Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignitionnet
Well yes you do need to back it up, you made it as a statement of fact. Do learn how these things work, when you make a statement of fact the onus is on you to prove it, not on the person who doubted it - which is what I did, I didn't say you were wrong I cast doubt and said I considered the two complimentary.
If you'd care to explain also, genius, how exactly I compare VoD hits with viewings of linear programs that would also be good. 200 million VoD hits in a quarter isn't really comparable to how many HD subscribers there are receiving linear HD content. Most of the stuff we watch here is HD, taking each and every bit of content as a 'hit' and doing the same for other Sky subscribers would probably be more accurate but good luck with that.
So, again, yes it's on you to back up your statement of fact. If you can't back things up don't give your opinion as fact then get indignant when asked to bear it out, simple.
---------- Post added at 17:47 ---------- Previous post was at 17:40 ----------
Sky+ boxes had USB a while ago. I would speculate the primary reason for Sky to be handing out the HD boxes for free is that, well, they are HD not because have Ethernet ports. That there is a pull VoD service coming soon is merely a bonus. It was actually originally planned and worked on 3 years ago but put on hold for a few reasons.
I didn't say VoD had zero demand I said both were in demand. If they weren't people wouldn't be selling them. Perhaps a better comparison would be to ask how many people actually pay to access VoD content on VM given that Sky subscribers pay to access Sky HD. That HD also needs a shiny new TV and new set top box as well makes it even more difficult to compare.
Given Virgin have released a PVR-less HD box they evidently think there's demand for HD there to make it worth their while. Let's just say that there is strong and significant demand for both and be done with it.
|
I never said anything was fact did i? Where did i use the word fact in my post? So get
your facts right. I said VOD is in higher demand than HD. The figures speak for themselves. 200 million hits for VOD for just one company out of several in one quarter is hugely impressive. How many HD customers do sky and VM have and how many HD channels are there? Not really that many is there and you state that there is more of a demand for HD. Not only broadcast companies like vm, bt look at Youtube that's still a form of VOD and is one of the fatest and most popular mediums for video on the planet. More than half of vms subscriber base uses their vod service but no where near that figure have their HD service and they give it away.
You're right for HD you do have more set up costs but if there was such a big demand for it like people suggest everyone would have it. Millions of people have HD ready tvs now but are in no rush to go and get an HD service. Freeview HD is free but people aren't using that in the same numbers. VOD is great for tv when you want to watch it because it works around your lifestyle. HD is not such a big issue as the majority of people are happy with watching regular sd broadcasts.
I have already said there is demand for both i didn't say there wasn't did i? But i did say i think there is more demand for VOD than HD.
Lol look at you getting all heating and abusive, i think i'll just ignore you and you ridiculous comments in the future.
Genius lol that's funny
