Quote:
Originally Posted by Mobes
Sky is more easily available, i get that, and therefore will always have the money, influence and be quicker "on the ball" with new technologies. FINE! But if this was a 100m race then Sky are already half way down the track whilst VM are still in the dressing room putting on their jockstrap.
|
I do agree that if they are to compete with Sky, they need to have more linear HD channels. On demand is good (I use it regularly), but the cliff hangers used as the end of certain TV Series lose a little of their impact if you can just watch the next episode immediately because there is no time to build up anticipation.
As for Sky, well, they have two advantages over VM. One of which VM could go some way to removing, but won't for various reasons.
- VM have a lot more hardware to maintain. They have the super head ends, the regional head ends, thousands of miles of cable and the user's STBs to maintain. Sky have a lot of hardware, but they do not maintain thousands of miles of cable, and are not responsible for the maintenance of the user's STB. Beyond the warranty and what the user is willing to pay for. As such, Sky can broadcast to most of the country relatively cheaply,
- Sky have the financial backing of what is arguably one of the largest companies of any kind in the world. A company that has repeatedly shown it is willing to invest a lot of money in new media even where it is taking very heavy losses. Thus, Sky do not have to turn a profit.
Now, VM can remove some of their costs for the 1st problem, simply by offering users the chance to *buy* STBs and offering a warranty rather than free repairs for life. The same thing Sky do. They could also offer different models of box. For instance, with the V+, they could offer a basic V+ with no Hi Def and an 80Gig hard drive, then one with the same spec and a 160 Gig Drive, then one with HD and a 320 or 500 Gig drive.