| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 145549 | 2017-11-29 21:08:00 | Sky TV : Clucthing at straws | 1101 (13337) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1442792 | 2017-11-30 08:23:00 | Agreed but let us be realistic. The CEO and Directors of Sky will completely believe this. Why? Because satellite and cable companies (which include BSkyB) in other countries are saying exactly the same thing. Do a search. There are loads of articles promising the end of cable etc because of the internet providers, like Netflix. Be interesting to see what happens after the end of net neutrality tho... Anyway. I'm in the older group and yes I have basic Sky + MySky. So Freeview and Netflix. Really? To be honest Netflix is quite limited if you want to find interesting stuff every day 365. Sky has 50 channels including 1 hour delays of 4 channels. Hard not to find something reasonable. I don't like it but until the fibre comes to rural areas, I'm stuck. Sky are WELL behind the times. If they changed their business plans to what people ask for they would do well. Stop charging outrageous prices for content, that repeats time and time again, way to many ads for a paid service and give better options. Sky aren't silly. They are trying to make a better model. But to be fair many Sky customers only use their computers for email and browsing. Setting up a Netflix connection is beyond them. I know a lot of people who have no idea what is possible so they ring their children to come around and sort things. My neighbour is struggling with an email which exceeds the screen. Ctrl -. Easy but utterly beyond her. Plus it is unreadable at that size. To the best of my knowledge Sky only make money on Sport and maybe Movies. Sky Basic gets the customers but it is break-even. I would like to dump Sky but have limited internet. My son when he visits blows through it in a week. |
Winston001 (3612) | ||
| 1442793 | 2017-11-30 19:16:00 | I don't like it but until the fibre comes to rural areas, I'm stuck. . No VDSl either? I don't like the trawling through lists to dl or stream...that's why I stick with Sky. I guess it's like Amazon and books. (Not counting postage) I buy most of my SF from a local guy, he has a list of new releases every month, with pic and short synopsis. Amazon? I've tried it, new only, but the crud that comes up....and trying to find the actually new, etc...beats me what it is with their database.... I want to switch on the TV and there is a program. Not go through lists and list of crap to find something of interest, then dl then watch. |
pctek (84) | ||
| 1442794 | 2017-11-30 21:16:00 | I'm not a sky customer because there's not enough on it of interest to me to convince me to spend that much. Also I don't like package deals where 90% of the channels are of no interest to me whatsoever. However I do sympathise with them a little. Streaming services like Netflix have a much lower overhead per customer and a much bigger user base. They benefit from economies of scale and also because someone else builds and pays for the distribution network for them, Netflix only have to provide servers and content. Radio transmitters and satellite bandwidth are comparatively expensive, and sky have to buy content from overseas providers as well. The only way I can see that they could compete would be to move to a streaming model themselves but that would mean abandoning all those customers that can't get or don't want decent internet. I think sky will struggle to survive but other than becoming just another streaming service I'm not sure what they could do about it. Also I don't think it's fair to compare a sky subscription to a Netflix one directly, how much do you pay for the internet and how much of that usage is Netflix? In my case it's approx $90 a month and I could easily see Netflix accounting for at least 25-50% of that usage. Sure I'd have the internet regardless so I'd still be paying it but I don't think you can ignore that part of the costs when comparing the two. Sky is screwed though, I get Netflix for free for a year from spark, Lightbox for free permanently from spark, Amazon prime for about $8 a month for the first 6 months, and Youtube free as well. That's a heap of content for $8 a month and I'm considering cancelling Amazon as I rarely watch it. I can also theoretically watch freeview (I never do). I have more content than I need already. |
dugimodo (138) | ||
| 1442795 | 2017-11-30 22:08:00 | I Also I don't think it's fair to compare a sky subscription to a Netflix one directly, how much do you pay for the internet and how much of that usage is Netflix? In my case it's approx $90 a month and I could easily see Netflix accounting for at least 25-50% of that usage. Sure I'd have the internet regardless so I'd still be paying it but I don't think you can ignore that part of the costs when comparing the two. actually, I think a $ to $ comparison Sky:Netflix is fair. Thats the reality . Internet cost doesnt come into it I dont have Sky or Netflix . I pay $110/month for internet & landline . So for me, the cost of internet is not a factor. Its additional costs that are the factor . Sky will me cost $X, Netflix will cost $X Perhaps the better comparison is Sky Basic ($40 ??) compared to Netfix basic ($15 ??) . Sky basic isnt worth having though.... I now hardly ever even turn the TV on. I spend most of my ~TV Time~ watching youtube . TV's are becoming irrelevant due to (legal) streaming . People watch content on their phones laptops & tablets . People play games rather than watch TV. How long before only the old & the sports nuts actually watch content on TV :) |
1101 (13337) | ||
| 1442796 | 2017-11-30 22:13:00 | Sky could EASILY get on the same band wagon as Netflix etc,and add it as a second option (streaming) along with the current setup for people who don't/cant get good internet. The setup is already in place - Via Vodafone with the TV option in the package, its sky already. OK, if someones not with Vodafone then it may be tough luck, but I'm sure with a few adjustments /additions it could be set to work with other ISP's as well. "IF" the Sky/vodafone merger went ahead then Vodafone would have a large advantage over other ISP's. Sure Sky has on demand, BUT the killer is you have to pay a larger monthly fee just to get it, dump that option ( lower the fees) and allow payments for one off events ( no monthly subscription Fee) and its a start in the right direction. |
wainuitech (129) | ||
| 1442797 | 2017-11-30 23:31:00 | Sure Sky has on demand, BUT the killer is you have to pay a larger monthly fee just to get it. Er...no you don't. You just get "on demand" whatever channels you subscribe to, same price whether you use it or not. |
pctek (84) | ||
| 1442798 | 2017-12-01 01:19:00 | Er...no you don't. You just get "on demand" whatever channels you subscribe to, same price whether you use it or not. What I meant by the previous comment (possibly didn't write it clear enough) is if you want to watch something on Demand, YES you have to be a subscriber to that channel, which in same cases costs you more. Sky could easily make the "on demand" a separate option, charge a lower fee (like netflix does) and still come out on top, everything is already in place. But NOOOOOOOOOO!! :groan: Places like Netflix you don't need any extra hardware and don't need to pay extra for some content, just a connection, and a device that's capable of running the app, be it a smart TV, tablet, PC etc. I used to have sky but told them to shove it - not paying the over priced fees they wanted. Sky can try to make ISP's block certain sites, but as its been mentioned many times in many places, its not hard to get around that if a person wants, hell only have to google it and there's plenty of instructions on how -- AND are Sky going to try and block google as well ?? :D :tui: |
wainuitech (129) | ||
| 1442799 | 2017-12-01 18:02:00 | actually, I think a $ to $ comparison Sky:Netflix is fair. Thats the reality . Internet cost doesnt come into it I just disagree, yes you are paying for the internet already but try watching Netflix without it. The reality is with Netflix you are paying for the service and you are paying someone else (ISP) to get access to it and you have to pay both to watch it. A portion of your internet costs is going towards streaming. With sky you are paying the same company for the content and the distribution. You can't truly separate the two with streaming because you do have to pay both. I know when it comes to making a financial decision that's not how it works when you are already committed to having the internet, I just think it's fair to acknowledge that part of that cost is going towards allowing you to use streaming services. |
dugimodo (138) | ||
| 1442800 | 2017-12-02 22:52:00 | As some have noted, streaming services might be the way, but then a bit late, what with other streaming services available. And then suitable categories need be selected. But then trialing streaming could be done. Anyone with young (girls) might know that Sky Disney and Nick channels are popular - not only the shows, but some of the female artists/actresses, who become international pop singers, but also appeal to young kiwi's (e.g. Aria, Miley, Selena - yeah I know them from my daughter and nieces). So Sky could start there for streaming. |
kahawai chaser (3545) | ||
| 1442801 | 2017-12-04 20:29:00 | AND here's another nail in Skys Coffin. "With no joining fee and no ongoing subscription fees, stuff-pix-enters-movie-market-striking-several-deals-with-hollywood-studios (www.stuff.co.nz) |
wainuitech (129) | ||
| 1 2 3 | |||||