VM CEO: We don't need HD channels

[hokkers999]

Originally Posted by brundles

VM finally come clean about the lack of HD channels

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/digitalt...d-channel.html

Shame all you V+ HD fanboys all lashed out thousands on HD Telly's that at anything more than 8 feet look EXACTLY the same as an SD one.

Tivo wins again.

[supremus]

Originally Posted by awesometeeth

hes nuts. hes brainwashed himself, VM CANT provide more HD channels, its not that there is no need! Hes just spinning a poor situation to make it out like its not a big deal at all.

They messed up hugely with mpeg2 boxes and now try and shrug it off. I suppose i wouldn't expect any less, but its such an arrogant standpoint. If people didnt want HD, sky HD wouldn't be up to the 400,000 mark and even thats with high box pricing and monthly sub...

That's less than 5% of their subscriber base, and there's no evidence that they have taken the HD service purely for HD, or that they would indeed consider the lack of such a thing a deal breaker. Some surely would, myself included, but we're in a minority.

There's no question that Virgin are providing an inferior, if not outright crappy service, but the reality is that Virgin do have HD content on their VOD service, and the issue here is about whether or not they need more linear HD content. Seriously, how many customers do you think they're going to lose over this, if they didn't even lose a significant amount of customers over the basic Sky channels issue? Furthermore, with an increased popularity in time-shifted TV habits, you might even wonder if Virgin need more linear channels at all, or if VOD could be the future for them, as they currently have a considerable advantage over Sky in this area.

[awesometeeth]

Originally Posted by supremus

That's less than 5% of their subscriber base, and there's no evidence that they have taken the HD service purely for HD

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

this is with a massive outlay for an HD box AND the extra subscription charges.

My point was there is a demand for it, even with the extra cost it incurs for the privilege.

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.

anyway, the point i was making is that hes fitting his view around the inability to be able to provide the service, nothing more.

---------- Post added at 02:24 ---------- Previous post was at 02:20 ----------

Originally Posted by hokkers999

Shame all you V+ HD fanboys all lashed out thousands on HD Telly's that at anything more than 8 feet look EXACTLY the same as an SD one.

Tivo wins again.

my HD telly cost me 399 quid

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

[supremus]

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.

this is with a massive outlay for an HD box AND the extra subscription charges.

Which most consumers aren't prepared to pay for.

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.

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?

my HD telly cost me 399 quid

Either you got a bargain, or it's merely "HD ready".

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.

[LiamTG]

There is an awful lot of people replying to this thread stating that others do not want HD.

I think it's apparent by all the replies that people DO want HD. I think if Sky was to reduce the cost of their HD box people would leave in their droves.

LTG

[mouqeet]

Thats what i hate about VM i had a offer to move to sky but i said no

[Angua]

Until terrestrial TV moves over to HD in a significant way this will just be an extra service you will have to pay for with limited content (regardless of carrier) for some time yet and I for one will not bother upgrading my (still fairly new) TV until such time as there is more content that I want to watch available.

HD TV is still really at the film/gamer/must have the latest thing stage and the general switch to digital needs to be completed before HD will really take off in a worthwhile way.

[PeteTheMusicGuy]

HD is a new thing but sky are using it as a big selling point. VM's VOD is great but I do think they need to invest on more HD content

[supremus]

Originally Posted by LiamTG

There is an awful lot of people replying to this thread stating that others do not want HD.

I think it's apparent by all the replies that people DO want HD.

Keep in mind, you're in a forum that attracts a particular type of consumer. It's like saying activity in the official Darius Danesh forum is evidence that he would have an instant no.1, if he were to release another single. Stoopid music labels just won't give the poor guy a chance, right? It's like they don't want to make money. See?

I think if Sky was to reduce the cost of their HD box people would leave in their droves.

I guarantee you that you're wrong.

[ShadowTD]

I said this on AVF - in my book VM have until the end of the year to have all of the HD channels Freesat have, otherwise I'll defect. I'll keep the broadband (unless we actually get Phorm).

And HD VOD != Liner VOD. The quality is significantly higher on BBC HD.

And if the gaffer is saying this publicly, would he please tell his minions to stop lying to people - out and out lying when people ring up and say 'I can't get Discovery/Sky Movies/Sky Sports HD' and they're told it'll be available 'soon'. This, more than anything else gets right up my nose.

[RealDiamond]

Sky have allready dropped the price of the HD box for New customers, so don't have to worry about that price gap also unlike Virgin they have deals on the High St to get those New customers. When you buy a HDTV the HD BOX is reduced even more.
SKY also have done deals in the past with TV makers to give away the HD BOX for free with the those £900+ HDTVs, Have you seen Virgin do the same deals, I must have missed them. Did you think the install costs for the V+ Box dropped to £75 buy chance.

[awesometeeth]

Originally Posted by supremus

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.

i was commenting on his claim we all spent thousands on our HD sets yes mine is only a 720p set and i agree, HD isnt as great as people make out and i certainly wouldn't pay more for it. still would watch the HD version of a show if its being broadcast though.

all i was suggesting in the rest of my post is that VM are trying to fit their opinion around the fact that they cant provide it anyway! we all know they dont have the room for more HD channels, especially after the mpeg2 choice.

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by Angua

Until terrestrial TV moves over to HD in a significant way this will just be an extra service you will have to pay for with limited content (regardless of carrier) for some time yet and I for one will not bother upgrading my (still fairly new) TV until such time as there is more content that I want to watch available.

At which point HD becomes part of the service. My 40 channels of HD are just part of the service. No additional cost. I can have a standard SA box that looks exactly the same as the SD box but has an HDMI port on the back as well or I can may $10 a month for the DVR box (and they provide SD and HD DVR boxes).
MP2 HD is not the constraint you guys all seem to think it is, yes it is not as efficient but my cable connection has up to 30MB BB (soon to be 50MB) 40Channels of HD and however many of SD and they run their telephone services over VOIP so that is more bandwidth use on the cable.

[PeteTheMusicGuy]

I Wish VM would get Sky Sports HD

[supremus]

Originally Posted by awesometeeth

i was commenting on his claim we all spent thousands on our HD sets yes mine is only a 720p set and i agree, HD isnt as great as people make out and i certainly wouldn't pay more for it. still would watch the HD version of a show if its being broadcast though.

Exactly. This underlines my point that HD isn't something a majority of people would be willing to pay a premium for, but if it's there anyway, and they have the equipment to take advantage of it, of course they're going to do so.

All i was suggesting in the rest of my post is that VM are trying to fit their opinion around the fact that they cant provide it anyway! we all know they dont have the room for more HD channels, especially after the mpeg2 choice.

Sure, but that's something that could easily be remedied, if HD were indeed as big a selling point as some people claim. It all comes down to whether or not the numbers make sense in the end, and Virgin are obviously betting that they have enough VOD HD content to satisfy their customers.