Starting XI
24
·
3K
·
over 17 years
Smithy wrote:
james dean wrote:

Isn't there a really simple issue - you're changing from watching on a 45" HD screen to a 13" laptop monitor in most cases - how can anyone say that is better?


Step 1. Plug HDMI cable into TV.

Step 2. Plug HDMI cable into laptop.

End of process.

As someone has pointed out, it's a hell of a lot easier than setting up a MySky box. You don't need to "get a man in" to install a dish either. 

So this is an absolute red herring argument for mine.

I dont have a laptop to plug a HDMI cable into.

But I dont need one.

I bought my TV off the club sponsor , SONY. Its has wifi and is on our home wifi network.

I'm looking forward to watching the EPL games in HD on our 100Mbs cable internet. 150gb per month for $95

Cock
2.7K
·
16K
·
almost 15 years

Again, assuming that they have a laptop and that it has HDMI and their TV can take an HDMI input (or VGA)

There seem to be a lot of assumptions.

Tegal
·
Head Sleuth
3K
·
19K
·
about 17 years

I reckon they'll strike a deal with an ISP. ISPs win out of this sort of thing taking off too, and it could be a good way for an ISP to take some market share. At the moment, its a pretty big cost barrier for a lot of their potential consumers, so am sure its something they're looking into. 

Tegal
·
Head Sleuth
3K
·
19K
·
about 17 years
Jeff Vader wrote:

Again, assuming that they have a laptop and that it has HDMI and their TV can take an HDMI input (or VGA)

There seem to be a lot of assumptions.

Not really. Purchasing the relevant cables is pretty cheap. It's like purchasing a freeview box for the digital changeover, or bunny ears for your tv. Hardly a huge exercise.
Stage Punch
2.1K
·
11K
·
almost 17 years
james dean wrote:
Smithy wrote:
james dean wrote:

Isn't there a really simple issue - you're changing from watching on a 45" HD screen to a 13" laptop monitor in most cases - how can anyone say that is better?


Step 1. Plug HDMI cable into TV.

Step 2. Plug HDMI cable into laptop.

End of process.

As someone has pointed out, it's a hell of a lot easier than setting up a MySky box. You don't need to "get a man in" to install a dish either. 

So this is an absolute red herring argument for mine.


Ok fair enough - I'm not very good with these things.  So it's just the fact that to make this work it requires a really expensive internet plan.  I wonder whether they have considered bundling the two?


It shouldn't require an expensive internet plan. These sorts of services use adaptive compression to adjust the stream quality to available bandwidth. 


Stage Punch
2.1K
·
11K
·
almost 17 years
Jeff Vader wrote:

Again, assuming that they have a laptop and that it has HDMI and their TV can take an HDMI input (or VGA)

There seem to be a lot of assumptions.


Yeah you're right, I'm also making some massive assumptions like they have a TV and electricity.

Come on mate. How many people do you know who currently have Sky but don't have a laptop or a reasonably modern TV?

Some people just hate the fuck out of change and if it's not the way it has been all their lives it must be worse. This is going to offer a vastly superior service if they deliver on their promises, and for a much much much lower price. $150 for a season. That's 1.5 months of Sky. I reckon the other 11.5 months' worth of savings should offset any other costs.

Starting XI
120
·
4.1K
·
about 17 years


Has anyone read this? http://www.sportsfreak.co.nz/wp/

Sums it up quite nicely.

Starting XI
24
·
3K
·
over 17 years
Smithy wrote:

Some people just hate the fuck out of change and if it's not the way it has been all their lives it must be worse. This is going to offer a vastly superior service if they deliver on their promises, and for a much much much lower price. $150 for a season. That's 1.5 months of Sky. I reckon the other 11.5 months' worth of savings should offset any other costs.

 

Well said Smithy

 

JV, youve been around long enough. Didnt you hear the same commments you are making when Sky started up in NZ.

Cock
2.7K
·
16K
·
almost 15 years

Look I totally get all of this and again, I'm in the wrong demo so I know a few people that are low jack tech. My wife parents are still a alive and are definitively low jack tech with CRT and basic Sky.

Cock
2.7K
·
16K
·
almost 15 years

Look I totally get all of this and again, I'm in the wrong demo so I know a few people that are low jack tech. My wife parents are still a alive and are definitively low jack tech with CRT and basic Sky.

Legend
1.8K
·
22K
·
over 15 years
Smithy wrote:


It shouldn't require an expensive internet plan. These sorts of services use blah blah blah blah woofer blah blah blah tweeter dolby.


Appiah without the pace
6.7K
·
19K
·
almost 17 years
Smithy wrote:
Jeff Vader wrote:

Again, assuming that they have a laptop and that it has HDMI and their TV can take an HDMI input (or VGA)

There seem to be a lot of assumptions.


Yeah you're right, I'm also making some massive assumptions like they have a TV and electricity.


Come on mate. How many people do you know who currently have Sky but don't have a laptop or a reasonably modern TV?


Some people just hate the fuck out of change and if it's not the way it has been all their lives it must be worse. This is going to offer a vastly superior service if they deliver on their promises, and for a much much much lower price. $150 for a season. That's 1.5 months of Sky. I reckon the other 11.5 months' worth of savings should offset any other costs.




Cock
2.7K
·
16K
·
almost 15 years
nightz wrote:
Smithy wrote:

Some people just hate the fuck out of change and if it's not the way it has been all their lives it must be worse. This is going to offer a vastly superior service if they deliver on their promises, and for a much much much lower price. $150 for a season. That's 1.5 months of Sky. I reckon the other 11.5 months' worth of savings should offset any other costs.

 

Well said Smithy

 

JV, youve been around long enough. Didnt you hear the same commments you are making when Sky started up in NZ.

18 years ago when Sky came around, I had zero issue with it. I suspect there was outcry at the time but then I don't remember if I am honest. Again, me myself have no problem with this because I understand the way of the future and free enterprise. I'm just not jumping on this wagon not for the sake of change but because at this point in time, it makes no sense to me for reasons I have outlined in other posts.
Legend
1.8K
·
22K
·
over 15 years
2ndBest wrote:
Smithy wrote:
Jeff Vader wrote:

Again, assuming that they have a laptop and that it has HDMI and their TV can take an HDMI input (or VGA)

There seem to be a lot of assumptions.


Yeah you're right, I'm also making some massive assumptions like they have a TV and electricity.


Come on mate. How many people do you know who currently have Sky but don't have a laptop or a reasonably modern TV?


Some people just hate the fuck out of change and if it's not the way it has been all their lives it must be worse. This is going to offer a vastly superior service if they deliver on their promises, and for a much much much lower price. $150 for a season. That's 1.5 months of Sky. I reckon the other 11.5 months' worth of savings should offset any other costs.




Does that mean that we get an extra month of A-League or an extra month of off-season?

(If it's the latter someone please pass me the head-sized plastic bag with the drawstring)


a.k.a AJ13
520
·
1.5K
·
over 14 years
Jeff Vader wrote:

Again, assuming that they have a laptop and that it has HDMI and their TV can take an HDMI input (or VGA)

There seem to be a lot of assumptions.

Guarantee i can find anyone a cable/adapter/splitter to run any desktop/laptop to display onto any flatscreen tv. My laptop displays HD to my 42" via VGA
Marquee
1.2K
·
5.5K
·
over 13 years

Something that hasn't been mentioned anywhere here yet is what the pubs and clubs will do. They will have to choose a game(s) to play on their screens if they reckon their clientele want to watch some football, as opposed to taking whatever happens to be on SKY. So a bunch of XYZ club supporters could lobby your local to play their team's games! If your local is populated by, say, Hull supporters who turn up every week, i guess you'll be watching a lot of Hull games, or finding a new pub.

Marquee
1.2K
·
5.5K
·
over 13 years

This thread has had nearly 6,000 views in less than 30 hours. Just saying.

Marquee
2.1K
·
8.2K
·
over 17 years
Smithy wrote:
james dean wrote:
Smithy wrote:
james dean wrote:

Isn't there a really simple issue - you're changing from watching on a 45" HD screen to a 13" laptop monitor in most cases - how can anyone say that is better?


Step 1. Plug HDMI cable into TV.

Step 2. Plug HDMI cable into laptop.

End of process.

As someone has pointed out, it's a hell of a lot easier than setting up a MySky box. You don't need to "get a man in" to install a dish either. 

So this is an absolute red herring argument for mine.


Ok fair enough - I'm not very good with these things.  So it's just the fact that to make this work it requires a really expensive internet plan.  I wonder whether they have considered bundling the two?


It shouldn't require an expensive internet plan. These sorts of services use adaptive compression to adjust the stream quality to available bandwidth. 


Does that mean if you have a standard connection you're picture quality won't be good/will lag?
Also, is this foolproof I guess is the question - there seem to be far greater reliability issues with an internet streaming service than with cable or satellite television.  I get that this is the future, but is it actually ready to be rolled out now in NZ considering our internet infrastructure?
Marquee
46
·
8.2K
·
almost 17 years
shhhh, some bastard will try to monetise it 

This thread has had nearly 6,000 views in less than 30 hours. Just saying.

Lawyerish
2K
·
5K
·
over 13 years
I for one cannot ditch SKY. There are to many other sports I enjoy, NRL, Cricket and heaven forbid even the odd rugby test match (for those Gareth lovers who are about to have a go remember he missed his first WP match as owner to watch a rugby game). I can afford a couple of hundred for this new venture but out of principle will not. >
Legend
1.8K
·
22K
·
over 15 years
tigers wrote:
shhhh, some bastard will try to monetise it 

This thread has had nearly 6,000 views in less than 30 hours. Just saying.


It will have to appear in the DP tomorrow.  In fact I'll make sure it does....
Legend
1.8K
·
22K
·
over 15 years
Threak wrote:
.
Bring back Sky
Marquee
1.2K
·
5.5K
·
over 13 years

Football coverage in Aussie this week...


Lawyerish
2K
·
5K
·
over 13 years
Can you imagine the A league rubbing their hands together over their next contract renewal in NZ? There is no way Sky could afford to lose those rights and will no doubt bid well and truely over its net worth.


Starting XI
24
·
3K
·
over 17 years

I for one cannot ditch SKY. There are to many other sports I enjoy, NRL, Cricket and heaven forbid even the odd rugby test match (for those Gareth lovers who are about to have a go remember he missed his first WP match as owner to watch a rugby game). I can afford a couple of hundred for this new venture but out of principle will not. >

I'm interested.... what principle is that?

Why punish yourself?

Tegal
·
Head Sleuth
3K
·
19K
·
about 17 years

The principle of a broadcaster breaking up skys monopoly over sport in this country? Those bastards. 

Would think you'd cut sky on principle, not these new guys. 

Lawyerish
2K
·
5K
·
over 13 years
I just don't believe in competition when it is going to cost me two hundred more bucks. Sorry


Tegal
·
Head Sleuth
3K
·
19K
·
about 17 years
I just don't believe in competition when it is going to cost me two hundred more bucks. Sorry


Agreed, it sucks. But this sort of structure would actually make it cheaper - you pay for what you want, if you want MLB get an MLBTV subscription, if you want NBA get an NBA league pass, if you want EPL pay for the coliseum service. As smithy pointed out, an entire EPL season costs the same as 1.5 months of sky - meaning you could subscribe to entire seasons with all games of many different sports, and still work out cheaper than sky. 

The problem lies with sky holding a monopoly over sports,bundling them as one package and charging a fortune. 

So if you were to go by principle, sky would be the one to cut. Vote with your wallet. 

HZA
Marquee
630
·
5.9K
·
almost 15 years


All I can say is, haha Sky you pack of cunts.About time.You had it your way for so long (monopoly) and now its your turn to take it.The winds of change be blowing. $200 who cares.   heeheeheeheee 8) 8)

LG
Legend
5.8K
·
24K
·
almost 17 years

sky are about to learn a big lesson - upsetting football fans is not a good idea. There are a lot of silent fans out there whom just love live sport, Sky will have successfully alienated them too. As for the new venture, what other games are they going to show? Are they just going to charge a few hundy for only EPL? If so, they too might learn a very harsh lesson - taking football fans for granted and to the cleaners.

Football fans in general are a tolerant lot, we'll put up with the weird hours for games but just don't rattle our cages or try to mug us because we are not stupid and we know a rip when we see one. i say to the new suppliers - head this warning, it could cost you ha heap of money.

Lawyerish
2K
·
5K
·
over 13 years
And take it for granted that this couple of hundred will climb very rapidly in a short space of time once you are hooked in. Someone mentioned no adverts earlier, only a matter of time. I will only buy this package once they get the A league as well - when it becomes a monopoly and principle goes out the window.


Legend
1.8K
·
22K
·
over 15 years
And take it for granted that this couple of hundred will climb very rapidly in a short space of time once you are hooked in. Someone mentioned no adverts earlier, only a matter of time. I will only buy this package once they get the A league as well - when it becomes a monopoly and principle goes out the window.



So you're clearly happy paying the $110 per month  for a basket of sports but not $150 for a season of EPL and as many games as you can cram in?

LG
Legend
5.8K
·
24K
·
almost 17 years

Even after what I typed, I Agree with Smithy where he simplifies it cost wise. 

I guess we'll just have to wait and see what these new guys are going to charge and if it is via Telecon, is the streaming going to be free as part of their arrangement. I will be ringing up Vodafone though as their Super High speed package deal equals what I am paying now. If I dump Sky, I won't be paying anymore than I am now. 

Just a matter of what these other guys offer and for how much, will determine my next course of action. Add in, how to keep a playful 2 year old from pulling the leads out of everything when he sees it set up + his 9 month old sister who's now crawling around like a climbing crab. Such is life.

Legend
1.8K
·
22K
·
over 15 years
Starting XI
120
·
4.1K
·
about 17 years


The Platinum package is $230 isn't it? the $150 will be for the middling package.

The biggest problem for me (not that it will affect me in any way at the moment) is that they are saying only a portion of the games will beavailable on demand. Sky, and mySkys, great asset was the ability to record any fixture you wanted to watch at a later date or time. Doesn't sound like this will be possible here.

Lawyerish
2K
·
5K
·
over 13 years
Junior82 wrote:
And take it for granted that this couple of hundred will climb very rapidly in a short space of time once you are hooked in. Someone mentioned no adverts earlier, only a matter of time. I will only buy this package once they get the A league as well - when it becomes a monopoly and principle goes out the window.



So you're clearly happy paying the $110 per month  for a basket of sports but not $150 for a season of EPL and as many games as you can cram in?



I Think my sky bill is $70 a month, I don't know what you have signed up to junior, the playboy channel maybe?
Legend
1.8K
·
22K
·
over 15 years

Don't subscribe to sky on principle.

Lawyerish
2K
·
5K
·
over 13 years
LG
Legend
5.8K
·
24K
·
almost 17 years

Sky has always been overpriced and the various pick & choose have always been stink. All I ever wanted was the News, Sport & Doco channels & dump the rest, but no, you got stuck with a lot of extra crap you didn't want. Then you had mysky, then hd, then isky or whatever it's called. So many options, if you grabbed the whole lot, it'd cost you shit loads per month. I think Sky have shot themselves in the foot - taking the audience to the cleaners and for granted.


LG
Legend
5.8K
·
24K
·
almost 17 years

Sky has always been overpriced and the various pick & choose have always been stink. All I ever wanted was the News, Sport & Doco channels & dump the rest, but no, you got stuck with a lot of extra crap you didn't want. Then you had mysky, then hd, then isky or whatever it's called. So many options, if you grabbed the whole lot, it'd cost you shit loads per month. I think Sky have shot themselves in the foot - taking the audience to the cleaners and for granted.


You’ll need an account to join the conversation!

Sign in Sign up