Thread: Coming Soon to Virgin TV (2009)
View Single Post
Old 09-03-2009, 15:38   #501
TheDon
Inactive
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,567
TheDon has reached the bronze age
TheDon has reached the bronze ageTheDon has reached the bronze ageTheDon has reached the bronze ageTheDon has reached the bronze ageTheDon has reached the bronze ageTheDon has reached the bronze ageTheDon has reached the bronze ageTheDon has reached the bronze ageTheDon has reached the bronze ageTheDon has reached the bronze ageTheDon has reached the bronze ageTheDon has reached the bronze ageTheDon has reached the bronze ageTheDon has reached the bronze ageTheDon has reached the bronze ageTheDon has reached the bronze ageTheDon has reached the bronze age
Re: Coming Soon to Virgin TV (2009)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mobes View Post
I guess it depends on where Virgin believe the future of TV lies and where they as a company want to go... At present VM believe the future is in VOD - i think they are wrong! Most people imo still want the ability to tune in at the same time each week to watch their favourite programmes and increasingly more people want those programmes to be in HD.

Ignore the actual figures for a moment BUT the reason SKY are ever increasing their HD take up is because they have the channels to back it up.

Virgin can quote the use of VOD as much as they like BUT the REASON VOD is being used so much is simply because it's there.... it's not brain surgery - if there were more HD channels then more people would be buying V+ services and if they don't invest in HD then V+ figures won't rise - i've said it before, it's a vicious circle.
The reason VOD is being used so much more is because it's actually useful.

HD on the other hand, is the same content, at better quality. It isn't rocket science which one you'd want to invest in first. The choice between something new, or an improvement over something you already have, take the something new every time. Especially when that something new is something that your competitor CANNOT offer.

HD took off in America because NTSC is crap. PAL is a far better system so the difference between NTSC and HD is far bigger than between PAL and HD. This is why there hasn't been a huge rush in uptake of HD over here, because it isn't as needed. The difference is nice, but it's not exactly essential.

HD is there on Sky, it's uptake is very low. So low that they're now subsidising the cost of the box to stimulate demand. Even Sky can see that most people don't really want HD, which is why they're doing a heavy sell on it now. If there was this huge demand for HD like people on this forum would have you believe, why do they need to subsidise the cost of the HD box? Surely this huge wave of demand for HD channels would easily had people pay the full price? Or is it that the demand is greatly exaggerated, and in reality most people are more than happy with the SD picture?
TheDon is offline