Quote:
Originally Posted by LexDiamond
But as a platform provider only, what is Sky's incentive to actually pay HBO for exclusivity and then make one channel that is then the home of HBO? As a platform provider only, Sky would have to put their hands in their pockets and make the investment only for other platforms to get the benefits without taking any of the risk. This is obviously something Virgin aren't willing to do.And in the end Sky Atlantic will almost certainly be on Virgin anyway. So VM consumers will be better off (although IMHO Sky Atlantic will just end up being a load of hot air anyway - but it seems that I am the minority and most people are interested in this channel). It is just initially Sky will go through the motions of making a huge deal about this channel making people think it is something it is not.
The only problem with the argument of regulation is that VM have gone ahead and sold Sky channels in an open market situation. It is actually VM's stance for the market to be this way. It is unfair for regulation on behalf of other platforms when VM are actually selling Sky channels at the same time.
|
Sky aren't investing here though. They aren't really producing anything, they are just buying up rights/out bidding.
VM had HBO on demand, so put their hands in their pockets at that point, also for other VOD deals, such as Warner TV, Universal, MTV, Bio, ITV, BBC, 4oD, plus more to come.
---------- Post added at 17:58 ---------- Previous post was at 17:54 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by passingbat
I'm not being personal, I'm stating facts. To make a statment that Virgin aren't to blame for not getting Sky Atlantic from launch and Sky are, when you weren't involved in the negotiations and therefore don't know the facts, must be bias.
I wasn't being offensive and didn't intend any offense; I was just stating the natural conclusion.
|
I have taken offence from the post you made, but thank you for this.