Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman
I'm quite sure that the capitalists at Amazon aren't holding off on this lucrative venture because of the small number of Sky Sports subscribers who can't get adequate broadband.
Sky didn't hold off because of the number of homes without direct line of sight to a satellite dish, in conservation areas or because landlords sometimes don't allow tenants to install a dish.
There's plenty of outcries to be had out there because Sky increase their content, but as Neil Diamond sings money talks.
Similarly there'd be nothing preventing an Amazon channel getting carriage on Sky or Virgin Media to complement its streaming offering, priced at a premium and obviously a second class product by comparison. Yet... they don't.
|
I don't think that Amazon would wish to invite too much adverse publicity from people who lose a service they have now with Sky solely because of Amazon's involvement. That could well impact on the retailing part of their business.
It is true that Amazon could set up a conventional TV channel, but quite honestly, I don't think they want to do that. Their concentration will be on expanding their existing streaming services.
---------- Post added at 19:22 ---------- Previous post was at 19:16 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman
Even if solved the basics of economics will always apply. There's no indication that they can offer a product cheaper or better offering the same content as Sky and turn a profit in doing so.
|
I have already outlined ideas of what Amazon could do differently from Sky. It's not rocket science when you start thinking about it.
For example, offering 'skinny bundles' of matches to enable people to watch some football rather than no football at all due to the cost might well prove very popular. With Sky, it's everything or nothing. That excludes so many people.