Sky investment in 3D?

[The_Lhc]

http://whathifi.com/News/Sony-building-first-dedicated-3D-outside-broadcast-truck-for-Sky/

This can't possibly be right, I was told categorically, right here on this very forum, that Sky don't invest any money AT ALL in new broadcast technologies they just let third party companies pick up the bill for the research and then rip them off by not paying them very much for their output.

 

[Andrew Everard]

You know, exactly that thought occurred to me when I was told about this project yesterday

 

[robjcooper]

Look at the third name in the list of companies behind this venture, Telegenic. Look them up on the web and you'll find they are an independent OB company based in High Wycombe with seven very impressive trucks already. I'd be willing to bet that that truck was designed and specced and will be owned and paid for by Telegenic (the equipment probably heavily subsidised by Sony Broadcast who are desperate to get 3DTV accepted to recoup their investment in the format) on the back of a Sky contract to supply use of a 3D acquisition vehicle. That way Sky get the exclusive use for football etc and Telegenic can hire it out to other broadcasters when it's not needed by Sky.

So unless you call paying for the hire of someone else's equipment an investment, what you read was arguably right. Unless someone else knows better......

 

[Andrew Everard]

Not that you've got an axe to grind or anything, rjc...

But surely it makes a lot of sense for any company to outsource services like this, whether it's in partnership, or by using a supplier. We wouldn't countenance running all the capital costs of printing magazines ourselves, for example, as there would be times when the plant would be idle, and thus costing rather than earning.

And of course whatever the arrangement is between Telegenic and Sky, the truck has been built with Sky's usage very much as a foremost priority, with the advantage that presumably when Sky isn't using it, it could be available to all those other British broadcasters promoting 3D services.

 

[robjcooper]

Hi Andrew,

Agreed it does make sense to outsource but that's not the point I was making, which was that the article was slightly misleading as it suggested that Sky themselves were making a large investment buying a 3D truck which in my opinion is probably incorrect, and merely underlines the misconception many people have about how broadcasters work - a lot of people probably don't realise that the BBC no longer have their own OB Department as it was sold to SIS Broadcast in 2008, and the beeb, along with all the other broadcasters, hire the gear and crews when and where they are needed.

I'm sure a highly regarded and professional company like Telegenic haven't specced it mainly for Sky either - it's more likely to be a full HD Truck with 3D capabilities, so it can be used for other broadcasters in 2D HD and, if 3D fails, they won't want a couple of million quids worth of HGV sitting idle in a warehouse because nobody needs 3D. Switching between formats these days is usually a case of reboot and wait, as I'm just about to do with the HDCamSR sitting next to me.

Axe grinding ? Leave that to the cable fanatics !

Rob

 

[Andrew Everard]

There was no suggestion of the size of the investment Sky was making, and the information about the specification and development work came direct from the press release, which incidentally came from Sony Pro, not Sky.

But since you're clearly able to surmise more accurately than the information I have at hand, there seems little point in continuing this discussion. I give you the facts I have, your posts are full of supposition and assumption.

 

[bigboss]

rjc has a point. I think the 3 companies involved will have their own individual roles. Telegenic & Sony will build the trucks, & Sky will broadcast the 3D programmes. It is in Sony's & Telegenic's interest for the 3D service to take off in a big way, & everyone knows that only Sky can make that possible in the UK. I'll be surprised if Sky made any monetary investment in the deal. The only investment Sky will make, is heavily publicize 3D technology, the same way it did with HD.

 

[Andrew Everard]

So you're saying Sky is just going to broadcast content it gets from a third party, then? This is getting ridiculous...

 

[bigboss]

No, not really. It will still be Sky's programmes sponsored by other companies.

 

[Andrew Everard]

 

[bigboss]

Doesn't matter who foots the bill for the trucks. 5 trucks won't be that expensive if you see the bigger picture. Sky's HD boxes can handle 3D (already installed in 1.6m households), & so is Sky's infrastructure capable of delivering 3D content. It's only a question of a few trucks. Bigger problem lies with TV manufacturers to persuade people to buy 3D TVs after already having splurged on HD TVs & emerging out of recession.

 

[Andrew Everard]

Points taken, butbigboss:It's only a question of a few trucks. slightly undestimates the cost of these things. I gather that we're talking half a million, maybe more, to put one of these things together, and I gather for the broadcast this weekend Sky will be doubling up on cameras - HD and 3D - and even having separate commentary teams for the two services.

 

[hammill]

Andrew Everard:

and even having separate commentary teams for the two services.

Really? I don't doubt your information, but that seems unnecessary to me.

 

[Andrew Everard]

hammill:Really? I don't doubt your information, but that seems unnecessary to me.

That's what we've been told.

 

[sonycentre]

Dont know why everyone is having a go at andrew,he is only telling us the information he has,end of.If pepole dont like sky you all have a choice,You have it or you dont.And yes ob trucks do cost a fortune in both man hours,traing for using the new tech.I go on sony training 5 times a year to bring me upto speed with all the new products sony release.Its what happens behind the scences that is what makes the diffrence.its all about companys working together to bring us what we see on our screens.

 

[Anonymous]

so sky already have 1.6m people receiving hd , i dont know what that costs , lets say a tenner a week , thats £16m a week , thats £832m a year , about another 8m people have sky sd , how much is that ?? £7 a week ??,if so , thats another £2.9billion a year , thats before advertising revenue , ok , they have costs too , but even still , paying for a handful of 3d trucks at maybe half a mill each is hardly big investment ????

sky is like an a.v. version of the mafia , if you pay for it , and are happy with the service , fair play , but come on , who really believes sky are pioneering anything , that doesnt make them more money and give them more power ??

 

[Andrew Everard]

No, it's £10 a month, so you're out by a factor of four on your costings, although of course many Sky subscribers pay a lot more for their monthly package.

But it's a service: pay for it if you want it and feel you can afford it, don't if you don't.

 

[Anonymous]

ok so £832m should be £208 , but how much is it a month for the rest of the package ?? £7 a week cant be far off , so their still making a mint , they dont even show highlights of many sporting events they have the rights to on sky news , im not wanting to argue with anyone , but praising sky , i just dont get .

 

[Andrew Everard]

A full Sky TV package with HD is somewhere in the region of £60-70pm

 

[The_Lhc]

maxflinn:ok so £832m should be £208 , but how much is it a month for the rest of the package ?? £7 a week cant be far off , so their still making a mint , they dont even show highlights of many sporting events they have the rights to on sky news ,

That's cos it's a news channel, they DO show brief highlights on Sky Sports News however and most live events will get a repeat at some point later in the week. When doesn't really matter because of course it's child's play to record it and watch at your leisure.

im not wanting to argue with anyone , but praising sky , i just dont get .

They provide me with a service I like at a price I can (still, just) afford. I don't see what there is not to like, frankly. Could it be cheaper, yes, but I know from personal experience that cable is more expensive.

 

[Anonymous]

well i assume they are making huge profits anyway, and as i said many people are happy to pay for sky , good luck to them , i dont expect sky to supply a service for nothing , why should they , but they are what they are , a business , and a ruthless one at that , they wont be getting any of my money , though ill soon be enjoying their services , quid pro no rupert

 

[professorhat]

maxflinn:sky is like an a.v. version of the mafia

How did you reach that conclusion?!

 

[daveh75]

maxflinn:
so sky already have 1.6m people receiving hd , i dont know what that costs , lets say a tenner a week , thats £16m a week , thats £832m a year , about another 8m people have sky sd , how much is that ?? £7 a week ??,if so , thats another £2.9billion a year , thats before advertising revenue ,Instead of guessing why not look it up?

Upto june 30th 2009,Sky had 9.442m subscribers(of which 1.3m were HD subscribers).

A revenue of £5.32billion,and an operating income(pre-tax profit) of £780million.

ok , they have costs too So yes,whilst they may be making huge profits,they also have huge costs!!!

 

[Andrew Everard]

maxflinn:they wont be getting any of my money , though ill soon be enjoying their services , quid pro no rupert

How so?

 

[Anonymous]

they try everything possible to oust the competition , they try to take as much control as they can , if you pay them their monthly fee , you will get their service)protection

, but if you dont , you get less and less of whatever other services there are for free (sports) , ok , you dont get a horses head in your bed , yet