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 | ... | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | ... | 210
36 posts

Geek
+1 received by user: 1


  Reply # 870407 2-Aug-2013 03:20
Send private message

ssp: 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.



So do I have to wait until there is a fibre cable connected directly to my smart TV to get the best quality? I think PLP are working on Smart TV apps, so maybe that is the answer.



29 posts

Geek
+1 received by user: 2

Trusted

  Reply # 870408 2-Aug-2013 04:01
Send private message

nzmate:
ssp: 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.



So do I have to wait until there is a fibre cable connected directly to my smart TV to get the best quality? I think PLP are working on Smart TV apps, so maybe that is the answer.




IMO, a pre-configured plug and play device with a remote (e.g. Android TV on a stick), that's the answer. 

 
 
 
 


ssp

5 posts

Wannabe Geek
+1 received by user: 1


  Reply # 870421 2-Aug-2013 07:23
Send private message

@nzmate. If PLP are still working on things to deliver the content in a convenient way then clearly they aren't ready for primetime. You either have it to deliver content in way which is better than the current model or you don't. Expecting the potential subscribers to bear with sub standard experience until they get their act together isn't going to be a successful business model.

But yes if the future is streaming then I do expect direct fibre to the homes which can deliver internet content direct to various devices without hassle. Netflix, YouTube are easily available on tv...

dwl

363 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 43


  Reply # 870426 2-Aug-2013 07:46
Send private message

MePLUR:
nzmate:
ssp: 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.

So do I have to wait until there is a fibre cable connected directly to my smart TV to get the best quality? I think PLP are working on Smart TV apps, so maybe that is the answer.

IMO, a pre-configured plug and play device with a remote (e.g. Android TV on a stick), that's the answer. 

I agree that adopting a standard OS like Android may give the best chance of readily available apps across all providers (isn't that what SmartVU tries to do?).  My one request would be for an external device to also support the TV remote via HDMI-CEC which seems to work quite well with some devices running XBMC.

558 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 46


  Reply # 870428 2-Aug-2013 07:59
Send private message

Dororke,

Yes you got it pretty much right and like Benoire I too don't think unbundling will work in NZ. If they did then Rugby would be at least $250-300 a year, Cricket maybe $200, League $150-200 etc. It soon adds up to not much less than what it is now.

You would also have the issue where some minor sports will dissappear from SKY as it is just too uneconomical to broadcast them.

The unbundling issue is an interesting one because in the USA customers are saying the same thing there and the cable channels and content providers don't really want it to happen as some content providers know they will go out of business.

324 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 2


  Reply # 870466 2-Aug-2013 09:04
Send private message

NonprayingMantis:
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?


Not enough investment.

1.  Delivering a sub-standard viewing experience & expecting that customers will lap it up
2.  Not investing in building out the delivery channels required to seamlessly deliver streaming into the living room.  Simply saying, "if there is enough demand we will build it" is not good enough.  Did 2degrees take that approach by way of example?

They bid up the rights while the incumbent stood back.  Perhaps they over-reached themselves & have had to cut their cloth accordingly on the quality of streaming experience.

Who knows - bottom line is that they have done it quite poorly & Sky have been able to trump them for a good proportion of that viewing market with their latest announcement.

I really want this to succeed but I have a fundamental objection to paying for an inferior experience.



85 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 14


  Reply # 870498 2-Aug-2013 09:47
Send private message


I'm not sure if anyone commented on this yesterday but in regards to the question I had about the quality of the Sky footage that's coming direct from the club's channels this was on the Herald's website yesterday afternoon.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10906681

Sky will beam HD quality, delayed games directly through your TV.


481 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 61


  Reply # 870542 2-Aug-2013 10:53
Send private message

I asked Sky on Facebook when they made their announcement and they replied that they would be screened in HD.

94 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 12


  Reply # 870552 2-Aug-2013 11:05
One person supports this post
Send private message

Well after a sleepless night reviewing all the options I decided I couldn't do without watching the games live regardless of the quality.

So I signed up this morning as soon as my Telecom discount voucher arrived which gave me 15% off the full price. I've initially taken the $149 season pass (discounted to $127 with the voucher) and will review when the season starts whether I want to upgrade to premium.

So from a crappy internet connection at work I was able to watch Spurs beat South China at a constant 3000Kbps. Then I dragged the Man City v Sunderland match into the picture in picture window which takes up a small box that you can drag anywhere on the screen. There's a neat little feature where you can hot swap between the games with a simple click. So if you see a goal in another match you can quickly hot key to the game and it takes up the full screen.

Now to quality. I'll repeat what I've said before. The broadcast was adequate. Yes it could be better but it is eminently watchable. I was viewing this full screen on an HP 23" monitor. I couldn't find 4 games to trial the quad screen view so can't attest to that just yet. The feed has all the usual VCR buttons to replay, fast forward etc.

Bottom line is that for $127 I am content. 

822 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 75


  Reply # 870561 2-Aug-2013 11:15
Send private message

Dororke
Is there any indication how much it will be to upgrade to platinum? I think Tom Martin said on radio sport that it wasn't as simple as paying the difference. Just wondering if it says the price now you've subscribed.

85 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 14


  Reply # 870573 2-Aug-2013 11:29
Send private message

JarrodM: Dororke
Is there any indication how much it will be to upgrade to platinum? I think Tom Martin said on radio sport that it wasn't as simple as paying the difference. Just wondering if it says the price now you've subscribed.


They should now offer the premium content as a stand alone option without the full games.  That might bring them back some revenue from the fans of the 4 chosen clubs who decide to stick with delayed HD on sky. I'd be keen to have the highlights and review shows for $90 and the lower quality of that alone in conjuntion with HD on sky won't bother me too much.

25 posts

Geek
+1 received by user: 6


  Reply # 870574 2-Aug-2013 11:31
One person supports this post
Send private message

I signed up for the Premier League Pass last night. I thought I'd give it a proper test before commenting on the video quality.

The video quality is definitely not as good as what I'm used to with Sky Sport HD. The resolution is definitely not HD and doesn't scale at all well on to my 46" TV. It looks ok on my 10" tablet screen. The biggest problem I have with the video quality is the frame rate. It's only 30 frames per second and can't keep up with the fast paced action especially shots at goal where the ball is travelling quickly. The ball is blurry and it strains my eyes trying to watch it.

I've done some research and the Premier League Pass is based on the NeuLion platform. They are based in the US and provide the same service for NFL, NHL to name but a few. You can actually try out the NFL Game Pass for free in New Zealand to get a good idea of how it all works (https://gamepass.nfl.com/nflgp/secure/schedule). The video quality of the NFL is actually very impressive but this is because it has an option for 4500 Kbps allowing a higher resolution and the frame rate is 60 frames per second. The NHL is also shown at 60 frames per second to keep up with the quick moving puck.

I called Premier League Pass to offer my feedback and was told it must be to do with my internet speed or computer. After informing them that I'm an IT professional it was conceded that the video quality was lacking due to the content being streamed to a maximum of 3000 Kbps. This doesn't allow for HD resolution and the frame rate is restricted to 30 frames per second. They said that they are looking at it and the higher quality streaming option maybe offered at a later date but not before the start of the season and would be based on customer feedback.

If anyone feels the way I do... contact them and let them know!

Call them on 0800 PL PASS or 0800 757 277
Email them at plpsupport@neulion.com

94 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 12


  Reply # 870588 2-Aug-2013 11:45
Send private message

JarrodM: Dororke
Is there any indication how much it will be to upgrade to platinum? I think Tom Martin said on radio sport that it wasn't as simple as paying the difference. Just wondering if it says the price now you've subscribed.


Nothing is on their subscription site to allow you to buy an upgrade, but I'm guessing that they wouldn't turn down an offer to upgrade. I have assumed here that it would simply be $100 being the difference between the subscription rates, or maybe a little extra to cover their inconvenience if it isn't that simple.

What I'm really thinking here is that I will probably watch the highlights show on free to air which I can record/replay at will. I'm not too bothered about missing the pre-match chat, so unless there's something I've missed I can't see what extra benefit the platinum ticket offers.

6434 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1571


  Reply # 870608 2-Aug-2013 12:05
Send private message

walt12:
NonprayingMantis:
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?


Not enough investment.

1.  Delivering a sub-standard viewing experience & expecting that customers will lap it up
2.  Not investing in building out the delivery channels required to seamlessly deliver streaming into the living room.  Simply saying, "if there is enough demand we will build it" is not good enough.  Did 2degrees take that approach by way of example?

They bid up the rights while the incumbent stood back.  Perhaps they over-reached themselves & have had to cut their cloth accordingly on the quality of streaming experience.

Who knows - bottom line is that they have done it quite poorly & Sky have been able to trump them for a good proportion of that viewing market with their latest announcement.

I really want this to succeed but I have a fundamental objection to paying for an inferior experience.




sounds more like incompetence rather than greed, or just knowing that to stream HD is prohibitively expensive when you are a small fish, and most people don't watch sport in HD anyway on Sky

(BTW, yes 2Degrees did take this approach - they only launched their network in main built up areas, relying on VF for the rest of the coverage, and they didn't have 3G for quite a few months after launch. Nor did they have data plans beyond 50c/MB for quite some time.  Also their website was down for the first week or two at launch)

94 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 12


  Reply # 870612 2-Aug-2013 12:09
Send private message

and most people don't watch sport in HD anyway on Sky

Really? that does surprise me. Are there any stats that you know of here.

1 | ... | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | ... | 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.