providers.

While we have gone slightly off topic, it is interesting to watch how ShowmeTV will evolve given the current draconian rights usages that come from the owners of the content, but I do fear for MY personal viewing if we get providers taking multiple products away as MY viewing cost could increase by a large amount.

I agree 100%. Its about the content owners more than the providers

I never 100% bought into the Sky monopoly. Just because they have a large share doesnt mean they monopolise the market. Sky have lost content due to being outbid, thats competition. The proof is new entrants, Quickflix, EPL, Sonnett, ShowMe.

As to how individual content items like a TV series or a sport get shown on one provider or are allowed to be shared across, hard to know.

Jas777

838 posts

Ultimate Geek

#994148 25-Feb-2014 14:32

tdgeek,

I think the problem is that yes different providers have content but people want all providers to be able to have the same content and they get to decide how much they see and what they will pay for it and knowing that if the price is too much they can still source it other ways with no comebacks.

mattwnz

20172 posts

Uber Geek

#994159 25-Feb-2014 14:41

tdgeek: Sky have lost content due to being outbid, thats competition. The proof is new entrants, Quickflix, EPL, Sonnett, ShowMe.

As to how individual content items like a TV series or a sport get shown on one provider or are allowed to be shared across, hard to know.

Are you sure they were outbid, or did they just not bid enough? They do want some competition in the market, as otherwise they will likely face regulation. So it is in the best interests not to have all the best content. For example, there is now more sport of FTA channels than there has ever been. However sky have most of the sport that NZers want to watch. Most of the sport of FTA is more fringe and overseas stuff.

tdgeek

29753 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#994161 25-Feb-2014 14:44

Jas777: tdgeek,

I think the problem is that yes different providers have content but people want all providers to be able to have the same content and they get to decide how much they see and what they will pay for it and knowing that if the price is too much they can still source it other ways with no comebacks.

Yes, I follow that. But isn't that in the hands of the content owners not the providers? A great idea, but not really sure if it can stand up.

Say F1 , or anything really, can either go to one provider for a big fee. Or to 5 providers for 1/5 of that fee. Provider pays less for content, but has to buy lots more content. Advertising fees they can charge are low as the advertiser now has to advertise with 5 differnt providers. The ARPU for each provider will be low as each of us will spend what we spent on Sky, or Quikflix, Netflix (for examples), across 5 providers. If many left Sky to save money, thats even less they are prepared to pay.

Just my opinions

tdgeek

29753 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#994167 25-Feb-2014 14:52

mattwnz:
tdgeek: Sky have lost content due to being outbid, thats competition. The proof is new entrants, Quickflix, EPL, Sonnett, ShowMe.

As to how individual content items like a TV series or a sport get shown on one provider or are allowed to be shared across, hard to know.

Are you sure they were outbid, or did they just not bid enough? They do want some competition in the market, as otherwise they will likely face regulation. So it is in the best interests not to have all the best content.

Same thing really, another provider paid more. Competition is good

I agree, we dont want all the good stuff with one provider. But OTOH what is your good stuff may not be mine, or my wifes or my kids

If everything was with one provider, a full monopoly, and that the fee was fair, is probably the best economy of scale. If everything was with every provider, that may be a tough business model.

Buzz Bumble

332 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#994324 25-Feb-2014 18:31

Jas777: ... but you could imagine doing it to NZ made content.

There's New Zealand made content which some people actually want to watch?!? ;-)

Jas777

838 posts

Ultimate Geek

#994738 26-Feb-2014 10:54

tdgeek,

Don't get me wrong, I actually like the current model and I don't think it will lead to a reduction in price if you watch a reasonable amount of content.

What will happen if the content was split across platforms or could be sold anywhere is that the premium content will still be expensive not the average unit price like a lot of people think it should be. And that some content will disappear as it is not economically viable.

The other thing is that when people compare SKY to streaming etc they include that cost of SKY equipment in the comparison but not the cost of computing hardware.

silverlake

142 posts

Master Geek

#994760 26-Feb-2014 11:57

Jas777: tdgeek,

Don't get me wrong, I actually like the current model and I don't think it will lead to a reduction in price if you watch a reasonable amount of content.

What will happen if the content was split across platforms or could be sold anywhere is that the premium content will still be expensive not the average unit price like a lot of people think it should be. And that some content will disappear as it is not economically viable.

The other thing is that when people compare SKY to streaming etc they include that cost of SKY equipment in the comparison but not the cost of computing hardware.

Part of the problem with the current model is that you have no choice but to rent the SKY equipment - and it is expensive!
The STB constrains us from being able to watch the content that we pay for whenever and wherever we want to watch it.
The STB needs to go the way of the VHS recorder.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8