Regardless of the title this post actually has nothing to do with the “technical issues” that caused Sky Player to get pulled from the Xbox dashboard today
It’s to do with the way it’s been priced
There are two ways to get Sky Player on your Xbox
As an existing Sky customer
If you are a Sky customer and have multi-room (or Sky broadband unlimited) you already get access to the existing Sky Player service on the Sky website and now you also get access to Sky Player on the Xbox at no extra charge
If you don’t have multi room you can add this on or buy an online multi-room option (between £5 and £10 a month extra)
As a non Sky customer
You basically have to take out a subscription (you also need to be an Xbox Gold member)
These subscriptions work in a similar way to a standard Sky subscription in that they start at £15 for the base “Entertainment Pack” and then if you want sports and movies you have to add these on at extra cost
So why do i see this as a massive fail?
I don’t see the point – if you already subscribe to Sky then all you are actually gaining is another platform to consume Sky content on
If you aren’t a Sky customer then what really is the point? If you wanted to sign up and pay a monthly figure then surely you would just get a Sky dish?
Just signing up for Xbox package you got no HD capability and no Sky+ option
As far as I see it people who have an Xbox are in one of two camps
Kids or Adults
Kids wont be paying for the Sky subscription so they get no say in this (you can’t pay with MS points)
If the parents are already paying for a Sky subscription it’s an easy way to put Sky content into their children’s room
For Adults who would be paying a Sky subscription then as I said above if i wanted Sky on a full time I’d sign up for it through a dish. My Xbox is on my main TV so even if I did have a Sky subscription I wouldn’t be gaining anything at all
Also looking at some of the options the Xbox only option works out more expensive and if you spent that sort of money Sky would throw in a phone line and broadband connection! So where is the incentive?
There really should have been some sort of pay-per-view option
I’d quite happily use my MS Points to grab a football match, watch Lost or the Simpsons or anything that took my fancy on a casual basis. This would also mean you could grab the teenage market if they could watch content on a casual basis using MS Points. Currently they have spending power at all for this!
I was really exciting when the it was first announced the service was on the way. It added to Microsoft’s vision of the Xbox being the entertainment hub of the home.
I’m just feeling massively disappointed
From a couple of Xbox blogs and forums I’ve seen already I don’t think I’m alone with my opinion
Also before I really get started I haven’t even looked to see if the content is subtitled. Video marketplace has a distinct lack of digital accessibility but I’ve ranted about that plenty of times before!
It would be good if a pay-per-view option were to become available in the future but I wont hold my breath
I’d love to hear your opinion
Other Links
http://www.xbox360achievements.org/news/news-3766-Microsoft-and-Sky-s-Official-Xbox-Sky-Player-Price-Plan-&-Channel-Listing-Announced.html (read the comments!)
http://www.techradar.com/news/television/sky-on-xbox-all-your-questions-answered-603561
Latest posts by Andy Parkes (see all)
- Dishley parkrun, Loughborough - August 1, 2023
- Woodgate Valley Country Park parkrun - July 22, 2023
- Abbey Park parkrun - June 8, 2023
Sky certainly seem to have missed a trick here. I think you’re right with the pay-per-play model, it’s how people want to consume content these days – not monthly subscriptions.
Two years on Andy has just pointed me here following a jokey tweet chat between us about England v Bulgaria being on Sky tonight.
So why am I commenting on a two year old blog post? Well, the discussion above struck me as being exactly the same principle currently being debated in the ICT industry, especially by SME suppliers. Yep, the break/fix versus managed service question.
This was debated at the recent CompTIA UK Channel Community meeting, following Gareth Brown (Twitter – @GarethBrown) of Sytec’s engaging presentation. The clear distinction – and one *most* of the people there seemed to want to move to – was the managed service model, with proactive service and monthly recurring revenues usually on a fixed charge basis. Obviously there will always be a place for the break/fix reactive Charge As You Go (CAYG) providers because there will always be PAYG customers, but the consensus seemed to be that a preferable business model is monthly recurring charges.
I offer no opinion on Sky (as one of the sheep I have every Sky TV service going, and consume very little of it) and as a Liverpool FC supporter most could guess my general opinion of Sky’s owners (clue – it’s not that high)- I was just struck by the similarity of debate.
There is however one BIG difference – all of the SME ICT Suppliers are part of a massive (39,000+ the last time I counted) community of competing businesses so the customer can exercise choice and drive the shape of the supply side.
Sky however are as near to being a monopoly (actually, the official defintion of a commercial monopoly is having 25% or more of a defined market, so how they are not, and hence carved up as required by law – oops, being side-tracked and stating ranting)as makes no difference, so they alone can shape the supply side. That’s the problem to me, because competition might well lead to break/fix or program by program options.
So there we go – Andy can’t get Sky on a pay-per-play basis because the SME ICT industry wants to be MSP focussed, Sky are monopolistic bullies and to add insult to injury his local pub doesn’t have Sky.