Spark Sport
-
@Snowy said in And the winner of the RWC broadcasting rights is...:
Ads. I record the cricket and fast forward through the ads. This is really difficult with streaming due to not having a moving picture - just time. More important with cricket as they squeeze them between overs.
This
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in And the winner of the RWC broadcasting rights is...:
Because the coverage will suffer form inexperience, viewership will go down, not everyone can get speeds good enough to stream and fragmentation fo rights means you need to pay more to watch cricket and rugby.
and this!
Sky have offered a poor service and have arrogantly taken us for granted but the fragmentation thing is potentially a nightmare. It already is for non sport programming and they aren't time sensitive and are perfect for streaming.
On a brighter note: SPARK if you need a commentator to replace Smithy I'm pretty much his size and age and I promise not to wank on about Hawkes Bay ad nauseum. GISSAJOB
-
The long-term sports broadcasting model will be like in the US where multiple networks broadcast the same sport. Aussie is similar.
The difference in the US is the majority are on FTA channels and their sports are conducive to having numerous ad breaks to generate revenue. OK for cricket but rugby? The last thing we want to hear is "Welcome back" ala Ray Warren after a commercial break.
-
-
@nzzp Have Spark given any guarantee that the price will remain at $20 per month? Someone has to pay for this new sporting content, and that's usually the consumer.
The big winner here will be NZR. They should be able to name their price as both Sky and Spark will be fighting hard for these rights. Sky's survival depends on retaining rugby.
-
@Bovidae said in And the winner of the RWC broadcasting rights is...:
@nzzp Have Spark given any guarantee that the price will remain at $20 per month? Someone has to pay for this new sporting content, and that's usually the consumer.
The big winner here will be NZR. They should be able to name their price as both Sky and Spark will be fighting hard for these rights. Sky's survival depends on retaining rugby.
Frankly, I ditched satellite sky a couple of years ago as I just wasn't getting value for money. With a young family, going to all the Blues home games, I was struggling to watch more than a game or two a fortnight. That worked out to twenty to forty dollars a game -- and while I love me some rugby, that's getting a bit silly.
Basically, if you're a big sport consumer (as I was as a student), Sky was awesome. When I don't have time, and have to pick and choose, having streaming makes a massive difference. Delayed start, no need to record, multiple devices can play it, can view it remotely when away from home, all big bonusses in my opinion.
Sky also treated customers like crap. Didn't care, didn't invest in any proper technology; their new CEO seems switched on, but they felt like the very example of a sunset industry. Hopefully the competition means both parties lift their game
-
@Snowy said in And the winner of the RWC broadcasting rights is...:
@Yeetyaah said in And the winner of the RWC broadcasting rights is...:
I'll start.
Ads. I record the cricket and fast forward through the ads. This is really difficult with streaming due to not having a moving picture - just time. More important with cricket as they squeeze them between overs.
My internet connection is shit and is unlikely to change for the next 6 years. Buffering, freezing, restarting, all issues.
If people thought competition for sky was good, now we are likely to have to pay BOTH providers to get all of the content that I want to watch. I am at the moment for RWC.
I will think of more.
That second to last sentence. This is your fault. I've voted with my wallet and not bought the Spark package. Anyone and everyone who has purchased the Spark package has encouraged Spark to expand. Bah.
-
@shark said in And the winner of the RWC broadcasting rights is...:
That second to last sentence. This is your fault. I've voted with my wallet and not bought the Spark package. Anyone and everyone who has purchased the Spark package has encouraged Spark to expand. Bah.
So, right now, you can sign up for Spark for the summer, and get all the domestic cricket for about $120. That's just over a month of Sky.
I have no issue with this; they have very low overheads, it's a different model. Plus, you don't need any infrastructure to deliver - the number of people who won't be able to stream is less than 15%, and dropping.
Crunching some numbers, they need 8000 subscribers for a full year to cover the costs at $20/month. That's a business proposition I can handle as Spark.
-
@nzzp said in And the winner of the RWC broadcasting rights is...:
@shark said in And the winner of the RWC broadcasting rights is...:
That second to last sentence. This is your fault. I've voted with my wallet and not bought the Spark package. Anyone and everyone who has purchased the Spark package has encouraged Spark to expand. Bah.
So, right now, you can sign up for Spark for the summer, and get all the domestic cricket for about $120. That's just over a month of Sky.
I have no issue with this; they have very low overheads, it's a different model. Plus, you don't need any infrastructure to deliver - the number of people who won't be able to stream is less than 15%, and dropping.
Crunching some numbers, they need 8000 subscribers for a full year to cover the costs at $20/month. That's a business proposition I can handle as Spark.
Sky saw the future and tried to merge with Vodafone. Ironically they got blocked by Spark
-
@shark said in And the winner of the RWC broadcasting rights is...:
I've voted with my wallet
I voted with my wallet too. I'm a rugby fan, a RWC comes around every 4 years, I'm going to watch it and not cut off my nose to spite my face.
Spark weren't stupid they targeted RWC because they knew they would get a decent take up. I'm pretty sure they had a business plan to keep getting content even if they had a low turnout for RWC. So you not buying it probably hasn't had a huge effect. Enjoying the tournament?
-
@canefan said in And the winner of the RWC broadcasting rights is...:
Sky saw the future and tried to merge with Vodafone. Ironically they got blocked by Spark
that's a good point.
Streaming is the future I think. I find it way more convenient and useful than TV .. except for fast forwarding
-
@nzzp said in And the winner of the RWC broadcasting rights is...:
Streaming is the future I think. I find it way more convenient and useful than TV .. except for fast forwarding
Why? Genuine question.
On demand is great but Sky have that anyway. So what is it?The rewind, fast forward is a real pain for sports - not so much for TV / Movies.
-
@Snowy said in And the winner of the RWC broadcasting rights is...:
@nzzp said in And the winner of the RWC broadcasting rights is...:
Streaming is the future I think. I find it way more convenient and useful than TV .. except for fast forwarding
Why? Genuine question.
On demand is great but Sky have that anyway. So what is it?The rewind, fast forward is a real pain for sports - not so much for TV / Movies.
I covered this in my previous response (maybe even in this thread?), but in a nutshell for me off the top of my head:
- don't have to worry about games starting, remembering to record, or having the recording cut off because the EPG was wrong. You just rock up and watch, either live, or from the start.
- Quality is comparable to Satellite HD (and will only go one way)
- It's portable and mobile. Can watch at the bach, at the airport, etc. At christmas, when I go to non-Sky households, can still put the sport on. With mobile data now, I'm comfortable watching in a bunch of places
- Didn't expect this, but you can shift streaming service part way through and it picks up - so I have been watching in the lounge, grab a computer to watch while rowing and it picks up where I left off. Just convenient; Sky couldn't do that
- content always available, don't have to record and then only have it in one place
-
@nzzp O.K. but pretty much have all of that anyway (if Sky got their act together a bit more with on demand).
The quality isn't comparable for some people with shit internet.
Sky Go did the mobile thing (I know some people have had issues with it) but I haven't.Point 4 I didn't know about, that's cool.
I guess Sky really should lift their game for on demand. Always annoyed me that I could only get highlights of sports rather than a whole match if I hadn't recorded it.
-
Why cant Spark/TV1 have a dedicated channel to broadcast as well (paying customers have access)
-
@Snowy said in And the winner of the RWC broadcasting rights is...:
@nzzp O.K. but pretty much have all of that anyway (if Sky got their act together a bit more with on demand).
Yep - if Sky had a better streaming service, at a better price point, I'd seriously consider it. Right now it's only 24 hour delayed start.
The hardware that would sell like hotcakes would be a bluetooth remote for fastforward, rewind, pause, etc.
Edit: I'd buy one
-
My mother was bragging about how she had no issues with Spark and how she thought the people who had complaints were just moaners with nothing better to do . So the old dragon picks up the remote to show me and says “ see it’s as easy as this, just press these buttons “. Whereupon the thing shit itself and it took her five minutes to unfuck whatever went wrong . When she saw me and the old man trying not to laugh we got “ the look” from her.
-
-
@nzzp How people view sport will differ with each individual and their circumstances. Sometimes streaming has advantages, and sometimes not.
Not everyone has fibre and unlimited broadband. If you lived in some rural regions you don't have the option of watching Spark Sport, Netflix etc and they rely on satellite to watch FTA TV channels.
