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.
Filter this topic showing only the reply marked as answer View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | ... | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | ... | 210
229 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 12


  Reply # 883376 23-Aug-2013 14:04
Send private message

MePLUR:
Handsomedan: For those that sday that the numbers of people who had access to high quality footage of football through Sky...did anyone saying that ever watch it on a non-MySky decoder?
Some games were markedly worse than the PLP footage that i have watched thus far.


I did, and still do. Just the other day I watched the Rugby Championship live on iSky while I was on a Skype call for work. Granted the quality wasn't perfect, but, it was my choice to stream it on iSky. If I wanted to watch it in HD, I'd head out to the lounge and watch it on TV. Don't want to sound like a broken record, but with PLP, I don't have that choice.


No, but you now have the choice of watching more games when you want to, rather than being tied to Sky's scheduling. So essentially, quality has been compromised for quantity. Those who are that concerned about quality have been given the option by Sky of seeing at least a handful of their clubs games in HD delayed.

Yes, the quality of PLP is poorer than Sky's if you had the HD ticket, but seemingly they are working on an option to improve it. Hopefully they come up with a solution soon.

94 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 12


  Reply # 883380 23-Aug-2013 14:12
Send private message

expression: I'm not familiar with Apple's approval process but does it normally take this long to get an app approved and into the App Store?


Yes it does I'm afraid. The outcome of their curation process is one that can best guarantee a bug free app that does what it says it does and won't impair anything with lazy code that doesn't release memeory properly etc; It sets them apart from other app stores and forces the end user to plan more carefully and take the time to get it right first time. Even bug fix releases go through the same process.

75 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 4


  Reply # 883385 23-Aug-2013 14:18
Send private message

Nerdherder:

I think it's the tip of the iceberg, I think more sports will go this route in order to guarantee the biggest revenue, with new providers or the sports themselves coming in to produce (Sky produce a lot of content) and distribute it directly to fans. Pay per game view or per season I think will become more common, with the clubs/teams getting a share of the profit from sales of the footage for their game, perhaps even after the fact, rather than a share of total rights revenue at the start of the season as happens today. Season makes more sense to the provider though as they lock you in, and don't have droves cancelling or stopping monthly subs when their teams drop out from the end of season playoffs for example.



The football teams have the best of both worlds currently. The earn millions from the joint pay TV deal and can then sell their own in-house production (the likes of MUTV or Spurs TV) to whomever they wish albeit with some caveats (such as it must be delayed coverage, maximum number (4) of clubs own tv channels per provider etc)

The currently do earn their share based on how many games they are shown live on SKY UK/BT Sport, but the league insists that each club must be shown a certain number of times (as is the case here with PLP and the 25 on-demand, 13 live/24hrs scenario that has been discussed previously), so the ultimate revenue share is relatively even.

The issue may come from European Clubs when they all 'gang up' and decide they want to earn more and Man Yoo, Man Citeh and Chel$ki etc hook up with the likes of Barca, Real Madrid, Bayern, PSG etc for a season long Global 'Super League'.


29 posts

Geek
+1 received by user: 2

Trusted

  Reply # 883386 23-Aug-2013 14:23
Send private message

expression:
MePLUR:
Handsomedan: For those that sday that the numbers of people who had access to high quality footage of football through Sky...did anyone saying that ever watch it on a non-MySky decoder?
Some games were markedly worse than the PLP footage that i have watched thus far.


I did, and still do. Just the other day I watched the Rugby Championship live on iSky while I was on a Skype call for work. Granted the quality wasn't perfect, but, it was my choice to stream it on iSky. If I wanted to watch it in HD, I'd head out to the lounge and watch it on TV. Don't want to sound like a broken record, but with PLP, I don't have that choice.


No, but you now have the choice of watching more games when you want to, rather than being tied to Sky's scheduling. So essentially, quality has been compromised for quantity. Those who are that concerned about quality have been given the option by Sky of seeing at least a handful of their clubs games in HD delayed.

Yes, the quality of PLP is poorer than Sky's if you had the HD ticket, but seemingly they are working on an option to improve it. Hopefully they come up with a solution soon.


Again, I was fortunate with Sky. I support one of the bigger clubs, so most of the league matches were shown. I watched most of the games live, and recorded them on MySky at the same time, so I could always go back for a second viewing. I don't think I ever watched a game that didn't involve my team, so, for me at least, being able to watch more games doesn't make up for the step down in quality and ease of use. 

I'm not sure if it's just me, but my PLP feed is really bad. My experience from a few pages back:

MePLUR: Anyone else notice that even if you set the quality to 3000 Kbps, it still drops to a lower bitrate?

My experience this weekend was disappointing. The stream was constantly buffering when trying to watch the game at 3000 Kbps. Set it to 'Best Available' and this is what I got at the end of the Crystal Palace vs. Tottenham game. Pretty sure it wasn't my internet connection. Did a speed test at the time to a local server and was downloading at 16 Mbps. Even if the content was hosted on an overseas server, I should be able to stream at 3000 Kbps.

PLP needs to do something about the quality of its feeds. Even at 3000 kbps, Sky's SD stream looked less jerky to me.

954 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 222

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 883387 23-Aug-2013 14:23
Send private message

Dororke:
expression: I'm not familiar with Apple's approval process but does it normally take this long to get an app approved and into the App Store?


Yes it does I'm afraid. The outcome of their curation process is one that can best guarantee a bug free app that does what it says it does and won't impair anything with lazy code that doesn't release memeory properly etc; It sets them apart from other app stores and forces the end user to plan more carefully and take the time to get it right first time. Even bug fix releases go through the same process.

Ssssh! don't mention maps!

On a more serious note - I'm looking forward to being able to watch on the iPad and my wife will be ecstatic.  After all, I probably consume about 50% of my "media" on the iPad.




Procrastination eventually pays off.


29 posts

Geek
+1 received by user: 2


  Reply # 883389 23-Aug-2013 14:32
Send private message

StarBlazer: Wow - I'm really glad you doom merchants weren't around when Mr Bell was working on his telephone - we'd still be sending stuff by Morse Code or worse - paper!!!

Wishing the company would go bust and similar comments are childish and unhelpful.  If you don't like the service, state why you don't and what you would do better.  To launch to 10s if not 100s of thousands of people on one day in a very narrow window of connection is no small feat which I think they pulled off reasonably well.  Is it perfect? No.  Will it get better? Yes.  The Android app has flawless quality.

If you want to complain, write to Sky and tell them how disappointed you are that they were unable to secure the rights to the EPL.  Ask them why they are not able to offer a service for EVERY game in the EPL.  Also ask why they are not able to provide a service where you can select which sports you want and only pay for that rather than paying for 20+ sports that you are not interested in! 

Don't give me the "there's not enough space on the satellite" cop-out.  They already have iSky as a delivery platform there was nothing stopping them from extending that service in the same way that PLP have delivered. 

Sky won't do it because they are a greedy monopoly.  I'm happy to support anyone who challenges that.

The status-quo has to be removed - we need genuine options other than Sky.

This is where it starts with companies like PLP.

</rant>


For me this analogy isn't very good. 
Bell was creating something that wasn't otherwise available. A product that could and did change the world. Voice over a wire. 
PLP have taken a product that already exists (TV over internet), dumbed it down, and broadcast it to the masses in the most cost effective way for them.
They didn't take a product that wasn't here and create it. They didn't even take a product that existed and made it better. 
We all know its possible to broadcast better quality than they are over the internet. But will they? Maybe. When? Soon, When - Ah no one really knows. They know, but will they tell us? NO. 

Trust me, they are just as greedy as sky, if not geedier in my opinion. Like for like @ 250.00 for a season you One sport for 21 per/m. Sky you get/got all sports for 26 per/m. 

I do agree, I would love to pick and choose what I subscribe to. 
Has PLP broken up a monopoly? No they havent, they have created a Duopoly. 
Sommet Sport, they have broken up a monopoly. Football, free to air. Good on them. 
And Igloo, where you can choose to subscribe to certain channels. 
Thats where it starts. Not with PLP. 

I'm all for the internet, its great. But tell me, whats wrong with the current way we get TV?
Why would a company want to broadcast only via the internet? Its cheaper maybe, and they don't need to invest in all that expensive broadcasting equipment. 

If TV over the internet is going to be the way we all watch TV for the future, who is driving this demand? If the demand was really that strong, wouldn't all of the networks, have a lot more invested in it than they currently do. Wouldn't they be pushing us that way, rather than having it as a convenient alternative for us to watch reruns. 
I know they are always adding services, but are they doing for convenience for us, or so they can try something out, that isn't quite ready yet. 

Why couldn't PLP broadcast in HD and SD, over the airwaves AND online, even in conjunction with IGLOO or via their own set top box. Or on a freeview channel, with ads. 
I would buy their set top box, if it meant I could get HD, and didn't have to rely on my intermittent internet, and WIFI. I would pay $200.00 for their set top box. 

For me, the infrastructure of the internet, especially in NZ, isn't ready yet to be the only way someone can get access to television shows. 








540 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 36


  Reply # 883393 23-Aug-2013 14:42
Send private message

Dororke:
Benoire: @Dororke,

It's a bit unfair to compare sky recorded to on demand as you where fully capable of watching the recording anytime, you just chose to allow your family to watch something instead.

How much data did you use on the tablet? Would have been a fairly large amount!


Well in the past when I tried iSky on demand the quality was poor on my PC unless you watched it in a little window. The PLP stream is much improved over that. I'm not a Sky subscriber to sports anymore so I can't compare today to see if Sky have improved or not. So it is perhaps a bit unfair I'll concede and not a scientific test.

Don't know for sure how much I used data wise as it is a company sim. I watched ~ an hour's worth on mobile so logic suggests (1,600Kbps x 60 secs x 60 mins) = 5,760,000bits/8 = 720KB. The company pools all their data plans amongst some 600 mobiles. I'm hoping my usage stays under the radar.



Aren't you missing a kilo there?

1600 Kbps = 1.6 Mbps = 12 MB / min = 720 MB per hour?

Might not stay under the radar if you watch too many games (depending on what the shared pool cap is)



1446 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 152

Subscriber

  Reply # 883399 23-Aug-2013 14:45
Send private message

IPTV will be the next thing, 'reliable' distribution with higher eventual quality without atmospheric interference. However, it will be by setop box or Apple TV / Google TV style device and perhaps the smart tv. I don't think the choose your own content will ever replace scheduled content as most people I know (anecdotal I know!) are of the style where by they stick the telly on for something to watch in the background with only a small number of shows they are actually interested in. My partner is like this, doesn't like the idea of just on demand as she likes things in hte background and she likes to channel surf.

Anyway, Sky are at fault for losing the EPL. They had the opportunity to release the matches they wanted via DVB-S (within the limits of available space on Optus) and then allow a sub to iSky seperately for online only. What we have now is a duopoly of content in a significantly fragmented way and not easy to consume.

We have to remember where we are, we on a 'Geek' forum and we can consume content easily via any method but there are many people NOT in this position who have no idea how to connect their devices to the TV, some don't even own a PC like my partners father!

229 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 12


  Reply # 883418 23-Aug-2013 14:58
Send private message

gunnerpc:
StarBlazer: Wow - I'm really glad you doom merchants weren't around when Mr Bell was working on his telephone - we'd still be sending stuff by Morse Code or worse - paper!!!

Wishing the company would go bust and similar comments are childish and unhelpful.  If you don't like the service, state why you don't and what you would do better.  To launch to 10s if not 100s of thousands of people on one day in a very narrow window of connection is no small feat which I think they pulled off reasonably well.  Is it perfect? No.  Will it get better? Yes.  The Android app has flawless quality.

If you want to complain, write to Sky and tell them how disappointed you are that they were unable to secure the rights to the EPL.  Ask them why they are not able to offer a service for EVERY game in the EPL.  Also ask why they are not able to provide a service where you can select which sports you want and only pay for that rather than paying for 20+ sports that you are not interested in! 

Don't give me the "there's not enough space on the satellite" cop-out.  They already have iSky as a delivery platform there was nothing stopping them from extending that service in the same way that PLP have delivered. 

Sky won't do it because they are a greedy monopoly.  I'm happy to support anyone who challenges that.

The status-quo has to be removed - we need genuine options other than Sky.

This is where it starts with companies like PLP.

</rant>


For me this analogy isn't very good. 
Bell was creating something that wasn't otherwise available. A product that could and did change the world. Voice over a wire. 
PLP have taken a product that already exists (TV over internet), dumbed it down, and broadcast it to the masses in the most cost effective way for them.
They didn't take a product that wasn't here and create it. They didn't even take a product that existed and made it better. 
We all know its possible to broadcast better quality than they are over the internet. But will they? Maybe. When? Soon, When - Ah no one really knows. They know, but will they tell us? NO. 

Trust me, they are just as greedy as sky, if not geedier in my opinion. Like for like @ 250.00 for a season you One sport for 21 per/m. Sky you get/got all sports for 26 per/m. 

I do agree, I would love to pick and choose what I subscribe to. 
Has PLP broken up a monopoly? No they havent, they have created a Duopoly. 
Sommet Sport, they have broken up a monopoly. Football, free to air. Good on them. 
And Igloo, where you can choose to subscribe to certain channels. 
Thats where it starts. Not with PLP. 

I'm all for the internet, its great. But tell me, whats wrong with the current way we get TV?
Why would a company want to broadcast only via the internet? Its cheaper maybe, and they don't need to invest in all that expensive broadcasting equipment. 

If TV over the internet is going to be the way we all watch TV for the future, who is driving this demand? If the demand was really that strong, wouldn't all of the networks, have a lot more invested in it than they currently do. Wouldn't they be pushing us that way, rather than having it as a convenient alternative for us to watch reruns. 
I know they are always adding services, but are they doing for convenience for us, or so they can try something out, that isn't quite ready yet. 

Why couldn't PLP broadcast in HD and SD, over the airwaves AND online, even in conjunction with IGLOO or via their own set top box. Or on a freeview channel, with ads. 
I would buy their set top box, if it meant I could get HD, and didn't have to rely on my intermittent internet, and WIFI. I would pay $200.00 for their set top box. 

For me, the infrastructure of the internet, especially in NZ, isn't ready yet to be the only way someone can get access to television shows. 


Completely disagree.

Investment in IPTV is growing. The commonly quoted statistic is that a third of internet traffic in America is from Netflix. Cable companies are beginning to offer access to channels over the internet in America. Sky in NZ are preparing to launch Sky Go. It is all driven by the consumer, who ultimately wants more control over the content they want to watch.

As has been mentioned previously on several occasions, capacity on broadcast technology over airwaves is almost full. The internet presents a unique opportunity to get around this.

Regarding a set top box, that requires a large investment on their part ultimately culminating in additional costs for consumers. Its more cost effective to release a plethora of apps for different devices offering access to the service.

Internet infrastructure has been improving rapidly in New Zealand for years. Data caps are growing exponentially and the availability of UFB is increasing.

1446 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 152

Subscriber

  Reply # 883422 23-Aug-2013 15:01
Send private message

IPTV is the future but I'd imagine the saturation of devices able to access the TV in the way people are used to OR in an easy to use method is not there. Both Apple TV and Google TV do not have access to 'channels' or other normal TV services, only on demand content (great for movies and sports). Even in europe with IPTV is really kicking off, they're still using the traditional scheduled TV approach.

IPTV in NZ will only kick off once the rural areas are able to get bandwidth greater than 5mpbs I feel.

229 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 12


  Reply # 883426 23-Aug-2013 15:03
Send private message

Benoire: IPTV will be the next thing, 'reliable' distribution with higher eventual quality without atmospheric interference. However, it will be by setop box or Apple TV / Google TV style device and perhaps the smart tv. I don't think the choose your own content will ever replace scheduled content as most people I know (anecdotal I know!) are of the style where by they stick the telly on for something to watch in the background with only a small number of shows they are actually interested in. My partner is like this, doesn't like the idea of just on demand as she likes things in hte background and she likes to channel surf.

Anyway, Sky are at fault for losing the EPL. They had the opportunity to release the matches they wanted via DVB-S (within the limits of available space on Optus) and then allow a sub to iSky seperately for online only. What we have now is a duopoly of content in a significantly fragmented way and not easy to consume.

We have to remember where we are, we on a 'Geek' forum and we can consume content easily via any method but there are many people NOT in this position who have no idea how to connect their devices to the TV, some don't even own a PC like my partners father!


Also worth noting that being a "geek" forum users here are more mindful of changes in quality. My flatmate remarked to me that PLP was good quality for the internet, whilst my parents barely notice the difference between an HD channel and an SD channel (once again, anecdotal).

229 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 12


  Reply # 883429 23-Aug-2013 15:06
Send private message

Benoire: IPTV is the future but I'd imagine the saturation of devices able to access the TV in the way people are used to OR in an easy to use method is not there.


I agree. Arguably the closest platform to "saturation" in NZ are game consoles.

1446 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 152

Subscriber

  Reply # 883431 23-Aug-2013 15:07
Send private message

Indeed we are. Geeks, nerds and enthusiasts are always at the forefront of new technology and the most vocal of users.

Whilst I lament the current quality loss, the biggest killer for IPTV will be the current lack of integration in to peoples habits. Make IPTV connect to your TV like Freeview or Sky do and you'll win, make it browser only (or tablet / phone) and you'll lose. This is of course my opinion from somone who hates watching TV through a browser.

229 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 12


  Reply # 883437 23-Aug-2013 15:09
Send private message

Benoire: Indeed we are. Geeks, nerds and enthusiasts are always at the forefront of new technology and the most vocal of users.

Whilst I lament the current quality loss, the biggest killer for IPTV will be the current lack of integration in to peoples habits. Make IPTV connect to your TV like Freeview or Sky do and you'll win, make it browser only (or tablet / phone) and you'll lose. This is of course my opinion from somone who hates watching TV through a browser.


Completely agree. Arguably this has been the reason behind Netflix's success, the fact that so many devices can access it in a way that the majority of people can easily understand.

954 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 222

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 883438 23-Aug-2013 15:10
Send private message

gunnerpc: For me this analogy isn't very good. 
Bell was creating something that wasn't otherwise available. A product that could and did change the world. Voice over a wire. 
PLP have taken a product that already exists (TV over internet), dumbed it down, and broadcast it to the masses in the most cost effective way for them.
They didn't take a product that wasn't here and create it. They didn't even take a product that existed and made it better. 
We all know its possible to broadcast better quality than they are over the internet. But will they? Maybe. When? Soon, When - Ah no one really knows. They know, but will they tell us? NO. 

Trust me, they are just as greedy as sky, if not geedier in my opinion. Like for like @ 250.00 for a season you One sport for 21 per/m. Sky you get/got all sports for 26 per/m. 

I do agree, I would love to pick and choose what I subscribe to. 
Has PLP broken up a monopoly? No they havent, they have created a Duopoly. 
Sommet Sport, they have broken up a monopoly. Football, free to air. Good on them. 
And Igloo, where you can choose to subscribe to certain channels. 
Thats where it starts. Not with PLP. 

I'm all for the internet, its great. But tell me, whats wrong with the current way we get TV?
Why would a company want to broadcast only via the internet? Its cheaper maybe, and they don't need to invest in all that expensive broadcasting equipment. 

If TV over the internet is going to be the way we all watch TV for the future, who is driving this demand? If the demand was really that strong, wouldn't all of the networks, have a lot more invested in it than they currently do. Wouldn't they be pushing us that way, rather than having it as a convenient alternative for us to watch reruns. 
I know they are always adding services, but are they doing for convenience for us, or so they can try something out, that isn't quite ready yet. 

Why couldn't PLP broadcast in HD and SD, over the airwaves AND online, even in conjunction with IGLOO or via their own set top box. Or on a freeview channel, with ads. 
I would buy their set top box, if it meant I could get HD, and didn't have to rely on my intermittent internet, and WIFI. I would pay $200.00 for their set top box. 

For me, the infrastructure of the internet, especially in NZ, isn't ready yet to be the only way someone can get access to television shows. 

I was merely making a point - sure the analogy was not meant to be taken as research.  Perhaps I should have said who would want to carry around MP3s when CDs give so much more quality?

However some points
There was not an available product before PLP.  There was no legitimate method of watching all games from the EPL in NZ - streamed or broadcast.  Even if Sommet had won, that would not have changed.
I only paid $150 for the season and will probably watch both Hull City and Man Utd matches when possible - if I watch 50 of the 76 games over the season that's only $3 per game which sounds like a great return.
I have Sky for the kids - if I wanted sports that $26.45/month on top.  I'd probably get the HD ticket too for $10/month - that's $437/year which is a $287 increase for the ability to watch most of the Man Utd games and very few of the Hull City games that they can be bothered to show - albeit in magnificent HD.  
If I had Sky, I'd have to watch it at a time that suits the rest of the family - not when it suits me and very unlikely watch it before I hear or see the score! Unless of course I got multi-room but that's another $25/month plus whatever the extra is for a MySky box.
The problem with Igloo, Freeview and Sky is that there is just not enough broadcast bandwidth to show everything.  SBiddle's blog about MHEG5 was very interesting and could be a future for consumption.  However NZ is not very good at getting to grips with leading edge technology like this - how many times have you seen USB/network ports on devices for "future expansion" that never got expanded to be used?  MHEG5 could be great but it's likely to be used for "future expansion".
Yes TV over the internet is probably the future - admittedly years away.  Look at what Netflix and Hulu have done already in the states, even Apple TV to an extent in NZ - why go out and rent when you can do it from the comfort of your armchair.




Procrastination eventually pays off.


1 | ... | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | ... | 210
Filter this topic showing only the reply marked as answer View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic

Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



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.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.