Large kwblarge

Viewing the Premier League Live - Spark Sport

el grapadura
Moderator
Woof Woof
FilledFilledFilledFilledFilled
For post picture 1609

Tegal wrote:

 The cricket is going to feature games on free to air for the first time in over 20 years (I think?) and the women’s game is going to be covered better than it ever has before.

Live cricket has been on Prime on occasion in the last few years. 

theprof
Marquee
FilledFilledFilledFilledEmpty
For post wenger trophies

ajc28 wrote:

theprof wrote:

Tegal wrote:

So excited for this. Cricket is ideal for this sort of platform. 

cos of the limited view numbers?

Or that the duration of matches mean that most people are not able to be at home in front of their TV for the entirety and the ability to catch some on their phone whilst elsewhere is more suited to a match lasting multiple days than one that's only 80-90 mins.

can do that with the sky go app now.

Queenslander 3x a year.

theprof
Marquee
FilledFilledFilledFilledEmpty
For post wenger trophies

Tegal wrote:

theprof wrote:

LSA2SB wrote:

theprof wrote:

ajc28 wrote:

Much like with the EPL (if you also want to see CL, EL and FA Cup aswell) you still need both Spark and Sky. 

so basically spark are cherry picking events and sports, not to create a competitive market and help the end viewer, cos this doesn't, but to increase their own profits.

It's almost like they are a business or something...

I have no dice with them trying to make money, but just hope that the muppets who start crowing about how awesome this is actually realise that this is going to hurt us the viewers in the pocket and probably not improve anything.

Monopoly = high prices with minimal effort put into the service.
Monopoly broken up = good for consumer. 

Sky used to charge $100+ per month for very limited coverage. Games were often delayed (remember how the A league used to be not that long ago? And the EPL always had a handful of games delayed before PLP took it over and changed peoples expectations). You used to have minimum sign up periods too. 


Now you can get sky sports now for $40 per month, and spark sport for $20 per month. All EPL games are live on spark, sky has also increased the number of competitions it covers in response to the competition for rights. The cricket is going to feature games on free to air for the first time in over 20 years (I think?) and the women’s game is going to be covered better than it ever has before.

You can also watch sport live or on demand anywhere and on any device. 


So sport is cheaper and has better, more extensive coverage. How is that worse exactly?

its worse in that if I want to watch all of the NZ cricket next season I have to pay for spark and sky. Spark has the local cricket and sky has the rights for the international tours. That costs me more immediately. When one provider has everything I pay one subscription which is cheaper than two!

besides, Sky's setup has been improved 100% since the bad old days when the four channels they had were full of gold and various games were delayed. Now with 7 sports channels, each dedicated to a sport there is literally no chance of delayed coverage. All of these channels are available of the skygo app and this is all for around $70 a month. Not $70 a tournament, or a sport that $70 for 7 channels of sport, plus all the other crap that I may watch if I feel like it, I can record and watch whenever I want. Now Spark come in and splash some cash and ruin everythijng.

Queenslander 3x a year.

Tegal
Moderator
Head Sleuth
FilledFilledFilledFilledFilled
For post 6a831056 9031 45d7 8d6d 949589ae360d

But when it was just one provider, a monopoly, the price was a lot higher than the combined price of sky and spark is now.

So I’m not sure how you think it’s more expensive. 

Competition in a market, particularly when it breaks up a monopoly, leads to lower prices for the consumer and a better service with more variety. Which is what is happening here.

Allegedly

theprof
Marquee
FilledFilledFilledFilledEmpty
For post wenger trophies

even at $100 per month for sky, which it no longer is - is cheaper than $60 for the RWC and $70 for sky.

I'm not sure what the monthly sub is for spark - but if I had both I guess it would total $100?

Sky got cheaper cos customers were complaining and were still providing all the sport we wanted, now spark have come in and are making it more expensive to get that same content that sky were providing cheaper.

Queenslander 3x a year.

Tegal
Moderator
Head Sleuth
FilledFilledFilledFilledFilled
For post 6a831056 9031 45d7 8d6d 949589ae360d

Sky got cheaper because of competition. If people previously complained about the price, they didn’t care - because they’re a monopoly. People either had to pay or not watch sport. Now if they find the price of sky too high, they can watch sport with spark

Allegedly

Lonegunmen
Legend
FilledFilledFilledFilledFilled
For post reacher

I'm paying  $88 for Sky. From next month. Should I leave Sky completely  for 3 months, then I can rejoin and get the very same deal for $55. Youd would think current customers would have been treated better but....

163 Consecutive "Home" Wellington Phoenix "A League" Games Attendee   

theprof
Marquee
FilledFilledFilledFilledEmpty
For post wenger trophies

Tegal wrote:

Sky got cheaper because of competition. If people previously complained about the price, they didn’t care - because they’re a monopoly. People either had to pay or not watch sport. Now if they find the price of sky too high, they can watch sport with spark

that's assuming that spark has the content they want to watch. Currently you have the content people want to watch across two platforms, meaning if people want to watch the NZ summer cricket season and then the ashes the need to have both spark and sky. Costing the end user more than if all sport was in one place.

I'm not in anyway saying sky is better than spark - I'm really wanting all the sport in one place, so I can pay one fee, have one access point and be done with it.

Queenslander 3x a year.

paulm
Legend
FilledFilledFilledFilledFilled
For post screenhunter 20 dec. 05 18.55

Tegal wrote:

ajc28 wrote:

Where are you getting Sky Sport for $40? Just had a look on the Sky website and the cheapest option I can see is starter for $25.99 plus sport for $31.99. MySky is still an extra $15 although they no longer charge $10 for HD. Main price drop is the starter/entertainment split which used to be about $50.

Edit: Re-read and I see you meant the new app. Haven't investigated that yet so don't know whether that gets you everything live and on-demand or whether you still need Sky TV for some channels and MySky if you can't watch live.

I believe it’s all the sky sport channels. So no ESPN. On demand is the past 24 hours - which isn’t great but hopefully they change that to be more in line with Spark and other streaming platforms soon enough. 

ESPN and ESPN 2 are in fact included now, as well as the highlights channel and all Sky Sport channels.

It's vastly improved from the previous "FanPass" situation, but as you point out, the on-demand functionality is poor and needs a lot of work. 

james dean
Marquee
FilledFilledFilledFilledEmpty
For post normo

Tegal wrote:

But when it was just one provider, a monopoly, the price was a lot higher than the combined price of sky and spark is now.

So I’m not sure how you think it’s more expensive. 

Competition in a market, particularly when it breaks up a monopoly, leads to lower prices for the consumer and a better service with more variety. Which is what is happening here.

Firstly, you're assuming no increase in the price of Spark Sport with cricket.  Can't see how that will be the case but let's see.  Secondly, cricket fans still need to buy both. Thirdly, I don't believe you're comparing apples with apples when you say it's cheaper than Sky used to be for the reasons stated above.

Personally, I think the impact of competition can ONLY lead to increased costs, while the benefits are generally at the margins.  Two bidders pushes up the prices for sports rights (so Sky will have to pay more for Rugby but won't be able to drop prices to compensate for loss of cricket because they have pay more for rugby).  Spark Sport have to charge more because they have bought cricket rights.  

At the margins there may be some benefit in terms of slightly more content, or other ways to watch, but for your average fan who watches sport at home, I just don't see how this is a good thing (or at least not the unadulterated good you're making it out to be). 

Normo's coming home

ConanTroutman
Marquee
FilledFilledFilledFilledEmpty
For post kyuss study  3

theprof wrote:

even at $100 per month for sky, which it no longer is - is cheaper than $60 for the RWC and $70 for sky.

I'm not sure what the monthly sub is for spark - but if I had both I guess it would total $100?

Sky got cheaper cos customers were complaining and were still providing all the sport we wanted, now spark have come in and are making it more expensive to get that same content that sky were providing cheaper.

The monthly cost for Spark Sport (excluding the RWC) is $20. That's EPL, NBA, F1 and some other stuff I don't care about (tennis maybe?)

People like Coldplay and voted for the Nazis. You can't trust people.

james dean
Marquee
FilledFilledFilledFilledEmpty
For post normo

I was looking at getting the Vodafone TV box, but it's a bit of a pain that it won't have the Spark Sport app (presumably)

Normo's coming home

Tegal
Moderator
Head Sleuth
FilledFilledFilledFilledFilled
For post 6a831056 9031 45d7 8d6d 949589ae360d

james dean wrote:

Tegal wrote:

But when it was just one provider, a monopoly, the price was a lot higher than the combined price of sky and spark is now.

So I’m not sure how you think it’s more expensive. 

Competition in a market, particularly when it breaks up a monopoly, leads to lower prices for the consumer and a better service with more variety. Which is what is happening here.

Firstly, you're assuming no increase in the price of Spark Sport with cricket.  Can't see how that will be the case but let's see.  Secondly, cricket fans still need to buy both. Thirdly, I don't believe you're comparing apples with apples when you say it's cheaper than Sky used to be for the reasons stated above.

Personally, I think the impact of competition can ONLY lead to increased costs, while the benefits are generally at the margins.  Two bidders pushes up the prices for sports rights (so Sky will have to pay more for Rugby but won't be able to drop prices to compensate for loss of cricket because they have pay more for rugby).  Spark Sport have to charge more because they have bought cricket rights.  

At the margins there may be some benefit in terms of slightly more content, or other ways to watch, but for your average fan who watches sport at home, I just don't see how this is a good thing (or at least not the unadulterated good you're making it out to be). 

Those are good points. But what seems to have happened is instead of unsustainably paying over the top, sky have refined what content they offer. Instead of getting in a bidding war over the EPL, they’ve offered the EFL, SPFL Serie A etc for football. That’s meant as football fans we have a wider variety of football competitions to choose from. 

I think the only sport that will really have a bidding war is rugby. Because that is seen as the backbone to sky’s model. But I think even that will normalise eventually - it isn’t healthy for sky to have all their eggs in one basket. So they’ll diversify their content, and that is good for consumers. 

Allegedly

ajc28
Starting XI
FilledFilledFilledEmptyEmpty
For post fb img 1563169265191

james dean wrote:

I was looking at getting the Vodafone TV box, but it's a bit of a pain that it won't have the Spark Sport app (presumably)

I have it as part of my internet/Sky Sport deal with Vodafone and like it, but yeah Spark Sport app is what's missing. They have just added Lightbox so hopefully they can come to some agreement with Spark over the sport app too.

Gullitesque
Phoenix Academy
FilledFilledEmptyEmptyEmpty
For post 0  10268 4958025 00

If TVNZ can manage to get a console app released for their On Demand service I'm not sure what's stopping Spark. Personal bugbear as someone without a smart tv who doesn't want to fork out for an extra device (Chromecast etc).  Convenience wise, having to hook the laptop up via HDMI, and then being unable to use it for the duration of whatever you're watching, versus just firing up the Xbox and watching straight away. Would be a massive improvement.

ajc28
Starting XI
FilledFilledFilledEmptyEmpty
For post fb img 1563169265191

Same for me. I have a Samsung Smart TV which came as part of my S10 preorder deal but it's in the bedroom as it's smaller than the lounge TV so I have Spark Sport in the bedroom but still no way of getting it on my lounge TV without buying new equipment. But as I can already stream everything else via PS4 and Vodafone TV I don't want to buy another device for one service. Hanging out for a PS4 app.

ClubOranje
Phoenix Academy
FilledFilledEmptyEmptyEmpty
For post default

Martial wrote:

Wonder what will happen to the price of a Spark Sport sub now that it has the cricket? As a cricket and football fan, I could probably stomach an increase. However, those who subscribe who only watch football or basketball and have no interest in cricket are going to be a bit annoyed if the prices go up.

I wonder if Spark are going to move to a "build your own subscription" sort of model where people can subscribe to specific sports

I left Sky because I was over paying for all the garbage I didn't want. Happy to pay the cost of sport, but they wanted me to pay ~70$ on top for channels I didn't want.

Subscribed to PremierLeaguePass from day 1, despite country living with slow internet at the time (still wasn't awful, occasional lower res for ½ a minute, but nothing like reported thugby WC problems)

Subscribed to SparkSport. They can try the same as Sky if they like, I'm sure I can still find streams that don't charge me for things I don't want.

The build your own subscription is only a matter of time. Smart business sense to head that route now. 

Lonegunmen
Legend
FilledFilledFilledFilledFilled
For post reacher

Sky shares dropped to 88 cents per share today at one point.

163 Consecutive "Home" Wellington Phoenix "A League" Games Attendee   

YoungHeart
First Team Squad
FilledFilledFilledEmptyEmpty
For post tenor  2

Lonegunmen wrote:

Sky shares dropped to 88 cents per share today at one point.

They failed to move with the times, then sat on their hands and got greedy - Gouging long time users of their product, adding unnecessary bullshark channels and increasing the price, all the while offering 'new customers' discounts galore that were basically subsidised by long suffering and 'loyal' (there was no other option...) customers.

I feel no pity for them. They dug their own grave. 

I'm also aware that they sponsor the new kit, but for mine that's neither here nor there.

Jeff Vader
Cock
FilledFilledFilledFilledFilled
For post capture1

The old girl said that we are keeping SKy while they have the Warriors....

Grumpy old bastard alert

Post New Reply

Please Login or Create an account to post a reply.