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 | ... | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | ... | 210
85 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 14


  Reply # 872920 6-Aug-2013 21:58
Send private message

invisibleman18:
Lust:
JarrodM:
Lust: Calling all gooners. 9:30 tonight on SS1. Arsenal TV. Runs until 1AM.

Probably a replay of what was on from 4 til 7:30. Recap of Asia tour, Chelsea vs arsenal from 2011 and gunners greatest moments?


Yep. Didn't know it was on earlier.


Looks like it's in HD aswell for anyone worried whether it would be a website stream.


Yeah, it's great. Well chuffed.

29 posts

Geek
+1 received by user: 2


  Reply # 872946 7-Aug-2013 06:24
Send private message

NonprayingMantis:
gunnerpc:
NonprayingMantis:
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)


Netflix aren't even here, so they can pack their bags all they like.

I was referring to globally, obviously.


The netflix argument is all fine an dandy, but Netflix merely offers an alternative choice for people, at a different price. People can still choose to use a better quality product.

Here with PLP, out choice (was) gone, there was no alternative, you could take the crap PLP product or leave it. Now Sky sport have given some of us, who prefer full HD an option. Be it delayed.

I would love to see a vote of those who would
A. Choose the current PLP product
or
B What Sky Sports offered.

 If they were both available now.

I would choose B, because of HD. For me its quality not quantity.

85 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 14


  Reply # 872947 7-Aug-2013 06:42
Send private message

gunnerpc:
NonprayingMantis:
gunnerpc:
NonprayingMantis:
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)


Netflix aren't even here, so they can pack their bags all they like.

I was referring to globally, obviously.


The netflix argument is all fine an dandy, but Netflix merely offers an alternative choice for people, at a different price. People can still choose to use a better quality product.

Here with PLP, out choice (was) gone, there was no alternative, you could take the crap PLP product or leave it. Now Sky sport have given some of us, who prefer full HD an option. Be it delayed.

I would love to see a vote of those who would
A. Choose the current PLP product
or
B What Sky Sports offered.

 If they were both available now.

I would choose B, because of HD. For me its quality not quantity.


I'd pick sky. As a gooner I was getting quantity AND quality. Every game. The only sacrifice was that some of the games were slightly delayed. If I supported a club that only had 2/3 of it's games on. I'd go PLP.

As it stands. PLP. 38 live arsenal games in poor res or Sky all games (mid 50s) HD delayed.

1446 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 152

Subscriber

  Reply # 872948 7-Aug-2013 07:13
Send private message

I'd be interested to know the stats of those that are staying with sky and of those that have moved to PLP, as mentioned there are only 24 stoke fans signed up for PLP (if true). I wonder now that 4 of the top 6 have been mentioned on Sky or Sommet will that impact on the joining of those supporters to PLP?

There will always be the element of people who are happy with lower quality but live, same as there will be an element of 'true fans' who are comfortable with delayed but in HD, but I feel that the top '6' supporters are the majority here in NZ for both ex-pats and NZ nationals.

Will PLP release stats of customers by club I wonder.

546 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 43


  Reply # 872977 7-Aug-2013 08:13
Send private message

I choose to stay with SKY because of extra cost and poor quality of PLP. I was never going to ditch SKY.

Thinking aboout it all the big games were mostly on Sunday's UK time which meant that I didn't get to see them to Monday night so mostly always already knew the score. Coupled with the fact a lot of the season is in summer here which meant not alwys being around to watch the games until days later anyway.

As an aside I think that PLP probably will get the numbers they require this year. The biggest issue will be churn in my opinion and this will probably result from poor quality, ease of use (setup and controls) and users who do a cost v benefit analysis and decide not worth it. The latter can be a issue as you know the direct cost of the subscription as opposed to a subscription for multiple sports.

2107 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 166


  Reply # 872992 7-Aug-2013 08:59
Send private message

gunnerpc:
NonprayingMantis:
gunnerpc:
NonprayingMantis:
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)


Netflix aren't even here, so they can pack their bags all they like.

I was referring to globally, obviously.


The netflix argument is all fine an dandy, but Netflix merely offers an alternative choice for people, at a different price. People can still choose to use a better quality product.

Here with PLP, out choice (was) gone, there was no alternative, you could take the crap PLP product or leave it. Now Sky sport have given some of us, who prefer full HD an option. Be it delayed.

I would love to see a vote of those who would
A. Choose the current PLP product
or
B What Sky Sports offered.

 If they were both available now.

I would choose B, because of HD. For me its quality not quantity.


Sky, any and every day of the week. As a Liverpool supporter and thus the biggest team outside England, was getting just about every game live. Those I didn't, well, streaming was easy and being it was only maybe 3-4 times a season I could live with the rubbish quality.

480 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 61


  Reply # 873041 7-Aug-2013 10:43
Send private message

Sky. Arsenal are my major passion but my other big sporting ones are tennis and test cricket which I wouldn't get without Sky. I was initially going to get PLP, probably even once the quality (or lack thereof) of the videos became clear as watching Arsenal is one of the non-negotiable things in my life. Was unsure what to do with Sky given the other sports I watch. The announcement of Arsenal games on Sky has decided for me as I want to still be able to watch tennis and cricket aswell and I don't have to pay out extra for something else.

I've always recorded and watched first thing in the morning rather than live in the night anyway so live wasn't necessarily essential. It's slightly annoying to have to wait until later in the day but I can accept the tradeoff of still being able to see it and I'll just do my usual Sunday errands and things in the morning instead of after watching the game. Being in HD wasn't necessarily at the top of the list as I have only had that for the last season and up until then watched in SD, and I care more about still being able to watch it, but it's a nice bonus to be able to keep. Plus I also get the cup games we didn't previously get on Sky and whichever CL games don't get shown on ESPN too (and most of the time that ones that are don't get shown live anyway as there's only 1 channel and the bigger sides like Real Madrid, Barcelona, Man United etc usually get the live slot), provided we make it through the qualifier, and the qualifier itself which hasn't always been shown. The only people who ever text me about results is my parents and given they support Spurs (that's another issue in itself!) they'll also be waiting for delayed games on Sky anyway. I can manage to survive without going on Facebook until after I've seen the game as I don't tend to go online until the evening on Sundays anyway, and I don't have a smartphone.

480 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 61


  Reply # 873055 7-Aug-2013 11:04
Send private message

Regarding the confusion over the on-demand availability of 130 games and what happens when you lose connection and have to start again, a guy over on the Yellow Fever forums managed to get through to someone on the live chat and this is part of the conversation he copy and pasted:

14:17Julio B.: yes 250 games will be available all season, 130 games will be available on-demand in full only until the start of the next round

14:18Keegan Check: alright cheers. Also with those 130 games can you only view them once? If so, what happens if your internet cuts out halfway through a game, or you wish to watch half a game at a time? Or are they available to view multiple times, but only until the next match round?

14:19Julio B.: you can view them as many times as you can until the next round starts


This is different to what the FAQ suggests, that 130 can only be viewed once. This says that they can be viewed as many times as you want but only until the next round, while the other 250 are available all season. The PLP guy may have got it wrong but if true it would be good for those who want to share a membership with someone who may want to watch the same game separately.

61 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 2


  Reply # 873058 7-Aug-2013 11:17
Send private message

invisibleman18:
The only people who ever text me about results is my parents and given they support Spurs (that's another issue in itself!) they'll also be waiting for delayed games on Sky anyway. I can manage to survive without going on Facebook until after I've seen the game as I don't tend to go online until the evening on Sundays anyway, and I don't have a smartphone.


Hahahaha, interesting family dynamic then.

I always wonder why people complain about finding out the results via social media. The solution is simple, don't check it until after the game!!!

480 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 61


  Reply # 873075 7-Aug-2013 11:28
Send private message

Exactly. It's fairly simple to not check Facebook until you have watched something. However I do see how hard it can be to avoid when lots of people text you about it, or if you have a smartphone and get some kind of update from something without you meaning to.

Throw in a Man United supporting brother too! The parents were insufferable last season, with my Mum constantly texting things like "still 3rd," "super Bale again!" "Champions League here we come" etc every week. I generally never took the bait or got into arguments and after the final game sent a simple "mind the gap" which was not responded to. Things got quite heated when the 4 of us all lived in the same house!

29 posts

Geek
+1 received by user: 2

Trusted

  Reply # 873151 7-Aug-2013 12:39
Send private message

gunnerpc:

The netflix argument is all fine an dandy, but Netflix merely offers an alternative choice for people, at a different price. People can still choose to use a better quality product.

Here with PLP, out choice (was) gone, there was no alternative, you could take the crap PLP product or leave it.


This is my issue with PLP. They've taken the most popular league in the world, reduced the quality significantly and made it more difficult to watch on a TV.

In my ideal world, they would have kept the online streaming rights and sold the live TV rights back to Sky. That way the people who want the Premier League can sign up for PLP and those wanting things the way they were can continue with Sky.

gunnerpc:
I would love to see a vote of those who would
A. Choose the current PLP product
or
B What Sky Sports offered.

If they were both available now.


B, without a doubt.

954 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 222

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 873155 7-Aug-2013 12:48
Send private message

I've been dropping in on this discussion from time to time - not read everything!

I don't see why this is turning into a "who's the biggest fan" competition - I don't think that's the whole story (Man Utd, born and bred in Stretford in case you question my loyalties).

For me and my household we now have a slightly more than passing interest in our home teams - Man U for me and Hull City for the Missus. We could not justify paying an extra $310 per year to watch some of the games (last time I checked only some were broadcast - live or otherwise). We have no real interest in Rugby, Cricket, Golf ... etc etc so there would be no additional benefit.

On the other hand, paying $150 to watch every game we want - most of which when we want is a great option. I'm quite sure that NZ is being used as a beta test for a more global rollout of this technology - they will want it to succeed. Yes, performance may be bad at first, complaints will be high but I think this is the future.

It may be the worst $150 I've spent this year, but that's unlikely. Do I need it to be full HD - no, not in my opinion it just needs to be stable and fluid without buffering.

I'm wondering if the majority of the complaints are from people who already have Sky Sports and quite rightly feel an injustice that they may have to pay twice.




Procrastination eventually pays off.


1446 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 152

Subscriber

  Reply # 873163 7-Aug-2013 13:01
Send private message

StarBlazer, I would expect so, certainly I am a Sky subscriber and will continue to be so due to F1, cricket, Nascar etc... so my problem is that Man Utd where on the box all the time, in HD and live. Now to achieve the live aspect I have to pay more on top of my sub to watch it in lower quality with questionable fast movement panning...

For those that didn't have sky sports (or watch multiple sports) this is a godsend.

In fact I do believe there are 3 camps with this; those that don't have sky sports, those that did but don't mind lower quality viewing to get the games live, and those that don't or can't afford to pay for PLP and the lower quality.

For what it's worth, I am opposed to paying more for something that was included in my sub last year, but I'd consider it if the quality was a lot higher and the consumption via the TV was easier (think smart tv apps or WMC applications etc).

Chris

1879 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 369

Subscriber

  Reply # 873183 7-Aug-2013 13:35
Send private message

My issue is that as a Saints fan, I have had little ability to watch my team live (or even see them at all, for a few years!).

This year, I have the choice to see them about as many times as I used to, but have to put up with watching the same teams week in and week out (sorry - but I simply can't sit through a Man U-filled season) or pay for a service that i really won't get great value for money out of.

$150.00 up front gets me all games live and most games delayed, but able to be watched only once, from what I can tell.

Us Saints fans (and probably Stoke, Villa, Swansea and West Brom fans, amongst others) will get the opportunity to watch our teams, but if they're not one of the games that can be viewed more than once, it'll be impossible to watch (for example) the first half over breakfast on a Monday morning and the second half upon tucking the kids in bed...which, for a Sunday game (i.e. our Monday) is how I used to view games.

I also have gotten used to watching whatever game happened to be on, simply by flicking on the telly first thing on waking up on a sunday morning. I got to see some great (and really crap) football as a result - but it was first and foremost really convenient. I flicked it on and went and made the wife a cuppa, got the kids their breakfast and all the while, i did nothing to enable the viewing - simply flicked it on.
Now, I will have to log on to a site, choose the specific game I want to watch (not a random choice, that was sometimes a revelatin and other times a huge disappointment), bugger about sorting Airplay from my Mac to my Apple TV (oh, yeh, I'll have to switch that on, change the inut selection on my telly and hope the Wifi isn't playing up) and then hope like hell the picture quality is decent and that the game I have chosen turns out to be a goodun.
Like I say...I'm a Saints fan - but I have gotten used to not seeing them play every week. Now I will feel compelled to watch them, above all others...I'm just not sure if I like that idea.

For what it's worth, I have been thoroughly enjoying Sommet's coverage of the League Cup and Football league...quite refreshing.




Handsome Dan Has Spoken.

dwl

363 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 43


  Reply # 873202 7-Aug-2013 13:58
Send private message

StarBlazer:On the other hand, paying $150 to watch every game we want - most of which when we want is a great option. I'm quite sure that NZ is being used as a beta test for a more global rollout of this technology - they will want it to succeed. Yes, performance may be bad at first, complaints will be high but I think this is the future.

The technology has been operating for several years and in countries like the US is well established.  The report from NeuLion I referenced a few pages back (http://www.neulion.com/fls/30000/Corporate_Update_July2013.pdf?DB_OEM_ID=30000) shows the explosive growth over the last few years.

What we seem to have with the PLP offering is a bit rate that is less than offered for some other popular sports and limited support for devices that does make it more challenging to watch (at least for this season) - this is not a trivial issue and for some a real barrier.  The 2012 stats from the NeuLion report shows a big percentage of US users prefer delivery from devices other than just PC or IOS/Android (a wider range is supported by NeuLion but I expect for a customisation cost):


I think it is quite reasonable for PLP to have an offering that might be a subset of what is offered overseas as there will be cost constraints for the very limited market and population in NZ.  The benefit of more access to games is a real bonus.  We just need to remember that the technology can have higher quality and be more convenient than the current package but that may come at a price.  I am sure PLP are listening and the next few years will see big changes in how we consume content.

1 | ... | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | ... | 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.