VM CEO: We don't need HD channels

[supremus]

Originally Posted by LiamTG

The VOD is brilliant, no doubt about it. However people want HD channels.

There's actually no evidence this is the case. A small group of consumers do want HD, but the vast majority of people who buy HD and HD-ready sets don't have a clue what they're buying. and think that anything widescreen is HD. The retailers' own cluelessness and dishonesty are partly to blame for this.

[frogstamper]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Howard Watson said: "I don’t think we’re losing customers because we don’t have the HD lineup that Sky has. It’s not causing us a churn problem..."

He has totally misread the situation. First of all, if he read the various forums on this subject he will realise that a lot of people are eagerly awaiting more HD channels from VM and when they hear this news, he may find egg on his face very swiftly.

Secondly, if VM are to get a fair share of the customers who have yet to switch to digital, who does he think they will turn to with their new HD ready TVs with an attitude like that?

I have said it before, but I'll say it again just in case Mr Watson wants to take a peek at the reaction. VM needs a minimum of the four terrestrial HD channels that will be broadcasting by the end of the year. If they do that and massively increase their HD choice on VOD, they might just get away with attracting customers from Sky by advertising their HD services as free.

If they continue to ignore what their customers and potential customers want, VM will never be able to compete with the likes of Sky.

Couldn't agree more Old Boy, if you are a analogue viewer looking at where to move to before the switch off, you have gone out brought a new HD-TV and looked at whats on offer, VMs HD line up is hardly going to encourage you to sign up with them, even more so now Berketts added his latest offering.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Howard Watson said: "I don’t think we’re losing customers because we don’t have the HD lineup that Sky has. It’s not causing us a churn problem..."

He has totally misread the situation. First of all, if he read the various forums on this subject he will realise that a lot of people are eagerly awaiting more HD channels from VM and when they hear this news, he may find egg on his face very swiftly.

Secondly, if VM are to get a fair share of the customers who have yet to switch to digital, who does he think they will turn to with their new HD ready TVs with an attitude like that?

I have said it before, but I'll say it again just in case Mr Watson wants to take a peek at the reaction. VM needs a minimum of the four terrestrial HD channels that will be broadcasting by the end of the year. If they do that and massively increase their HD choice on VOD, they might just get away with attracting customers from Sky by advertising their HD services as free.

If they continue to ignore what their customers and potential customers want, VM will never be able to compete with the likes of Sky.

He's the ass that dropped the ntl developed H.264 HD box, in favour of the backwards MPEG2 HD Telewest box developed under his reign as Telewest CTO. Absolute plank. Oops, I received an infraction for calling a plank a plank here once, but he is! Spank me again mods!

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by supremus

There's actually no evidence this is the case. A small group of consumers do want HD, but the vast majority of people who buy HD and HD-ready sets don't have a clue what they're buying. and think that anything widescreen is HD. The retailers' own cluelessness and dishonesty are partly to blame for this.

Obviously you have a very low opinion of the intelligence of the British public!

The point is, with the digital switchover and the growing number of people with HD sets, curiosity about what HD actually is will grow, and advertising this will also help.

Personally, I think if VM don't go for this now they will lose a lot of viewers.

And as for the 'no evidence that this is the case' proposition - have you actually seen any surveys on this subject? Nor have I, but I've seen a lot of posts on this and other forums.

The thing is, a successful operator will create the demand anyway. Look at Sky! VM just aren't trying.

Definitately, could do better.

[jcm193]

I may be wrong but doesn`t the v+box upscale all of the existing channels to 720 or 1080 hd quality anyway,if this is the case why not spend the money on more VOD rather than investing in extra hd channels.

[supremus]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Obviously you have a very low opinion of the intelligence of the British public!

On this particular subject, yes.

The point is, with the digital switchover and the growing number of people with HD sets, curiosity about what HD actually is will grow, and advertising this will also help.

That's certainly a possibility, but a hypothetical future demand and/or curiosity will not lose Virgin customers at this stage.

Personally, I think if VM don't go for this now they will lose a lot of viewers.

I wish you were right, but you're not. Not for a long while, anyway.

And as for the 'no evidence that this is the case' proposition - have you actually seen any surveys on this subject? Nor have I, but I've seen a lot of posts on this and other forums.

Yes, I have. I have also seen surveys highlighting the utter and profound cluelessness about HD in this country, as well as the potentially deliberate misinformation campaign employed by retailers in order to convince gullible consumers that an HD set is exactly what they need for Freeview. The reality is that most people buy plasmas and TFTs for prestige and aesthetics, not for HD.

You're getting a skewed perspective from reading forums like this, which obviously attracts more informed consumers... or somewhat more informed, at least.

The thing is, a successful operator will create the demand anyway. Look at Sky! VM just aren't trying.

Sky's HD customer base is still relatively small, and I'm sorry to say, you could probably switch at least half of those people's picture to SD, and they wouldn't notice the difference. They'd still go on about how it's like "looking out of a window".

Definitately, could do better.

I agree. If you're interested in HD, you're kind of screwed with Virgin.

[tay77]

So let me get this straight...

Virgin want to go out of business, right?

[Paranoimia]

I bought a HDTV specifically for gaming/Blu-ray, but I was rather hoping that there would be more HD TV content available by now.

If they only need one channel, and that is BBC HD Preview, people are - surely - going to watch that and think, "Ooh, nice! I want more HD content!" And then where are they going to go to get that? Yup... Sky!

Methinks there are 3 extraneous letters at the end of Mr. Berkett's name...

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by tay77

So let me get this straight...

Virgin want to go out of business, right?

My god i think he got it

[Toto]

Originally Posted by tay77

So let me get this straight...

Virgin want to go out of business, right?

Why, because its future should be tied up in HD?

Get this man on the board of directors, quick!

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by tay77

So let me get this straight...

Virgin want to go out of business, right?

He does highlight the very valid point that VM can provide a great deal of non linear HD programming.

[tay77]

I think it's funny - like someone said earlier, first Phorm, then the added STM, and now this?

I wouldn't buy a HDTV only to be stuck with one HD channel on Virgin. I'd do something about it - like join Sky instead.

Phorm, STM and my newly-horrible internet speeds are seriously making me consider Be*. Plus, my parents are both on Virgin Mobile, and they've been told their prices may be changing.

[sollp]

There are alot of people out there who DO NOT have a clue about HD,DIGITAL ect, believe me, i visit customers houses, they have freeview, Analogue TV/LCD TV's bought a few years back that aren't capable of 720 let alone anything else, as already pointed out the British public isn't any where near knowing what is what. The older generation think that they'll have to spend thousands on new TV's because of the Analogue-Digital switch on terrestrial, when all they need is a £20 ish freeview STB, They are a sales mans dream.

Watching films on DVD/BLUE RAY yes i like, sport on HD well a good Analogue TV gives a very good picture for that.

We've all seen it, the LCD/Plasma in Currys ect and the picture is rubbish for analogue TV, HD on freview? no where to be seen. So yes Sky has HD on a few channels that you have to pay extra for bigf deal.

So at first i thought nooo, but maybe there is some sense in it for now.

[MovedGoalPosts]

Originally Posted by jcm193

I may be wrong but doesn`t the v+box upscale all of the existing channels to 720 or 1080 hd quality anyway,if this is the case why not spend the money on more VOD rather than investing in extra hd channels.

Upscaling isn't the same as getting proper HD.

Upscaling is electronic trickery to try and make an inferior image look better. The electronics tries to guess what should have been there if the image had been a higher content. But that is all it is, a guess.

True HD content, was recorded and transmitted at the high resolution. Thus nothing is degraded, there are no missing bits to fill in.

[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...