Sky take on Netflix and LoveFilm as Now TV launches

[Nexus]

More bad news for consumers

More companies bidding on exclusive content driving prices up. Also making it so it's imposable to watch what you want to without taking out multiple subscriptions.

More competition usually results in better prices for consumers, so I'm not sure where you are applying your logic of prices going up from. Just look at how quickly LoveFilm modified their packages to give existing customers a better deal, and introduced cheaper prices for new members when Netflix started in the UK.

 

[Marky]

More bad news for consumers

More companies bidding on exclusive content driving prices up. Also making it so it's imposable to watch what you want to without taking out multiple subscriptions.

I agree I hate it when there are so many corporations with their hand in the pot. I may be a little biased, as I do love me an Apple product But I kind of wish Apple would do what they did to the Music industry, with the Movie/TV industry. They managed to get deals with ALL music companies - If they could offer a decent, affordable, service with ALL TV/Films available, people would jump on it.

 

[Matteysan]

That's very odd, the Incredible S?! Hardly anyone has that phone.

One of their so called Devs probably has one

This could go well for Sky or it could go the way of the music one they did(not very well)

 

[sven256]

More competition usually results in better prices for consumers, so I'm not sure where you are applying your logic of prices going up from. Just look at how quickly LoveFilm modified their packages to give existing customers a better deal, and introduced cheaper prices for new members when Netflix started in the UK.

Because each firm will be bidding on exclusive content, thus driving the price of the content up.

This must be recouped from somewhere and that somewhere is the consumers.

This is why certain services have some content while others have different stuff. Because they have bought rights to it which costs lots of money.

Where as if there was a single source of content, no bidding would need to take place then thus not driving prices up. Or a single hub of content. with just resellers rights to the entire lot would also work well for consumers. But they will never do this as they would not make as much.

It's already started happening with on line content have a read up on it. It's already happened with thing in the past look at football for example. More competition does not always make it better for consumers.

 

[Nexus]

Because each firm will be bidding on exclusive content, thus driving the price of the content up.

This must be recouped from somewhere and that somewhere is the consumers.

This is why certain services have some content while others have different stuff. Because they have bought rights to it which costs lots of money.

Where as if there was a single source of content, no bidding would need to take place then thus not driving prices up. Or a single hub of content. with just resellers rights to the entire lot would also work well for consumers. But they will never do this as they would not make as much.

It's already started happening with on line content have a read up on it. It's already happened with thing in the past look at football for example. More competition does not always make it better for consumers.

Are you just completely dismissing what I said about the fact that LoveFilm lowered their prices because of the competition? Not to mention LoveFilm is the one who currently has the most streaming exclusives in the UK, yet they lowered their price.

A single company controlling all content becomes a monopoly and there is no competition on prices. You don't even need to be an economist to see that.

 

[sven256]

Are you just completely dismissing what I said about the fact that LoveFilm lowered their prices because of the competition? Not to mention LoveFilm is the one who currently has the most streaming exclusives in the UK, yet they lowered their price.

A single company controlling all content becomes a monopoly and there is no competition on prices. You don't even need to be an economist to see that.

Are you completely ignoring the past history of media?

Name me one time that prices have lowered due to competition in media in the long run?

As i know for sure sky prices virgin prices etc have never lowered do to increased competition. Bidding on exclusive rights is expensive.

Also have you done any reading up on the bidding rights to distribute media?

How logically can you tell me prices are going to lower for consumers if the companies are going to have to pay more for content. Which is what is starting to happen now.

Also you fail to even mention the fact that to get all the content you want you are going to have to pay multiple providers. thus costing more for a start.

And why is it a bad idea for one company to control the distribution of the media? for my it would be much better for the consumer.

Instead of paying 5 companies £5 each totalling £25 just pay one company £20 no need to mess about with multiple services, everything in one place. This would be far better for the average jo one simple box that does everything.

 

[v0n]

I don't think they understand the whole downlaodable movie thing. BSkyB, meet me at camera three.

(looking directly into camera three)Look, Sky, Rupert, dudes, if unlimited usenet account costs $10 and allows instant access to about three point two gazzilions movies and tv shows in benchmark top quality, you need to offer your 600 poverty old flick stash for less than a $10. Not £15. Not over £10. Less than whatever 10 You-es-dollars translates to at the moment. You are not competing with blockbusters. You are competing with interwebs. Know your ****ing market.

 

[HangTime]

I actually don't think that is their competition (at least not the segment they are aiming for). They want a piece of the legal pie which is worth having, plenty of people are prepared to pay for online services if they are any good (e.g. Steam for games, iTunes/Spotify/etc for music, NetFlix for online video etc...).

Whether or not this service will be "any good" relative to other sources is of course another question, but online content distribution is getting more and more mainstream and people are embracing it, many of which probably don't even know what usenet is. From a personal standpoint I'm probably moving closer to mainstream/legal services, rather than the other way.

edit: I guess what I'm saying is, any service which offers the following has a chance:

-Easy to use
-Reliable
-Good quality
-Not massively expensive
-Good selection of product

...and yes, one could argue that 'the scene' provides all of that, but if you are just a standard bod, you want to switch on your TV, press a button on your remote, job done and 100% legal.

 

[Nexus]

Are you completely ignoring the past history of media?

Name me one time that prices have lowered due to competition in media in the long run?

As i know for sure sky prices virgin prices etc have never lowered do to increased competition. Bidding on exclusive rights is expensive.

TV Providers may not lower their prices, however they offer plenty of deals if you are willing to switch. I get a letter from Virgin Media through the post near on every week trying to get me to switch.

Also have you done any reading up on the bidding rights to distribute media?

Only whats been publicised.
Such as LoveFilm having signed a couple of exclusives studio deals.
If you are better informed, do share what you know.

How logically can you tell me prices are going to lower for consumers if the companies are going to have to pay more for content. Which is what is starting to happen now.

Touche.
How can you tell me that prices are defiantly going to go up?
All I did was point out that in the new to the market streaming film services, competition has so far driven the price down. That is a FACT, regardless of what the future holds, so your point about competition forcing the prices up currently holds no water.

Also you fail to even mention the fact that to get all the content you want you are going to have to pay multiple providers. thus costing more for a start.

But why would a content creator give all their content to one company anyway, why give them a monopoly? When they get too big for their boots, they start demanding what they will pay because there is no competition they can sell to.

You might not get every single film you want as it stands, but I don't feel that I need to have Netflix as well. Remember that LoveFilm still has everything on their Disc service, plus nearly all the media providers have some kind of current rental service for titles which aren't available for streaming.

And why is it a bad idea for one company to control the distribution of the media? for my it would be much better for the consumer.

As I said above, the content provider becomes too big for their boots and can dictate what the providers fees will be. For the consumer, the lack of competition means they can charge whatever they like to use the service.

Instead of paying 5 companies £5 each totalling £25 just pay one company £20 no need to mess about with multiple services, everything in one place. This would be far better for the average jo one simple box that does everything.

I don't disagree with you that it would be ideal. It's just not going to happen, there are far too many parties involved for it to become a reality anytime soon.

 

[sven256]

As I said above, the content provider becomes too big for their boots and can dictate what the providers fees will be. For the consumer, the lack of competition means they can charge whatever they like to use the service.



I don't disagree with you that it would be ideal. It's just not going to happen, there are far too many parties involved for it to become a reality anytime soon.

Care to show me proof of this?

If company want to fix prices they will do so no matter what which has been proven time and time again now matter how many distributors they have. But these are all physical products so not really in the same category.

For physical goods i would agree more competition is good in general there are cases where it's not so.

I see it as a total myth, that more competition automatically equals better for consumers or for that matter better prices.

Media has shown time and time again that more competition equals higher prices in the long run. Even things like gas and electricity have not really dropped in price since de privatisation. so no benefit again.

 

[Nexus]

Care to show me proof of this?

Just google 'monopoly', not the board game.

If company want to fix prices they will do so no matter what which has been proven time and time again now matter how many distributors they have. But these are all physical products so not really in the same category.

A company having its run of the market so it can charge what it likes is not the same as price fixing. Price fixing involves companies working together, not a single entity and its a practise which usually has consequences.

Media has shown time and time again that more competition equals higher prices in the long run. Even things like gas and electricity have not really dropped in price since de privatisation. so no benefit again.

You are only really referring to Digital TV Providers though who do continue to put their prices up, but then there is also inflation. Everything else in life is going up in price as well as a result of it.

As I said before, in the short history of streaming services in this country, competition has caused the prices to go down compared to when one company dominated the market all to themselves. As I said before, regardless of what happens in future that is what has currently happened in the market, I don't know how you can say otherwise.

 

[sven256]

Just google 'monopoly', not the board game.

You are only really referring to Digital TV Providers though who do continue to put their prices up, but then there is also inflation. Everything else in life is going up in price as well as a result of it.

As I said before, in the short history of streaming services in this country, competition has caused the prices to go down compared to when one company dominated the market all to themselves. As I said before, regardless of what happens in future that is what has currently happened in the market, I don't know how you can say otherwise.

I said proof. I'm fully aware of what a monopoly is and they are not always a bad idea.

Of course it can involve one company toshiba, hitach/lg, intel the list goes on.


Do you honestly see that continuing? As some 30 nearly years of payed tv in the uk and other countries says otherwise.

Yes it may appear you are getting a lower price of a service.

(I'm not saying this has happened in this case) but say you are paying for 2 services lets say £5 each. Then company 3 comes into the picture and buys right to 50% of company 1s media so they no longer have it.

Now company 1 lowers it's price by £1 to compensate for this. Are you really getting a better deal? now if you wanted all content you have to pay company 1,2,3 £4,£5,£5 respectively. are you so are you really getting a better deal and saving money?

Also a little article http://news.yahoo.com/behind-increase-why-netflix-raising-prices-094058403.html

"At the same time, Netflix needs additional revenue to build up its streaming service. In the first three months of this year, Netflix spent $192 million on streaming rights after putting $406 million into the library last year. Licensing costs are expected to jump to $1.3 billion to $1.4 billion next year, said Arash Amel, research director for digital media at IHS Screen Digest.

"Netflix is under enormous pressures from the content owners to write bigger and bigger checks," Amel said. "It had to find the money from somewhere.""

 

[DreadNiK]

hi chaps - just to clarify a few points for you

NOW TV is aimed at people who aren't already Sky/Sky Movies subscribers. The content lineup is pretty much identical.

I agree £15 is a bit steep, but there's a free trial for a month...(it might look like it is going to charge you but you don't).

The quality of the VOD is higher than Sky Go movies currently, and is adaptive bitrate. The top level looks pretty good, it isn't HD but it isn't far off

If you have any particular questions about Now TV then I'll do my best to answer them for you. I'm in a good position to do so but you'll appreciate I can't go into too many specifics etc

Also, just got back from seeing The Dark Knight Rises (premiere at O2 - not the real premiere but still)

 

[Mr Jones]

Hi DreadNiK

So essentially if I've got Sky+HD, without Movies, I'll be better off taking up Movies or would it still be a better deal taking this up for it's On Demand streaming...? I am currently on Netflix and a month left on Lovefilm (6 Months for £9.99 Groupon awhile ago), looking to either stay on Lovefilm or look at alternatives.

 

[Nexus]

Also a little article http://news.yahoo.com/behind-increase-why-netflix-raising-prices-094058403.html

"At the same time, Netflix needs additional revenue to build up its streaming service. In the first three months of this year, Netflix spent $192 million on streaming rights after putting $406 million into the library last year. Licensing costs are expected to jump to $1.3 billion to $1.4 billion next year, said Arash Amel, research director for digital media at IHS Screen Digest.

"Netflix is under enormous pressures from the content owners to write bigger and bigger checks," Amel said. "It had to find the money from somewhere.""

By using that article you have just entirely proved my point.

In the US, Netflix has the monopoly on the market because there is no real competition, thus they can do what they want with prices. Unlike here in the UK where we have competing services where they have already been forced to lower their prices because of competition.

 

[sven256]

By using that article you have just entirely proved my point.

In the US, Netflix has the monopoly on the market because there is no real competition, thus they can do what they want with prices. Unlike here in the UK where we have competing services where they have already been forced to lower their prices because of competition.

Netflix don't have a monopoly in the US, there are a lot of streaming services and more up and coming hence driving the the usage rights going up. Thus a price increase for customers.

 

[Nexus]

Netflix don't have a monopoly in the US, there are a lot of streaming services and more up and coming hence driving the the usage rights going up. Thus a price increase for customers.

Netflix had 19 million subscribers in the US at the end of 2010, it is currently forecast by outsiders to have 47 million in a few years time, which represents 39% of US households, a huge share. It is without a doubt a new monopoly in the making and there are plenty of economists who agree.

 

[sven256]

Netflix had 19 million subscribers in the US at the end of 2010, it is currently forecast by outsiders to have 47 million in a few years time, which represents 39% of US households, a huge share. It is without a doubt a new monopoly in the making and there are plenty of economists who agree.

A lot of speculation there...

Any actual recent figures, as they are from 2010 so a few years on which is now do they have 47 million subscribers?

Do they currently own 90+ % of the market? I would guess no.

It's to do with more competition from the likes of hulu, amazon prime, Vudu, even itunes etc I don't see how you can not see this.

In America where things like this have been going a little longer, prices have either remained static or gone up. This is with more services coming to market and increased competition. Care to explain that one? You seem to be in the mindset completion is always a good thing which is simply false.


I will tell you another one un related.

(prices may not be 100% accurate it was a long time ago)

Around 10 years ago i use to catch a bus this bus use to come every 30 minutes via first buses it use to cost about £3.50 for a day ticket. Then stagecoach complained first had all the best routes and wanted some of them.

so they were given this route every 60 minutes and first was given it every 60 minutes so intermittent so now it was first say at 4pm then stagecoach 4.30pm then first 5pm etc

Now each ticket was still £3.50 yet you could not use them between buses. So you had to wait 1 hour for the next bus or spend £0.50p extra to get a any bus ticket. So to get the same service you had to pay £0.50 more or have a lesser service.

You tell me how is that good for the customer?

 

[DreadNiK]

Hi DreadNiK

So essentially if I've got Sky+HD, without Movies, I'll be better off taking up Movies or would it still be a better deal taking this up for it's On Demand streaming...? I am currently on Netflix and a month left on Lovefilm (6 Months for £9.99 Groupon awhile ago), looking to either stay on Lovefilm or look at alternatives.

That's a question I expect some people at BSkyB would love to know the answer to, in the sense that it is a decision for you to make really, based on the following:

I believe that the movies sub for sky is £15 also? The content lineup between NOW TV and Sky Go (which you would get access to from Movies sub) for movies is the same (although they aren't all up on NOW TV just yet I don't think). The streaming quality for the VOD is better on NOW TV, and the live streams are the same, however I expect Sky Go to catch up with the VOD quality at some point. I don't use the Anytime+ (or whatever the latest STB download/streaming features are called) but I imagine that content lineup is also the same. I think that in general you'd probably find it more convenient to take the movies sub with your existing Sky package but you can give the NOW TV free trial a go first! You can turn off the auto-renew whenever you want. Either way your money is going to the same place ultimately.

Shout if you have any issues playing out video, a quick google reveals Silverlight, which for NOW TV you need the latest version of, as being far from issue-free (a quick google also reveals some troubleshooting steps), with Macs in particular tending to get the worst of it. It is also currently available on a few Android handsets.

Squint at the logo and you'll notice the 'beta' sticker.

Oh and re: Netflix and Lovefilm - Sky's content lineup pretty much destroys them in my view. But their pricing is aggressive. It'll be really interesting to see where this sort of thing goes - I'm thinking it might be a case of mixing and matching from online providers with flexible pricing and different content sets - 3 months of NOW TV here for its premium content, a month of Netflix for Breaking Bad or whatever, a break while using the iplayer and freesat (or YouView if it actually takes off) then maybe all supplemented with some pay per view content via a games console - the choice is just going to improve...but in a way it might be easier if someone 'wins' and you can get all your content from a single source for convenience (but then the problem of a monopoly looms unless there's a constant threat of re-entry to the market by ousted or new competitors)

 

[Nexus]

It's to do with more competition from the likes of hulu, amazon prime, Vudu, even itunes etc I don't see how you can not see this.

In America where things like this have been going a little longer, prices have either remained static or gone up. This is with more services coming to market and increased competition. Care to explain that one? You seem to be in the mindset completion is always a good thing which is simply false.

You have mentioned all of those competitors and failed to mention the fact that many of them offer a cheaper subscription than Netflix.

I'm sorry, but as I've said numerous times now, so far in the UK competition for streaming services has led to prices going down. Maybe that will change in future, but I was calling you out for the fact that your initial post said the competition only mean't that prices go up, yet this quite clearly the opposite of what you claimed given the current state of things.

If you really can't see that, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.