Originally Posted by VisionMan1:
“Fair enough and thanks for clarifying. But awww... I was putting my internet boxing gloves on then!
”
“Fair enough and thanks for clarifying. But awww... I was putting my internet boxing gloves on then!
”
Sorry, I'll try and do better next time

Originally Posted by VisionMan1:
“But in regard to Sky's running costs Vs revenue, the cost of using just the PPV service still looks very steep, in comparison to using, say, a service like Lovefilm.”
“But in regard to Sky's running costs Vs revenue, the cost of using just the PPV service still looks very steep, in comparison to using, say, a service like Lovefilm.”
Your comments apply equally to all pay-per-view movie services v Netflix/LoveFiLM all-you-can eat model of generally older content. Now TV's PPV pricing when it briefly existed was inline with its competitors like Virgin Movies, Blinkbox and Film4OD.And certainly cheaper than Apple which charges £1 more for most new releases.
Originally Posted by VisionMan1:
“ And Sky have a conundrum, where this new IPTV service is concerned, because they can't make Now TV look too attractive, as they're Satellite TV pay model is the goose that lays the golden egg, as far as Sky is concerned. And they don't want to threaten that.”
“ And Sky have a conundrum, where this new IPTV service is concerned, because they can't make Now TV look too attractive, as they're Satellite TV pay model is the goose that lays the golden egg, as far as Sky is concerned. And they don't want to threaten that.”
Agreed. On PPV films Sky have to toe the market price as other companies have rights too. This might hurt them as they need to protect their film channels, but as they are not currently available on PPV we don't know the impact. However, they can be a bit cheekier on the pricing for sports as they have exclusive rights.




it's far cheaper to sign up to Sky's full package.