Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman
A Sky and BT customer now doesn’t equate to an Amazon customer in the future. Millions would subscribe, of course, but would enough? Similarly Amazon’s ability to upsell other products or services (landline, broadband in the case of BT and Sky) is untested.
Superfast broadband availability is at 94% in the OFCOM connected nations report. If Amazon’s business model is made or broken by the remaining 6%, which will of course be the hardest to reach for operators, then it’s precarious to start with. Plus the UK Government commitment is to reach full coverage by 2033.
|
Why do you opine that existing Sky Sports and BT subscribers would not simply migrate to Amazon if that's where the football was? I do not understand why you see such a barrier between these services.
As for superfast broadband, coverage increases substantially year on year and Boris Johnson has already committed to speed up the process significantly. We should be virtually there by 2022.
---------- Post added at 09:18 ---------- Previous post was at 09:13 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman
“I know something you don’t know, na, na, na, na, na.”
I grew out of that in primary school.
If you’re claiming credit for having the epiphany that Amazon can’t recoup the value of the rights selling £79 a year subscriptions to Prime (it’d take nearly every single household in the country to subscribe) then fair enough, thanks for your overwhelming insight.
Facebook have exactly the same problem. I ask again in this thread what exempts streaming companies from basic economic principles?
|
Who suggested that Amazon would not make an additional charge for football? It must be obvious to everyone that they would not pay for the footie rights and stream it free of extra charge for the good of their health.