The Official 2018 Formula 1 Thread

Forums › Sports › The Official 2018 Formula 1 Thread

1 | ... | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27

2480 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 802

Lifetime subscriber

#2124659 13-Nov-2018 11:19

Benoire:

Also exclusivity does not equal monopoly as long as the bidding for the exclusivity was open to all; it then simply comes down to content owners perspective on rights and amount bid.

Economically, "exclusivity" does mean monopoly!

Sky has been the classic "pure monopoly" where there is only one supplier of a product in a market.

The definition of a monopoly is not concerned with how the monopoly is achieved, whether through open market bidding or a closed backroom deal. However, there are subcategories of monopoly that can be used to denote the most significant barriers to entry, for example:

geographical monopoly i.e. we're too small and too far away
technological monopoly i.e. for some time, nobody else had implemented a competitive delivery system for our market

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2124664 13-Nov-2018 11:36

Hammerer:

Benoire:

Also exclusivity does not equal monopoly as long as the bidding for the exclusivity was open to all; it then simply comes down to content owners perspective on rights and amount bid.

Economically, "exclusivity" does mean monopoly!

Sky has been the classic "pure monopoly" where there is only one supplier of a product in a market.

The definition of a monopoly is not concerned with how the monopoly is achieved, whether through open market bidding or a closed backroom deal. However, there are subcategories of monopoly that can be used to denote the most significant barriers to entry, for example:

geographical monopoly i.e. we're too small and too far away
technological monopoly i.e. for some time, nobody else had implemented a competitive delivery system for our market

Cannot agree it ever was a pure monopoly. Telecom was when it owned he only copper network in NZ. There has always been a means for another to compete if they wanted to, particularly overseas companies. Too far away was never an issue

Exclusivity, this means every channel is a monopoly as the vast majority of content is one one channel and not the others.

Jaxson

8172 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1332

Trusted

#2124675 13-Nov-2018 12:01

Hence the word 'virtual' monopoly. From a customer perspective, there was nowhere else you could purchase this content from, so you had to pay what Sky charged or miss out.

Yes other companies were not excluded from competing for the rights, but there was only one major player in town for a very long time.

Not worth arguing over the technicalities, you couldn't buy the service from another provider, so there was little to keep pricing in check.

Nothing changes now, if the rights have simply moved to another provider, we just have to hope their prices are a bit more gentle.

One day I'd love to be able to have F1 pro TV and source straight from the content provider, rather than via a middle man (a concept that is very old fashioned in today's interconnected global world).

I'm really hoping Spark offer a competitive pricing package, as whilst they have exclusive rights to the F1 content, customers will still need Sky for the rugby. I'd like to hope this creates a bit of a competition type situation.

It's interesting how times change. I now have zero interest in a Sky satellite install, as now we have fibre I'd prefer a TV app that I can fire up and stream the content when I want it. Sky have sunk a lot of money into their distribution method and DVR boxes etc, but now I just want the content. Satellite is still perfect for rural customers, where fibre isn't coming any time soon though.

Any word of pricing for legal F1 supply in NZ in 2019 yet?

Hammerer

2480 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 802

Lifetime subscriber

#2124681 13-Nov-2018 12:17

tdgeek:

Exclusivity, this means every channel is a monopoly as the vast majority of content is one one channel and not the others.

The definition of a monopoly is based upon what IS not what MIGHT BE. So when I wanted to watch Formula 1, I used my SkyTV subscription because none of those potential competitors ever provided me with access.

A monopoly exists even when it only occurs because nobody else chooses to compete.

tdgeek:

Exclusivity, this means every channel is a monopoly as the vast majority of content is one one channel and not the others.

Two logical fallacies.

Exclusivity can equate to monopoly but all items/products don't become monopolies just because they are exclusive.

You also fail to consider how a product has a price. While a product can be a channel or even an individual show on a channel, your example is somewhat ludicrous because Sky sells packages that are usually bundles of channels so there isn't a price for an individual channel. But it is possible to define a product which is just one channel (e.g. SOHO, Rialto) or just one show on a channel (e.g. All Black rugby games or pay per view shows which are even more discrete products).

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2124723 13-Nov-2018 13:18

Hammerer:

tdgeek:

Exclusivity, this means every channel is a monopoly as the vast majority of content is one one channel and not the others.

The definition of a monopoly is based upon what IS not what MIGHT BE. So when I wanted to watch Formula 1, I used my SkyTV subscription because none of those potential competitors ever provided me with access.

A monopoly exists even when it only occurs because nobody else chooses to compete.

tdgeek:

Exclusivity, this means every channel is a monopoly as the vast majority of content is one one channel and not the others.

Two logical fallacies.

Exclusivity can equate to monopoly but all items/products don't become monopolies just because they are exclusive.

You also fail to consider how a product has a price. While a product can be a channel or even an individual show on a channel, your example is somewhat ludicrous because Sky sells packages that are usually bundles of channels so there isn't a price for an individual channel. But it is possible to define a product which is just one channel (e.g. SOHO, Rialto) or just one show on a channel (e.g. All Black rugby games or pay per view shows which are even more discrete products).

Not ludicrous or a fallacy. A monopoly is a monopoly, and if you want to pick on F1 or anything else, then your incorrect definition also applies. Thus monopolies exist everywhere, but in actual fact they are rare. Telecom when they owned the copper network is a monopoly. No competition, and no ability for anyone else to compete if they wanted to.

Exclusivity and how that is used is entirely another topic, its Marketing, and that is everywhere

frankv

5705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3666

Lifetime subscriber

#2124759 13-Nov-2018 14:32

Exclusivity is just Marketspeak for monopoly. A monopoly exists when only one player has a product to sell in a particular market. Monopolies occur when there is a barrier to entry into the market; barriers may be legal, economic, social or whatever.

If a seller grants an exclusive license to someone, then they are creating a monopoly by legally preventing others from selling the same product.

Geekzone

Want to support Geekzone and browse the site without the ads? Subscribe to Geekzone now (monthly, annual and lifetime options).

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2124794 13-Nov-2018 15:09

frankv:

Exclusivity is just Marketspeak for monopoly. A monopoly exists when only one player has a product to sell in a particular market. Monopolies occur when there is a barrier to entry into the market; barriers may be legal, economic, social or whatever.

If a seller grants an exclusive license to someone, then they are creating a monopoly by legally preventing others from selling the same product.

So, there are many monopolies then. Many in media especially.

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 589
Inactive user

#2127815 16-Nov-2018 10:28

tdgeek:

Jaxson:

Just seemed quite entitled to me, a full air of arrogance that showed a level of maturity that just isn't there.
He wasn't under blue flags, so didn't need to get out of the way, but regardless if you're leading a race you protect your vehicle.

Racing incident to me.

Agree. I thought he had got over his need to win on Turn 1, pass everyone now mentality. Seems not. Priority 1 is the chequered flag, you have the time it takes to watch a movie to get there. And you get free passes when others make these mistakes, so bonuses there playing the 71 lap game. Also bonuses for saving tyres when you choose your battles rather than slide and lockup on high risk manoeuvres

Quality onboard footage from Ocon's car. This gives the full lead up to the incident.

https://streamable.com/fkpqj

I find it extremely difficult to hold Ocon 100% at fault for this.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2127825 16-Nov-2018 10:47

Very much agreed

Bung

6734 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2927

Subscriber

#2127836 16-Nov-2018 11:13

The commentator Peter Windsor puts it as "Max hits Ocon" rather than the other way around. I didn't watch the race but he says that Verstappen drove through the same corners side by side with other drivers earlier in the race so he had nothing other than bloodimindedness as a reason to shut the door knowing that there was a car alongside. The 2 drivers have F2 history apparently.

Jaxson

8172 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1332

Trusted

#2127851 16-Nov-2018 11:21

Bottom line is with a race win on the cards, why take that approach.

It's that thing with all sports people, where at what point does that competitive urge to win actually become a personality defect. If he was smarter he'd have stayed right out of the way, rather than risk his car in a pointless collision. I think Hamilton mentioned something that in the room afterwards.

I think Max has heaps of skill, especially some of his wet weather drives, but some of that skill comes from others needing to get out of his way.

If someone makes a stupid move that's going to take both of you out, and you see that coming and get out of the way, the silly person thinks they're amazing making the pass, but really it's the good driving of those around them that ensures there are still two working cars on the track after the manoeuvre.

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

Batman

Mad Scientist
30014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2127898 16-Nov-2018 12:46

Jaxson:
Bottom line is with a race win on the cards, why take that approach.

It's that thing with all sports people, where at what point does that competitive urge to win actually become a personality defect. If he was smarter he'd have stayed right out of the way, rather than risk his car in a pointless collision. I think Hamilton mentioned something that in the room afterwards.

I think Max has heaps of skill, especially some of his wet weather drives, but some of that skill comes from others needing to get out of his way.

If someone makes a stupid move that's going to take both of you out, and you see that coming and get out of the way, the silly person thinks they're amazing making the pass, but really it's the good driving of those around them that ensures there are still two working cars on the track after the manoeuvre.

He has lots to learn that Max guy. Lewis could have had 6 titles but due to his Max head in one season he lost out to a Ferrari i think, can remember who. Either massa or raikonen i think. lewis has obviously learnt from everything to get him where he is.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2127912 16-Nov-2018 13:14

Horner said "“It just wasn't at all well handled by Ocon and just totally irresponsible. Max even had to defend into the first turn. It was totally irresponsible to even be dreaming of racing him.”

Well, Ocon wasn't racing Max, he was racing the midfield cars, and waiting behind a car thats got old tyres isn't a good strategy.

Batman

Mad Scientist
30014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2127916 16-Nov-2018 13:26

Either max learns or max doesn t learn. But we need some one, or two to challenge Hamilton

Amosnz

569 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 131

Lifetime subscriber

#2127959 16-Nov-2018 14:29

Watching that onboard with team radio's is pretty conclusive to me, I was a bit on the fence earlier as to why someone mid-pack would try to overtake the race leader.

a) Max said Ocon was pushing him, and Max knew he was on newer tyres.

b) Max would have seen the blue flags for Ocon/ Hamilton when they first exited the pits, and therefore known if Ocon got past him and slowed up, he'd get blue flagged again for Max.

A mid-pack trying to unlap themselves past a leader likely doesnt happen very often, but shutting the door on turn 2 like that after taking a defensive line into 1 was a bad call. Learning curve for Max.

Speedtest

1 | ... | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27