Rugby 2019 coverage by Spark and TVNZ

Forums › Sports › Rugby 2019 coverage by Spark and TVNZ

1 | ... | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13

628 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 169
Inactive user

#1997688 17-Apr-2018 11:33

littleheaven:

I heard Simon Moutter on the radio last night saying that no new hardware would be required - it would work on existing things like AppleTV.

What a load of crock. Unless you have a Chromecast or Apple TV (maybe a smart tv too), you'll need some device in order to watch the game on your TV screen. Most of my friends have one of these, but there is a large majority that don't have such a device.

Talkiet

4819 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3934

Trusted

#1997710 17-Apr-2018 11:51

networkn:

Talkiet:

Actually, at the moment it's more like 92-95% of Spark customers can achieve HD playback, according to Youtube...https://www.google.com/get/videoqualityreport/... I expect that to improve over time.

This tallies with our internal testing as well as other metrics we monitor.

Certainly the RWC bitrates are going to be higher than Youtube, but there's 18 months of upgrades, preparation and product evolution to happen in the meantime.

Will 100% of BB customers be able to stream in flawless HD? No, of course not, and anyone that claims otherwise is overly optimistic or misinformed - however suggesting 60% is ANYTHING LIKE the real number is grossly wrong.

Cheers - N

Well, I am happy to be corrected, but this will show ONLY those people who have used youtube in the past 30 days? That might make up a high percentage of Spark customers, but there would be plenty of households who don't go to youtube because speeds wouldn't allow for it or isn't reliable because of speeds? 92-95% seems very high compared to what I see every day supporting customers with internet connections.

I accept you have 18 months to improve things, but there are plenty of areas, like Whangamata where there are no plans to put in UFB before the RWC, and VDSL is thin on the ground and the ADSL is really poor. We have a place there where there are 18 apartments, serviced by a poor VDSL connection. I couldn't imagine a good experience in trying to stream whilst there. Even if I wanted to blow a huge percentage of my mobile data cap on watching a game, I would assume that if 500 others wanted to do the same, the mobile data pool of bandwidth would be stretched. (again happy to be corrected)

Maybe 60% was low, but I still think unless Spark/TVNZ are very careful, a lot of people aren't going to get to see the games they might want to.

Out of curiosity, and I know you probably can't answer this, but do you think TVNZ did a good job of coverage of the CWG? As someone who watched a lot of sport, I felt it was *abysmal*. It was the worst sports coverage I can recall. Ever.

What is worse in my view, is that TVNZ don't seem to believe they did a poor job, which means they are unlikely to learn from it and do better next time.

For what it's worth, and I know you have likely no say in this, but if you were to sublicense the RWC to Sky, I'd happily pay my $100-150 that Spark has indicated it would cost, to access games via Sky.

I am not bagging on Spark or TVNZ specifically, I'd feel the same if any other providers had proposed the same thing.

I can see how many of our users use Youtube (aggregate numbers - we DO NOT look at individual user browsing) every hour, and it's phenomenally high. Yes the numbers are only based on those that use Youtube, but it's easily the most popular site with our users.

Regarding the CWG coverage - I didn't watch any of it so I have no idea whether it was good or not... In fact I didn't even realise it was on (except for a small bump in Akamai traffic!)

Cheers - N

Please note all comments are from my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

littleheaven

2130 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 327

#1997715 17-Apr-2018 11:55

I think the point was that they're not producing a proprietary box. Obviously people will need a streaming device of some sort, but the aim is to have it run on existing ones that people use for other purposes. I understand not everyone will have such a device, but those that do will not need to invest in another.

Geek girl. Freelance copywriter and editor at Unmistakable.co.nz.

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 545

#1997718 17-Apr-2018 11:59

Talkiet:

I can see how many of our users use Youtube (aggregate numbers - we DO NOT look at individual user browsing) every hour, and it's phenomenally high. Yes the numbers are only based on those that use Youtube, but it's easily the most popular site with our users.

Regarding the CWG coverage - I didn't watch any of it so I have no idea whether it was good or not... In fact I didn't even realise it was on (except for a small bump in Akamai traffic!)

Cheers - N

The NZOnair Screen report showed exactly that - Youtube is by far the most popular source of online video.

And most of the CWG streams were highlights and replays (2.3m over the event - or some 150k/day average? which makes it big from a TVNZ Ondemand point of view but not an avalanche event). The highest number of concurrent streams were for the netball @ 11am (TVNZ may have reported a new record since then (last Wednesday I think)). It totalled just under 7,000. Not exactly a huge load.

Sixth Labour Government - "Vision without Execution is just Hallucination"

evilengineer

466 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 367

#1997721 17-Apr-2018 12:02

stinger:

littleheaven:

I heard Simon Moutter on the radio last night saying that no new hardware would be required - it would work on existing things like AppleTV.

What a load of crock. Unless you have a Chromecast or Apple TV (maybe a smart tv too), you'll need some device in order to watch the game on your TV screen. Most of my friends have one of these, but there is a large majority that don't have such a device.

What?????

If Spark release a full suite of Android/iOS/SmartTV apps (which they no doubt will) then somewhat obviously, "no new hardware would be required" if you already own such a device.

Equally obviously, if you don't own such a device then some sort of additional purchase will be required.

Which is why it would make sense for Spark to also sell/bundle a pre-confirgured plug+play streamer for those still living in the naughties.

linw

2893 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1205

#1997888 17-Apr-2018 15:06

Wonder about getting a smart TV app that will run perfectly on all brands, though.

Mighty Ape

Shop now at Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

networkn

Networkn
32871 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15469

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1997894 17-Apr-2018 15:11

linw:

Wonder about getting a smart TV app that will run perfectly on all brands, though.

No such thing, unfortunately.

Smart TV's often run different OS's and versions of those OS's dependant on brand and age.

NzBeagle

971 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 128

Trusted

#1997900 17-Apr-2018 15:18

linw:

Wonder about getting a smart TV app that will run perfectly on all brands, though.

Something along the lines of; Sign up for 24 months with Spark fibre, and you'll get a free chromecast device and half price sports package for 3 months, RWC inclusive. ... perhaps

networkn

Networkn
32871 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15469

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1997903 17-Apr-2018 15:23

I think it's a bad idea and a good idea for Spark to sell a streaming device. Bad because it's a device to support when you can't control all the environmental factors that make it a seamless experience (unlike a sky box for example) and if they did provide one, an Apple TV (*gag*) would in my opinion be the device of choice because it's locked down and already has a polished end-user experience and UI. A good idea because they can somewhat offer some support for those users who buy one to provide a likely better experience.

For technical people, it won't matter too much but for those who like the Sky box simplicity, you need something with limited options and ease of use.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1998010 17-Apr-2018 18:39

networkn:

I think it's a bad idea and a good idea for Spark to sell a streaming device. Bad because it's a device to support when you can't control all the environmental factors that make it a seamless experience (unlike a sky box for example) and if they did provide one, an Apple TV (*gag*) would in my opinion be the device of choice because it's locked down and already has a polished end-user experience and UI. A good idea because they can somewhat offer some support for those users who buy one to provide a likely better experience.

For technical people, it won't matter too much but for those who like the Sky box simplicity, you need something with limited options and ease of use.

Gag? Lol. Yeah Apple is Apple but its not as locked down these days. Apps get vetted great. My ATV4 has all NZ apps on it, they will all get updated.

Oh the days of Apple vs Android threads! (I almost got banned once, but dont tell anyone)

Back to your post. being a telco is hard yakker. We see Spark doing Lightbox. A platform change soon will support movies and sport. Others do power. Its a case of the telco function, IMHO, being bread and butter, hold the customer base, and diversify. Power, movies, sport is all that.

djtOtago

1181 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 605

#1998045 17-Apr-2018 19:40

Nah

Spark should publish a plug-in for Kodi.

Then all those people who bought a MyBox or what every they are marketed as these days will have a legit use for them :)

Geekzone support

Support Geekzone with one-off or recurring donations Donate via PressPatron.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1998047 17-Apr-2018 19:44

djtOtago:

Nah

Spark should publish a plug-in for Kodi.

Then all those people who bought a MyBox or what every they are marketed as these days will have a legit use for them :)

Thats a good idea, but it starts to get hard if they cater for every device out there, and the version 1.0, 2.0 etc of them.

kornflake

409 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 56

#1998067 17-Apr-2018 20:11

Can any one educate me, in how Spark are going to mitigate (and Voda and 2 degrees) the back haul on cell towers been smashed to bits during the broadcasts, for those connecting on rural wireless connections? Are cdns going to be put in each individual tower.

Edit: clarified I was asking about fixed rural wireless

evilengineer

466 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 367

#1998078 17-Apr-2018 20:32

networkn:

I think it's a bad idea and a good idea for Spark to sell a streaming device. Bad because it's a device to support when you can't control all the environmental factors that make it a seamless experience (unlike a sky box for example) and if they did provide one, an Apple TV (*gag*) would in my opinion be the device of choice because it's locked down and already has a polished end-user experience and UI. A good idea because they can somewhat offer some support for those users who buy one to provide a likely better experience.

For technical people, it won't matter too much but for those who like the Sky box simplicity, you need something with limited options and ease of use.

I can see where you're coming from.

But an Apple TV is seriously expensive for what it is.

Just imagine all the "Average Joes" complaining about being taken to the cleaners for a $100 pass and another $250-$300 for an Apple TV!

sdav

846 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 193

#1998080 17-Apr-2018 20:35

vexxxboy:

GV27:

Dairyxox:

Well I'm chuffed. I'll be buying it, and I would have never purchased Sky's product.

It will be interesting to see how this shakes up the market.

I won't be. I only have so many $$ a month to throw at things and my Spark bill comes first and I still have to pay for Sky.

Unbundling of sports rights will result in a massive loss of value for sports fans who follow more than one sport. This is probably not a road we can come back from once we start to go down it.

i did a cost comparison on the sports i watch on Sky and the cost of watching them with a yearly subscription as individual sports and it worked out at just under a $1000 a year on Sky and just under $2000 as buying the subs, double the cost, and with Sky i could watch one sport and record 2 others i wanted to watch and record sports when the times were off , hard to do that with streams.

I did the same but it was cheaper for me. Four sports (excluding cricket because I couldn't find any decent apps/passes... But I did discover that in Australia you can get all of the Aussie home games including BBL for $30... for the season). All the passes were slightly different but none were available in New Zealand because the only way Sky can make money off their rights is to have exclusive deals unfortunately. That doesn't seem very competitive or offering New Zealander's choice :-P

I don't know why Fanpass has to be so nerfed at the price it is now. I also still think Sky plan to make Fanpass mobile only in the future. It's just what I take when I read between lines.

I welcome the future where we not only have regional lock outs like now but also screen size lock outs. What. The. F***.

1 | ... | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13