VOD : Netflix/Streaming Services

[Raider999]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

How is the absence of a bid proof that Sky customers would not move quickly to Amazon if they took on the Premiership League? It does not follow at all!

I don't think anyone has suggested that Amazon would show football for free if they won the bid from Sky. However, they might well do it cheaper.

---------- Post added at 16:49 ---------- Previous post was at 16:41 ----------



As I said to jfman earlier, the problems of streaming are still being sorted out. You wouldn't expect Amazon to spend shedloads of money before testing it out, would you?

Evidently, they are pleased with the way coverage in the UK was played out with no major issues, so maybe that is enough to spur them on further.

Any evidence to support the comment 'they may do it cheaper'?

If the objective was to test the water surely they would not have any free offers on Prime during December? I imagine most people watching either already had Prime or took the free trial to watch the football.

As for your assertion that there were no major issues - there have been enough comments/coverage to the contrary, with stuttering streams, poor picture quality on some matches and some having the inability to be able to stream the games at all.

Hate to see what it would be like if they did have major issues!

Quite.

We can stream recorded shows in HD, often in UHD, on our humble 4mbps ADSL connection, but the Liverpool v Everton game was absolutely horrific, to the point of being unwatchable. Whatever tech they’re using obviously requires a substantial superfast broadband connection to work effectively.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Raider999

Any evidence to support the comment 'they may do it cheaper'?

If the objective was to test the water surely they would not have any free offers on Prime during December? I imagine most people watching either already had Prime or took the free trial to watch the football.

As for your assertion that there were no major issues - there have been enough comments/coverage to the contrary, with stuttering streams, poor picture quality on some matches and some having the inability to be able to stream the games at all.

Hate to see what it would be like if they did have major issues!

The word 'may'' is significant here. But, yes, we all know that Sky charge the maximum they can get away with, and we also know that Amazon is first and foremost a retailer. They have a reputation for low pricing and they can use football to drive sales.

By the way, the December matches are being shown free on Amazon. Can you imagine Sky doing that for any Premiership matches?

"Being shown free on Amazon" - only if you’re a Prime subscriber!

That’s like saying they are shown free on Sky Sports, only if you’re a Sky Sports subscriber...

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

These are hugely successful, profitable, capitalist enterprises seeking to maximise shareholder value. The whole point of the blind auction process is for everyone to evaluate what revenues and profits they could extract from the rights and bid on that basis.

If it was that easy surely someone out of Amazon, Google, Facebook, Netflix, or even BT would bid the same as Sky and just do it.



It's hard to see how a standalone subscription could be brought below the price of the discounted Now TV options and return over £5bn in revenues.



Amazon have been streaming NFL for some time, tennis for some time. BBC have been streaming football on iPlayer for years.

They would not be 'hugely successful' and 'profitable' for long if they took silly risks. They are dealing here with a new technology that is still being perfected using a broadband infrastructure that is still being rolled out in an environment where people like Chris have inadequate broadband schemes. It would not be the best decision for Amazon to take to plunge right in and take on Sky, would it? I'm sure that no economist in his right mind would advise any company to do that, would they?

Additionally, think of the reputational damage that would be done if there were a significant number of complaints being received from people who are dedicated to football. Poor old Den would be screaming from the rooftops, and I wouldn't blame him.

As for NFL, may I just point out that the broadband situation in the US is not the same as in the UK. There have been complaints in the UK about the streamed coverage of tennis, have there not? The fact that the BBC hzve managed to stream sport successfully proves that it can be done, but any new entrant needs to be clear that they can achieve similar results themselves first.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

They would not be 'hugely successful' and 'profitable' for long if they took silly risks. They are dealing here with a new technology that is still being perfected using a broadband infrastructure that is still being rolled out in an environment where people like Chris have inadequate broadband schemes. It would not be the best decision for Amazon to take to plunge right in and take on Sky, would it? I'm sure that no economist in his right mind would advise any company to do that, would they?

Even some of those with better broadband speeds still encountered poor PQ , buffering or no picture at all last week.

Its not something that is going to be solved overnight in my view.

---------- Post added at 09:13 ---------- Previous post was at 09:11 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Additionally, think of the reputational damage that would be done if there were a significant number of complaints being received from people who are dedicated to football. Poor old Den would be screaming from the rooftops, and I wouldn't blame him.

Old Den does not scream from the rooftops anymore as old age has brought a calmness and serenity but alas little nous and wisdom.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Hugh

"Being shown free on Amazon" - only if you’re a Prime subscriber!

That’s like saying they are shown free on Sky Sports, only if you’re a Sky Sports subscriber...

Strange analogy. The correct comparison would relate to Sky subscribers who did not currently take Sky Sports.

Anyway, I said a few posts back 'free of extra charge'. I don't see the need to repeat these phrases each time I post. You know what I mean.

---------- Post added at 09:24 ---------- Previous post was at 09:21 ----------

Originally Posted by denphone

Even some of those with better broadband speeds still encountered poor PQ , buffering or no picture at all last week.

Its not something that is going to be solved overnight in my view.

The reason they thought it was a success was that they had worked out that the main issues were likely to be with individuals who had poor broadband speeds or problems with their set-up at home. As reported on this forum, others are finding that the PQ is excellent, with no buffering or stuttering at all.

https://www.rxtvlog.com/2019/12/amaz...-round-of.html

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Strange analogy. The correct comparison would relate to Sky subscribers who did not currently take Sky Sports.

Anyway, I said a few posts back 'free of extra charge'. I don't see the need to repeat these phrases each time I post. You know what I mean.

---------- Post added at 09:24 ---------- Previous post was at 09:21 ----------



The reason they thought it was a success was that they had worked out that the main issues were likely to be with individuals who had poor broadband speeds or problems with their set-up at home. As reported on this forum, others are finding that the PQ is excellent, with no buffering or stuttering at all.

https://www.rxtvlog.com/2019/12/amaz...-round-of.html

No, it wouldn't, as the Amazon Prime subscription covers all the Amazon offerings, including Prime TV, Prime Music, Prime Books, whilst Sky segment their offerings in different cost packages.

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Whilst Sky segment their offerings in different cost packages.

So do Amazon as well.

Both Kindle Unlimited and Amazon Music Unlimited are cost options separate to a Prime Video subscription.

And they still haven't made up their mind about Audiobooks, as there are two different options for them (Kindle Unlimited and Audible).

[Chad]

Originally Posted by Hugh

"Being shown free on Amazon" - only if you’re a Prime subscriber!

That’s like saying they are shown free on Sky Sports, only if you’re a Sky Sports subscriber...

Sky show around 6 to 10 Premier League games per yesr on either Sky One or Sky Sports Mix. Premier League football at no additional cost to Sky subscribers without aSky Sports subscription.

Originally Posted by Chad

Sky show around 6 to 10 Premier League games per yesr on either Sky One or Sky Sports Mix. Premier League football at no additional cost to Sky subscribers without aSky Sports subscription.

That's hardly comparable to Amazon bundling its entire rights package with its main Prime TV offering. It's not as if they couldn't charge extra for the football if they wanted to - most of what's accessible via the Prime Video service is not included in the cost of an Amazon Prime subscription.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Hugh

No, it wouldn't, as the Amazon Prime subscription covers all the Amazon offerings, including Prime TV, Prime Music, Prime Books, whilst Sky segment their offerings in different cost packages.

Yes, it would! We are talking about adding Premiership football to a package. So my post was correct.

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The word 'may'' is significant here. But, yes, we all know that Sky charge the maximum they can get away with, and we also know that Amazon is first and foremost a retailer. They have a reputation for low pricing and they can use football to drive sales.

By the way, the December matches are being shown free on Amazon. Can you imagine Sky doing that for any Premiership matches?

They are being shown inclusive with Prime because of a package they paid peanuts for as nobody else wanted it at the reserve price.

My sense is that they're testing the water, trying out technology and establishing what the maximum reach is for football on their platform, i.e. if there is no barrier to entry (through extra subscription), what's the maximum number of their existing subscriber base that will access a live stream? How many new subscribers will access one or more football streams in their first month? Data like this will help them decide what to do with it in future, including how much to pay for the rights, and whether it is worth more to them as a way of getting subscribers on to the Prime service, or whether it's something that best stands separate with an extra subscription, as is the case with Prime Music.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

They are being shown inclusive with Prime because of a package they paid peanuts for as nobody else wanted it at the reserve price.

I've never before heard £50m described as 'peanuts'. But there you go.

Regardless of your point, they could have made a pretty good profit by charging extra for this, which they chose not to do.

---------- Post added at 16:41 ---------- Previous post was at 16:39 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

My sense is that they're testing the water, trying out technology and establishing what the maximum reach is for football on their platform, i.e. if there is no barrier to entry (through extra subscription), what's the maximum number of their existing subscriber base that will access a live stream? How many new subscribers will access one or more football streams in their first month? Data like this will help them decide what to do with it in future, including how much to pay for the rights, and whether it is worth more to them as a way of getting subscribers on to the Prime service, or whether it's something that best stands separate with an extra subscription, as is the case with Prime Music.

Agreed. Amazon are more than pleased with the number of new subscribers this has generated, and so the experience is likely to encourage them.

https://advanced-television.com/2019...ps-for-amazon/