-
14-01-2021, 01:15 PM
#6821
Originally Posted by Alpha
2021 yea of the take over conspiracy
but I do believe we will see some major change not only with broadband but I would be very surprised if we do not get a takeover over. This company has to be the steal of the decade and if the big company's cant see this maybe NZ is just to smaller player for them?
Someone just has to make the first move (bid).
2020 was the year of uncertainty and survival. Deals like Discovery and TV3 were done before covid hit.
I suspect that after the ComCom decision next month regarding OSB, it should clear the way of any regulatory takeover of Sky (good or bad, outcome unknown as of yet).
In the meantime, Discovery's stock price continues to go higher.
Lots of room for....
-
14-01-2021, 02:04 PM
#6822
Some or even many subscribers have a package without sport. To add sport costs about$10 per month, or 120 per year. So not quite free. I agree sport is of some importance, but it is not the be all and end all of the business.
-
14-01-2021, 03:10 PM
#6823
Originally Posted by airedale
Some or even many subscribers have a package without sport. To add sport costs about$10 per month, or 120 per year. So not quite free. I agree sport is of some importance, but it is not the be all and end all of the business.
This is wildly incorrect - sport costs $31.99 a month extra (on top of a base subscription) - which works out at $384 per year extra, or is available as a standalone service via an app (SkySportNow) which costs $39.99 a month or a discounted $399.99 one off annual fee.
-
14-01-2021, 03:27 PM
#6824
Originally Posted by LaserEyeKiwi
This is wildly incorrect - sport costs $31.99 a month extra (on top of a base subscription) - which works out at $384 per year extra, or is available as a standalone service via an app (SkySportNow) which costs $39.99 a month or a discounted $399.99 one off annual fee.
Correct.
Unless you have 5 X multi-room decoders under one account. Then distribute the other 4 boxes to family members living at different addresses.
Like I do...
-
14-01-2021, 03:41 PM
#6825
Junior Member
Originally Posted by Ogg
Correct.
Unless you have 5 X multi-room decoders under one account. Then distribute the other 4 boxes to family members living at different addresses.
Like I do...
*Covers eyes* NO NO YOU DON'T
Just remember if the boxes are IP connected (internet) then the overlords at sky will be able to see the different boxes all coming from different IP's etc. Same with sharing neon accounts etc. There were early talks when I was still working there about starting to look into this kind of thing. No idea if that is still on the cards but their decoders etc send a lot of data back to sky.
Last edited by Tripp; 14-01-2021 at 03:44 PM.
-
14-01-2021, 03:50 PM
#6826
Originally Posted by Tripp
*Covers eyes* NO NO YOU DON'T
Just remember if the boxes are IP connected (internet) then the overlords at sky will be able to see the different boxes all coming from different IP's etc. Same with sharing neon accounts etc. There were early talks when I was still working there about starting to look into this kind of thing. No idea if that is still on the cards but their decoders etc send a lot of data back to sky.
Been doing it for 15 years.
-
14-01-2021, 04:25 PM
#6827
Originally Posted by Tripp
*Covers eyes* NO NO YOU DON'T
Just remember if the boxes are IP connected (internet) then the overlords at sky will be able to see the different boxes all coming from different IP's etc. Same with sharing neon accounts etc. There were early talks when I was still working there about starting to look into this kind of thing. No idea if that is still on the cards but their decoders etc send a lot of data back to sky.
I think Sky should continue to turn a blind eye so far as account sharing goes for the minute. Their subs are still growing at a rapid rate, so they should just focus on repositioning their brand proposition and charting the course to sustainability.
Once they reach a sustainable point and growth stops then they can take another look at the account sharing issue.
NETFLIX have also started making noises about reviewing this. They have turned a blind eye from when they started because their subs kept up double digit growth for many years so it wasn’t an issue. After subs recently fell in the USA it has caused a bit of a rethink - though they are still yet to actively police it.
Sky are not at this point yet.
They have also had much less to say about piracy after winning the kodi box case. They do have a duty to their content partners to play a role in protecting copyright etc, but banging on about it in the media does not actually help Sky reinvigorate its brand.
I think new management have realised this - and even Sophie (who was heading up the legal team under John when Sky first came out swinging) has not made any more noises about actively continuing this fight. It’s a fight Sky will only lose anyway. They just need to focus on the product offerings and distribution model. If the user experience is great and the price is right, they will have no issue attracting more than enough paying subs.
Last edited by mistaTea; 14-01-2021 at 04:27 PM.
-
14-01-2021, 04:31 PM
#6828
Originally Posted by mistaTea
I think Sky should continue to turn a blind eye so far as account sharing goes for the minute. Their subs are still growing at a rapid rate, so they should just focus on repositioning their brand proposition and charting the course to sustainability.
Once they reach a sustainable point and growth stops then they can take another look at the account sharing issue.
NETFLIX have also started making noises about reviewing this. They have turned a blind eye from when they started because their subs kept up double digit growth for many years so it wasn’t an issue. After subs recently fell in the USA it has caused a bit of a rethink - though they are still yet to actively police it.
Sky are not at this point yet.
They have also had much less to say about piracy after winning the kodi box case. They do have a duty to their content partners to play a role in protecting copyright etc, but banging on about it in the media does not actually help Sky reinvigorate its brand.
I think new management have realised this - and even Sophie (who was heading up the legal team under John when Sky first came out swinging) has not made any more noises about actively continuing this fight. It’s a fight Sky will only lose anyway. They just need to focus on the product offerings and distribution model. If the user experience is great and the price is right, they will have no issue attracting more than enough paying subs.
The loss gets passed onto the content creators not the aggregator.
Maybe Sky loses a bit for original content, like Rugby.
They pick up extra adverting revenue though.
It's a good way to value add.
We wouldn't sign up to Sky movies but for extra $20 a month, every boxes gets it so it's good value.
-
14-01-2021, 04:32 PM
#6829
There's a reason why they don't police it. They end up making more $$$
-
14-01-2021, 04:36 PM
#6830
For example if one family members wants to cancel Sky, they end up not doing it, as they know it's only $25 per month. Hence more retention and less churn.
Tags for this Thread
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|
Bookmarks