Quote:
Originally Posted by awesometeeth
yes there is, they pay an extra 10 quid a month for the HD service, as well as the outlay for the box. Why would they pay if they didnt want HD  |
I'm not saying people don't want it, I'm saying its absence is not a deal breaker for most people, and like I said, the people who have taken up HD with Sky is very much a minority. In terms of numbers, it's probably slightly higher than the number of people who actually know anything about HD.
Quote:
|
this is with a massive outlay for an HD box AND the extra subscription charges.
|
Which most consumers aren't prepared to pay for.
Quote:
|
Sure VOD HD is fine, but I would think its sports, movies and upto date entertainment shows which people mostly would be interested in HD, not something VM seems to be about.
|
In terms of linear channels, that's correct. Clearly they expect most people's HD needs will be met by VOD, which sounds plausible.
Quote:
|
anyway, the point i was making is that hes fitting his view around the inability to be able to provide the service, nothing more.
|
That's probably true to a degree at the moment, but if the numbers made sense, capacity for HD services could be improved. Again, with VOD becoming increasingly popular, why waste so much bandwidth on linear channels?
Quote:
|
my HD telly cost me 399 quid
|
Either you got a bargain, or it's merely "HD ready".
Quote:
why say something that's clearly not true, for your own sake, try and be honest with yourself. there is nothing worse than deluding yourself, how can i take on your opinion when your happy to say things im sure you know aren't true 
|
It's actually a very common view, and not at all dishonest or delusional. Certainly no more so than the comments from HD owners, particularly "HD Ready" owners, who claim HD is like "looking out the window". Broadcast HD really isn't all that great, particularly on most low-end and mid-range sets. Video games and Bluray is a different matter, though.