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 | ... | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | ... | 210
162 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 55


  Reply # 870120 1-Aug-2013 16:35
Send private message

Lust: I'd like to know why they are so confident that people want to watch it live. What research have they done? It's a big ask staying up until 4AM every Saturday. I'm too old for that sh*t. As far as being able to avoid the score until later in the day, it's easy if you are motivated and stay off facebook and the news. I've done it for years and maybe had the result blown twice in 10 years at 50 games a season. Why pay for online poor quality when you can get online in better quality for free?

They seem to be focussing on perceived benefits but don't realise these are not really benefits.

We get all 380 games! I aint watching 380 games a season. I'd rather eat my own head than watch Stoke vs Reading. I just want 38 games and some highlights.

They are all live! again, don't care. Delayed will do me (for the most part)

Conventional wisdom says, Quality over quantity. The Coliseum Cowboys have missed that point and are proudly declaring they have quantity over quality. Muppets.

Now, they're all wounded and getting defensive at these reactions. Did someone not tell them what a serious business football is to people? If you are going to take this on, you better get your sh*t in order otherwise.....

Jog on.

Anyway, how did this place suddenly become a gooner love in? That'll explain all the empty seats at the Grove. We're all here.



Must be a quality forum to have so many Gooners here - and don't forget to join the GZ fantasy league and include three Arsenal players and none from Sp*rs :-)

1854 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 360

Subscriber

  Reply # 870123 1-Aug-2013 16:40
Send private message

Lust: According to Sommett Sports on face book "We believe Sky has MUTV"


Which would suggest that sommet are going to pick up Stoke TV.






Handsome Dan Has Spoken.

324 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 2


  Reply # 870124 1-Aug-2013 16:40
Send private message

Could someone repeat the league code for the GZ fantasy league please.

809 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 74


  Reply # 870132 1-Aug-2013 16:42
Send private message

walt12: Could someone repeat the league code for the GZ fantasy league please.


31429-187619

here's a dedicated thread too http://www.geekzone.co.nz/forums.asp?forumid=48&topicid=127138

94 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 12


  Reply # 870136 1-Aug-2013 16:48
Send private message

Well what a difference a day makes.

I'll confess as a Tottenham supporter that I'm now tempted to re-sign up Sky Sports; but my issue is the live bit. I regularly sleep on the couch through Saturday night Sunday mornings so I can watch all the live games. I don't think I missed a single Spurs game last year that was played live. So am I now prepared to sacrifice watching live to watching recorded. That's the issue I have right now. I work with a team of football fanatics and it's impossible to end up not knowing the score for any Sunday or Monday games; so the recrded bit won't work for me there. The saturday games will be OK I guess as I don't work Sundays. Hell I might just sign up for both and watch it live then watch the delayed broadcast in the glory of full HD.

What should I do...

What I would like to comment on are the detractors who want to see PLP fail. Why? If they hadn't entered the market then you SKY would simply have carried on ripping people like me off with their monthly demand to fork out $50 to watch the sports channels when all I want is a football only channel at $20 per month. I don't watch any other sports and since switching off the sports channels 6 weeks ago I haven't missed anything.

So I do not want to see any of these ventures fail. The increased competition has forced the broadcasters to re-think their offerings; this is a good thing for consumers - I feel empowered; and now with SKY retaliating with their new offering PLP are actively considering improving the quality - again competition has provided this response. It's all good. So I would like to see all these ventures, including Sky, continue to profit and start listening to their customers.

I wonder what tomorrow will bring.

546 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 43


  Reply # 870146 1-Aug-2013 17:05
Send private message

Dororke,

That might be good for you but for a lot of us all it means is extra cost for a product that isn't gauranteed.


324 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 2


  Reply # 870150 1-Aug-2013 17:13
Send private message

Dororke: Well what a difference a day makes.

I'll confess as a Tottenham supporter that I'm now tempted to re-sign up Sky Sports; but my issue is the live bit. I regularly sleep on the couch through Saturday night Sunday mornings so I can watch all the live games. I don't think I missed a single Spurs game last year that was played live. So am I now prepared to sacrifice watching live to watching recorded. That's the issue I have right now. I work with a team of football fanatics and it's impossible to end up not knowing the score for any Sunday or Monday games; so the recrded bit won't work for me there. The saturday games will be OK I guess as I don't work Sundays. Hell I might just sign up for both and watch it live then watch the delayed broadcast in the glory of full HD.

What should I do...

What I would like to comment on are the detractors who want to see PLP fail. Why? If they hadn't entered the market then you SKY would simply have carried on ripping people like me off with their monthly demand to fork out $50 to watch the sports channels when all I want is a football only channel at $20 per month. I don't watch any other sports and since switching off the sports channels 6 weeks ago I haven't missed anything.

So I do not want to see any of these ventures fail. The increased competition has forced the broadcasters to re-think their offerings; this is a good thing for consumers - I feel empowered; and now with SKY retaliating with their new offering PLP are actively considering improving the quality - again competition has provided this response. It's all good. So I would like to see all these ventures, including Sky, continue to profit and start listening to their customers.

I wonder what tomorrow will bring.


I don't want to see them fail.  They were too greedy.  I want to see them improve.  I believe the future is clearly streaming over internet, but it should and must be better than what we have been served up so far.

1445 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 152

Subscriber

  Reply # 870168 1-Aug-2013 17:53
Send private message

My issue is not that we've got a new player in the market, more that its not up to scratch and they appear out of touch plus it's quite expensive really for one sport that I will watch no more than 1/2 games a week and the highlights.

If done right it could be great, but at the moment it's too low a quality for my enjoyment, difficult to get on to the TV properly, won't with a standard remote.

I do think they have overestimated their market. I do not think the older generation will want to faff around plugging bits in to the TV to make it work like it used to.

I still the perfect choice would be an online provider and a traditional provider, that way you get the best of both... online for those that don't want to pay for the full package from Sky and over the air for those that want it delivered in a more traditional way.

6434 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1571


  Reply # 870271 1-Aug-2013 19:49
Send private message

walt12:
Dororke: Well what a difference a day makes.

I'll confess as a Tottenham supporter that I'm now tempted to re-sign up Sky Sports; but my issue is the live bit. I regularly sleep on the couch through Saturday night Sunday mornings so I can watch all the live games. I don't think I missed a single Spurs game last year that was played live. So am I now prepared to sacrifice watching live to watching recorded. That's the issue I have right now. I work with a team of football fanatics and it's impossible to end up not knowing the score for any Sunday or Monday games; so the recrded bit won't work for me there. The saturday games will be OK I guess as I don't work Sundays. Hell I might just sign up for both and watch it live then watch the delayed broadcast in the glory of full HD.

What should I do...

What I would like to comment on are the detractors who want to see PLP fail. Why? If they hadn't entered the market then you SKY would simply have carried on ripping people like me off with their monthly demand to fork out $50 to watch the sports channels when all I want is a football only channel at $20 per month. I don't watch any other sports and since switching off the sports channels 6 weeks ago I haven't missed anything.

So I do not want to see any of these ventures fail. The increased competition has forced the broadcasters to re-think their offerings; this is a good thing for consumers - I feel empowered; and now with SKY retaliating with their new offering PLP are actively considering improving the quality - again competition has provided this response. It's all good. So I would like to see all these ventures, including Sky, continue to profit and start listening to their customers.

I wonder what tomorrow will bring.


I don't want to see them fail.  They were too greedy.  I want to see them improve.  I believe the future is clearly streaming over internet, but it should and must be better than what we have been served up so far.


Why 'too greedy'? Have you seen their financial forecasts? Do you have any idea what it costs to launch and run this kind of business?

94 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 12


  Reply # 870284 1-Aug-2013 20:15
Send private message

Jas777: Dororke,

That might be good for you but for a lot of us all it means is extra cost for a product that isn't gauranteed.



Apologies Jas I don't understand your point.

Q1. What might be good for me?
Q2. I assume when you say for a lot of us all it means is extra cost for a product that isn't gauranteed that here you are referring to those who buy the Sky Sports package and watch all manner of sports. If those same people want to continue to watch EPL live then they will need to sign up with PLP and watch an inferior quality product with additional cost. Would that be right?

If, as I suspect, yes is the answer to Q2 then I would argue that Sky need to think about unbundling their sports offerings and sell them individually. So if you're an F1 nut, a rugby fan and an EPL one then you might have to pay $10 here and another $10 there and another $10 somewhere else; perhaps offer packages of like offerings or $50 as now and get the lot. As it stands today with SKY you have to buy one sports package and choose to ignore all the crap (how on earth they make fishing a sport is beyond me). I'm hopeful that maybe Sky might listen and revamp their packages. The more I think about it I do not want to fork out $50 per month to watch delayed football coverage regardless of the superior quality. The user pays option is the way to go I say.

I have a third open question to all cos I'm curious.

Q3. Does anyone out there have the Sky Sports channels package but choose not to have the $10 per month HD option?




118 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 7


  Reply # 870285 1-Aug-2013 20:20
Send private message

yes i have,i got it cheap for the EPL before they lost the rights and it would cost me more to cancel,so i will keep sky till my 12months are up then cancel.

1445 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 152

Subscriber

  Reply # 870296 1-Aug-2013 20:33
Send private message

Hi Dororke,

Yes, you are correct. Before we had EPL as part of our Sky Sports package, allowing us to watch multiple sports and most EPL games along with Champs league etc. Now, due to PLP we have fragmentation of the distribution model meaning that if those of us who watch multiple sports live have to subscribe to two different services. That is more expensive for us, over $50 a month.

Sky cannot unbundle their sports as it simply becomes uneconomical. They rely on their customer subsiding the sports/movie channels. By offering F1, or football or Rugby independently, you would end up paying far more than you would by bundling them as you would have to pay the true price for the sport, i.e. something similar to coliseum have done. I do not believe for one second that they would be priced at $10 each.

The full PPV market in NZ is tiny; it simply does not have the economic base to support this model. User pays becomes expensive when you start to add multiple things up (Poll tax, while not relevant as a sport, is quite relevant as a topic on 'user pays').

SD sport on a 1080p TV is quite poor as it simply does not scale well to the native resolution of the screen. You're stretching a 720×576 resolution to almost 6 times its size to reach 1080p, which really pixellates the screen. My partners parents had sports on SD but they had an SD screen. They upgraded to an HD screen and took the HD ticket as they said it was terrible at native res.

Chris

725 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 178

Trusted
Full Flavour

  Reply # 870302 1-Aug-2013 20:42
Send private message

Benoire: The full PPV market in NZ is tiny; it simply does not have the economic base to support this model.


I don't like saying it, but New Zealand really needs to become a suburb of Australia when it comes to licensing.

1445 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 152

Subscriber

  Reply # 870306 1-Aug-2013 20:47
Send private message

I do think there would be some benefits, but I don't think the content holders would allow that.

ssp

5 posts

Wannabe Geek
+1 received by user: 1


  Reply # 870331 1-Aug-2013 21:22
Send private message

Streaming maybe the future, but if it is not easily streamed directly into my big screen tv then it's a no go. PLP streaming model must fail so that a better solution emerges similar to Netflix or YouTube straight to tv.

1 | ... | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | ... | 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.