Quote:
Originally Posted by Cozzy
Do we even know exactly what the £3 sub is for and who is actually getting the wonga ?
i mean are VM taking the £3 and passing the whole sum to tivo or just part of it or have VM already paid up front and are clawing back that investment
is the £3 for the EPG data or the PVR functionality or for VoD ... dont think anyone actually has explained in clear precise language exactly what you get for £3 a month (probably rising year on year but thats my speculation)
the only function the full tivo has over a standard VHD upgraded to tivo software is surely just the PVR and longer 7+day EPG and auto suggestion downloads to the box HDD as VoD will still be available on a standard box i assume
the fog doesnt get any thinner the longer we are kept waiting for clear concrete information
|
Perhaps the points you raise are the reason Tivo seems to be bombing around the world, I don't know.
It would appear you pay the fee for the extra functionality and to that end I would guess Tivo (or their provders) are funded to keep the system going. But for me there lies the problem, what are you exactly paying an ongoing fee for?
I really hope I am wrong (and I accept the model in the US is different) but I genuinely cannot see swathes of people, be they here, the US or Australia paying for extra functionality when they probably don't really require it, even £3 a month. There is no fee for Tivo in Australia and people still seem happy with their standard PVR's but again it's a different model but make no mistake, the model VM are using has been in place for years in the US too (albeit with more expensive ongoing subs) and those subscribers are taken into account with the 21% loss of their customer base. Cable customers there on a whole seem happy with what we know as V+ and I don't believe the subscrption amount matters much, it's the principal.
I completely get people paying extra for content but for the life of me I cannot see joe bloggs paying for something that (on the whole) V+ does anyway. Sky sussed that years ago and canned the Sky+ charge. I personally consider the HD charge quite a different scenario as that fee is for content, I get that.
This is one thing I will be delighted to be proven wrong on but those figures don't lie, never have I known a company to survive who loses 21% of their customers in just a year when that is on top of a massive drop the year before unless they systematically change their offer and pricing model.
Or win their court battles!