Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY
You can make the argument either way, Harry.
Given Liberty Global's expressed objective of giving cable customers maximum content from different providers, you could also say that giving us Now TV and all other available streaming services on just the one box, with streaming packages available, could be a USP for Virgin.
I know I am paying Sky for Now TV. I am also paying Netflix for Netflix.
Despite not being able to get NowTV on my Tivo box, I have it on my Roku streaming stick now, and others will do the same or through their gaming consoles. Either way, Sky is still going to get my money, so why should Sky or Virgin be bothered? The USP is the incentive for Virgin to assist their customers to get what they want all on the one box. To my mind, they're missing a trick (or being very slow about it).
|
Not really. Why would Sainsburys sell Tesco stock? People will get Tesco stock, and Tesco will get the money. Why would Sainsburys want to help Tesco sales at the potential expense of their own? Sure Tesco would have to pay for the shelf space, thus reducing the profit they would make (like Sky would probably have to pay VM) so what is the point for either company? VM want to make it as difficult as possible (not that it takes much to push a few buttons though) for you to watch Now TV.
Why would it make sense for Amazon to go on to TiVo? They have a vested interest in their fire TV box/stick. It is irrelevant that it happens in the States, because things are different over there. Why would VM allow customers such easy access to a Sky business, when they have clearly been priced out of the market for SA by Sky? Only Netflix have the most to gain from being available to everyone, on any given device.
If it is such a good idea for everything on one box, why haven't Sky or BT done it yet?