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 | ... | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | ... | 210
61 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 2


  Reply # 872532 6-Aug-2013 10:08
Send private message

Lust nailed it!

I agree that Watching live > Knowing the result and watching in HD. If those were the only 2 options, then live wins every time.

But watching in HD > watching in SD and watching in HD is what a lot of us have been doing for the last few years. That's the rub. New technology offerings are supposed to be better than old ones. PLP isn't better in this area (quality).


263 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 31


  Reply # 872542 6-Aug-2013 10:25
2 people support this post
Send private message

schmichael: Lust nailed it!

I agree that Watching live > Knowing the result and watching in HD. If those were the only 2 options, then live wins every time.

But watching in HD > watching in SD and watching in HD is what a lot of us have been doing for the last few years. That's the rub. New technology offerings are supposed to be better than old ones. PLP isn't better in this area (quality).



Totally agree - however you're watching it you want the best quality and PLP is, at the moment, very poor.  Also, for those who do want to watch it live, you have more of a reason to boycott PLP as you have alternative methods of watching whereas for those who want to watch slightly delayed (by which I mean if a game is at 1am Sunday you want to watch as soon as you wake up) there is the issue of trying to find a delayed stream or download it.

Also, as has been raised, the excuse from PLP that the internet infrastructure is not up to standard is frankly rubbish.  The vast majority of people in New Zealand now have access to 10-15mb minimum downloand speeds and high data caps/all-you-can-eat plans are widely available.  PLP seem to be under the impression that the majority of people who will sign up to their service are technically inept or don't have the capability, speed or caps to be able to watch an HD stream.  Based on uptake of streaming services overseas, it is actually those people who do have high speed services, high data caps/unlimited caps and the technical nous to set up streaming TV in their homes who are at the forefront of uptake of new streaming services and from the discussions on this board, the yellowfever board, NBR and discussions I have had with friends and colleagues it is exactly those people who were looking to sign up with PLP and are now saying no or being very hesitant.  Ask yourself this - how many joe blogs people do you know, and who have an iphone/ipad, know how to set up homesharing and airplay stuff to their tv?  Very few I would imagine and yet PLP are expecting that people will just "naturally/easily understand/grasp" how to do this.

PLP - stop being so condescending to the people you need to impress most i.e. us early adopters who, if you get the service right, will be your greatest champions, or, if you get it wrong, will be your harshest critics.

 
 
 
 


263 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 31


  Reply # 872546 6-Aug-2013 10:31
Send private message

djrm:
Otagolad:
djrm:
Benoire: @djrm,

You'll find a laptop is 'ok' due to the lower resolution of the screen and higher PPI count of the screen. It's when you connect it to a larger TV that it goes to crap!


Absolutely but it's the only option and they have said that they will be working on SMART tv apps now that many people have aksed for them.


DJRM,

Are you Tim Martin in disguise (Tim Martin effectively said the same thing about sucking it up as PLP are the only option)?  It may be the only legal option for live coverage, but I can assure you it is not the only option and a number of the "other" options offer higher quality streams than the PLP cowboys. 

As an aside, I was watching the live stream of the Dolphins v Cowboys NFL pre-season Hall of Fame game today and even though the stream is increased at 4500k, the quality was on another planet from the PLP streams - PLP must be the tightest operators in the world if they're not prepared to fork out for a decent quality stream - Kama bites you in the backside sometimes and that's what SKY's announcement last week did.


Just because I have a different view to you doesn't mean that I am Tim Martin not does it mean I work for PLP.

I have never seen another stream anywhere near the quality that you proclaim.

As others have said watching delayed coverage is just not an option.


DJRM - sorry if I've offended you - I made the statement tongue-in-cheek as it was so similar to what Martin said in his NBR article.  Sadly this type of humour is very hard to convey on a board without the use of emoticons etc.

As regards quality streams - I'm not going to name the sites (look around and you'll find them), however I have regularly watched HD streams of rugby, cricket, NFL, college football, soccer both here in NZ and overseas that have been completely free.

26 posts

Geek
+1 received by user: 3


  Reply # 872550 6-Aug-2013 10:33
Send private message

Live vs Delayed....?

The debate over whether watching a game live or delayed is as fascinating as Schrödinger’s Cat thought experiment….

When watching a delayed TV game you do not know if the result will be a positive one, (your team wins), or a negative one, (your team does not win), but the only way to find out is to either ‘open the box’ by fast forwarding or looking the result up on the internet, or watching the game to its conclusion. Therefore until you finish watching the game, or ‘open the box’, the result of a delayed TV game is simultaneously positive and negative, and does not become a reality until it is resolved by your direct observation. This is indisputably logical….

Alternatively, if you watch a live game on TV thinking that your support in some small way affects the result, you are exhibiting a belief in ‘remote influencing’ or telekinesis ….! You know that makes you a nut job, right…?

Some of you are either quantum physicists or suitable cases for mental treatment…. ?

Either way, watching in HD is better than SD, regardless of whether it is live or delayed. So long as you do not know the result that is……

23 posts

Geek
+1 received by user: 1


  Reply # 872557 6-Aug-2013 10:47
Send private message

schmichael: Lust nailed it!

I agree that Watching live > Knowing the result and watching in HD. If those were the only 2 options, then live wins every time.

But watching in HD > watching in SD and watching in HD is what a lot of us have been doing for the last few years. That's the rub. New technology offerings are supposed to be better than old ones. PLP isn't better in this area (quality).



I suppose new technology may not necessary mean better quality; it can be better portability (i.e. watching the game on a mobile device while on the way to work), or open up a more affordable (legal) option to people who previously cannot access it (i.e. fights with flatmates over TV, landlord do not allow sky tv, or the min cost for getting skysports is too much)Surely PLP will have to up their game (in terms of quality) over time in order to maintain and attract new customer for it to be a successful business.  

To be honest, I wasn't even expecting PLP to be able to have the platform up & running and thoroughly tested before the new season starts, the time-frame was just too tight from when announced (winning bid).  It just too much of a risk to start the development without knowing the bidding result.

85 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 14


  Reply # 872558 6-Aug-2013 10:50
One person supports this post
Send private message

spiglord: Live vs Delayed....?

The debate over whether watching a game live or delayed is as fascinating as Schrödinger’s Cat thought experiment….

When watching a delayed TV game you do not know if the result will be a positive one, (your team wins), or a negative one, (your team does not win), but the only way to find out is to either ‘open the box’ by fast forwarding or looking the result up on the internet, or watching the game to its conclusion. Therefore until you finish watching the game, or ‘open the box’, the result of a delayed TV game is simultaneously positive and negative, and does not become a reality until it is resolved by your direct observation. This is indisputably logical….

Alternatively, if you watch a live game on TV thinking that your support in some small way affects the result, you are exhibiting a belief in ‘remote influencing’ or telekinesis ….! You know that makes you a nut job, right…?

Some of you are either quantum physicists or suitable cases for mental treatment…. ?

Either way, watching in HD is better than SD, regardless of whether it is live or delayed. So long as you do not know the result that is……


GET IN!

:)

6434 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1571


  Reply # 872562 6-Aug-2013 10:57
Send private message

spiglord: Live vs Delayed....?

The debate over whether watching a game live or delayed is as fascinating as Schrödinger’s Cat thought experiment….

When watching a delayed TV game you do not know if the result will be a positive one, (your team wins), or a negative one, (your team does not win), but the only way to find out is to either ‘open the box’ by fast forwarding or looking the result up on the internet, or watching the game to its conclusion. Therefore until you finish watching the game, or ‘open the box’, the result of a delayed TV game is simultaneously positive and negative, and does not become a reality until it is resolved by your direct observation. This is indisputably logical….

Alternatively, if you watch a live game on TV thinking that your support in some small way affects the result, you are exhibiting a belief in ‘remote influencing’ or telekinesis ….! You know that makes you a nut job, right…?

Some of you are either quantum physicists or suitable cases for mental treatment…. ?

Either way, watching in HD is better than SD, regardless of whether it is live or delayed. So long as you do not know the result that is……


your team not winning could also be a positive result - if it's a draw, which happens quite a lot.

61 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 2


  Reply # 872563 6-Aug-2013 10:58
Send private message

kipkip:

I suppose new technology may not necessary mean better quality; it can be better portability (i.e. watching the game on a mobile device while on the way to work), or open up a more affordable (legal) option to people who previously cannot access it (i.e. fights with flatmates over TV, landlord do not allow sky tv, or the min cost for getting skysports is too much)



Agreed. However, I would add that new technology should not mean worse quality. i.e. the quality should remain the same, at worst. No one could argue that this is the case here.

I am all for competition. Hopefully, service will get better and prices will too. However, my selfish point of view is that I used to have HD quality games, live or recorded, available to watch at my convenience on my 50" plasma. Now, I do not and that is a major step backwards IMHO.

85 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 14


  Reply # 872573 6-Aug-2013 11:20
Send private message

NonprayingMantis:
spiglord: Live vs Delayed....?

The debate over whether watching a game live or delayed is as fascinating as Schrödinger’s Cat thought experiment….

When watching a delayed TV game you do not know if the result will be a positive one, (your team wins), or a negative one, (your team does not win), but the only way to find out is to either ‘open the box’ by fast forwarding or looking the result up on the internet, or watching the game to its conclusion. Therefore until you finish watching the game, or ‘open the box’, the result of a delayed TV game is simultaneously positive and negative, and does not become a reality until it is resolved by your direct observation. This is indisputably logical….

Alternatively, if you watch a live game on TV thinking that your support in some small way affects the result, you are exhibiting a belief in ‘remote influencing’ or telekinesis ….! You know that makes you a nut job, right…?

Some of you are either quantum physicists or suitable cases for mental treatment…. ?

Either way, watching in HD is better than SD, regardless of whether it is live or delayed. So long as you do not know the result that is……


your team not winning could also be a positive result - if it's a draw, which happens quite a lot.


True but in the email I got from PLP, it said that only 24 Stoke fans had registered so there's not many out there that would consider a draw a good reuslt!

6434 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1571


  Reply # 872575 6-Aug-2013 11:24
One person supports this post
Send private message

schmichael:
kipkip:

I suppose new technology may not necessary mean better quality; it can be better portability (i.e. watching the game on a mobile device while on the way to work), or open up a more affordable (legal) option to people who previously cannot access it (i.e. fights with flatmates over TV, landlord do not allow sky tv, or the min cost for getting skysports is too much)



Agreed. However, I would add that new technology should not mean worse quality. i.e. the quality should remain the same, at worst. No one could argue that this is the case here.

I am all for competition. Hopefully, service will get better and prices will too. However, my selfish point of view is that I used to have HD quality games, live or recorded, available to watch at my convenience on my 50" plasma. Now, I do not and that is a major step backwards IMHO.


I guess Netflix should probably pack up their bags and shut down then,  because the stream quality of most content on Netflix is well below the quality of Broadcast HD....

(or maybe some people are willing to trade off picture quality for improved librry and on demand capabilities)

229 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 12


  Reply # 872578 6-Aug-2013 11:31
Send private message

NonprayingMantis:I guess Netflix should probably pack up their bags and shut down then,  because the stream quality of most content on Netflix is well below the quality of Broadcast HD....

(or maybe some people are willing to trade off picture quality for improved librry and on demand capabilities)


Haha.

It's a good point though. The bit rate of Netflix's "Super HD" is well below what is being broadcast on Sky Sport HD but it's still pretty good. Why? Because they encode it properly.

Bit rate doesn't tell the whole story.

Some AV purists moan that "Super HD" still doesn't have the equivalent bit rate of a blu ray, but its fine for the majority of people.

61 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 2


  Reply # 872579 6-Aug-2013 11:34
Send private message

NonprayingMantis:

I guess Netflix should probably pack up their bags and shut down then,  because the stream quality of most content on Netflix is well below the quality of Broadcast HD....

(or maybe some people are willing to trade off picture quality for improved librry and on demand capabilities)


The difference is that there is an alternative to Netflix for those that want better quality. There is no alternative to PLP for live footy...

21620 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4432

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 872583 6-Aug-2013 11:39
Send private message

schmichael:
Agreed. However, I would add that new technology should not mean worse quality. i.e. the quality should remain the same, at worst. No one could argue that this is the case here.

I am all for competition. Hopefully, service will get better and prices will too. However, my selfish point of view is that I used to have HD quality games, live or recorded, available to watch at my convenience on my 50" plasma. Now, I do not and that is a major step backwards IMHO.


New technology has often meant worse quality than the inconvienenent incumbent. early streaming audio vs CD or FM, VHS/DVD vs going to the cinema, first gen ebook readers vs a printed page etc have all traded quality for convenience .

The thing here is that to most people PLP is not offering convenience over sky sports on a mysky HDi to offset the drop in quality.




Richard rich.ms

61 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 2


  Reply # 872585 6-Aug-2013 11:43
Send private message

True. However, none of your examples held exclusive rights to the content. The discerning viewer/reader/listener could still enjoy the quality they were used to by remaining with the incumbent.

NZ footy fans are being denied that choice and that is what is annoying.

21620 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4432

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 872615 6-Aug-2013 12:20
Send private message

Well if they want competition in the pay tv space, then this insanity of exclusive broadcasters needs to be ended




Richard rich.ms

1 | ... | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | ... | 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.


Geekzone Live »

Our community of supporters help make Geekzone possible. Click the button below to join them.

Support Geezone on PressPatron



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.