[Ddonald2016]

Originally Posted by passingbat

If the latest content is your priority, Sky has always been the place to be.

Would you launch a non-4k box at this point in time? No provider would be that stupid (well, except for Apple; but they'll just fleece their fanboys for a 4K version down the line )

Just because they don't have 4K content now, doesn't mean that they won't have within the lifetime of the box.

No but come on to launch it will no content apart from material that requires further subscription. Now I do agree it needs to be 4K but to charge extra for a box that doesnt have anything 4K to show is wrong, at least throw in Netflix, if not what's the point

---------- Post added at 09:13 ---------- Previous post was at 09:11 ----------

Originally Posted by passingbat

If the latest content is your priority, Sky has always been the place to be.

Would you launch a non-4k box at this point in time? No provider would be that stupid (well, except for Apple; but they'll just fleece their fanboys for a 4K version down the line )

Just because they don't have 4K content now, doesn't mean that they won't have within the lifetime of the box.

Also l think virgin have done good with how far we get with sky, but sky 1 and sky living content in 4K not much to ask for the monthly box fee

---------- Post added at 09:15 ---------- Previous post was at 09:13 ----------

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Well, the V+ only had the BBC HD channel for years before any more joined (which wouldn't have cost VM anything in carriage costs).

VM made it clear that they were in no hurry to adopt 4K ages ago

https://www.cableforum.co.uk/article...pt-4k-ultra-hd

Yeah but due to the success of sky q and the fact sky q wasn't out then makes the article non relevant. Sky q wasn't meant to launch till last 2016 but they changed it