Quote:
Originally Posted by JustaBloke
There's no prospect of the TiVo payment ending.
|
You don't know that. Once enough people have the TIVO, I can't see why they would need to charge extra for it. They are not charging extra for the V+, so why would the TIVO charge remain once VM's set up costs have been met?
---------- Post added at 13:41 ---------- Previous post was at 13:39 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustaBloke
The removal of ESPN from XL is an entirely separate matter. We will all decide on how we want to spend our money on TV packages when we know the facts at the time.
|
No, it's not a separate matter actually, although I accept you may want to look at it this way. Cross subsidisation is not a new concept.
---------- Post added at 13:47 ---------- Previous post was at 13:41 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustaBloke
VM don't develop Netflix apps, Netflix do. Netflix receives a subscription, YouTube makes money from advertising and is introducing PPV. They will be paying VM for access to all those TiVo owners.
The reality is that either Netflix has decided it doesn't want to sell it's content on TiVo or the time isn't right yet. Either way, throwing other people's money at them, won't help.
But I say again, not that your scheme has any basis in reality, but if it did, the ONLY fair way to fund the development of an app that was only of any use to TiVo users is by adding to the monthly TiVo charge.
|
I don't know who pays whom for access. I thought that VM would have to pay the supplier, charge the customer on behalf of Netflix and take its cut from the subscription discount through the wholesale price.
In my view, the strategy for VM should be to make as much content available to its customers as possible, which would be a good unique selling point against Sky.
I understand the point you make about the charges for the TIVO applications being made only to TIVO customers, but it doesn't necessarily have to be that way. As for fairness - life isn't fair, I'm afraid.