Sky Atlantic on Virgin Media

[muppetman11]

My view is this

A. Why do Virgin waste so much time trying to acquire Sky crap and let other non sky owned channels go Ie EspnA HD , Disney XD HD , Nat Geo Wild HD , Universal HD , ITV HD channels , Disney Cinemagic HD , Eden HD and Good food HD.

[Chad]

From the SKY Atlantic press release on SKY's website:

"As part of Sky's growing commitment to original production, Sky Atlantic HD will also offer a range of exclusive, new UK programming."

I read on either Facebook or Twitter that the next Idiot Abroad will be Karl Pilkington in America aka An Idiot In America. I'm guessing this will be shown on SKY Atlantic, if it does actually get made.

I've also been checking online TV guides, some of which go ahead until the last week of January. I can find no mention of TNA Impact on any other channel. I wonder if TNA Impact will turn up on Atlantic?

[mersey70]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

My view is this

A. Why do Virgin waste so much time trying to acquire Sky crap and let other non sky owned channels go Ie EspnA HD , Disney XD HD , Nat Geo Wild HD , Universal HD , ITV HD channels , Disney Cinemagic HD , Eden HD and Good food HD.

I know I have said this before but while VM don't charge extra for non premium HD channels I cannot see any way their business could sustain offering all the channels you mention, 2 of them are even 50% owned by VM so I can only assume it is down to money we don't have them.

Sadly we cannot have it both ways but I really feel the 'HD for free' mantra might well eventually end up being a noose around VM's neck.

[muppetman11]

It probably will Sky always put decent content on channels only Sky subscribers can get.

[mersey70]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

It probably will Sky always put decent content on channels only Sky subscribers can get.

I am talking about the channels Sky have no share of which there are plenty, I just don't see how VM can ever afford to offer them for no extra charge. We cannot really blame Sky for VM's chosen pricing structure.

[muppetman11]

I'm starting to think VM made a big mistake selling there channels in my opinion LIving is as good if not better than SKy One , but Sky have deeper pockets to Market their channels.

[mersey70]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

I'm starting to think VM made a big mistake selling there channels in my opinion LIving is as good if not better than SKy One , but Sky have deeper pockets to Market their channels.

I think they probably did the right thing selling their channels, I doubt they would ever have got the Sky HD channels otherwise. It seems it's HD that gains subscribers although it took VM's management years to grasp that.

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by mersey70

I think they probably did the right thing selling their channels, I doubt they would ever have got the Sky HD channels otherwise. It seems it's HD that gains subscribers although it took VM's management years to grasp that.

Yeah suppose when you look at it that way.

I don't think it took VM management years to grasp anything about HD. The calculation is a simple one: Sky has access to the premium content that everyone wants to see in HD. It therefore had the means to go after the early adopters of HD. Sky could afford to set the price so high as to make it unaffordable for VM - or else simply decide not to sell the content on at any price.

VM has had to wait until HD has become mainstream, and Sky has nothing left to gain by keeping the content exclusive to their own platform. In the intervening years, VM has instead concentrated on what it has perceived as the main differentiating product between it and Sky - namely, VOD.

[mersey70]

Originally Posted by Chris

I don't think it took VM management years to grasp anything about HD. The calculation is a simple one: Sky has access to the premium content that everyone wants to see in HD. It therefore had the means to go after the early adopters of HD. Sky could afford to set the price so high as to make it unaffordable for VM - or else simply decide not to sell the content on at any price.

VM has had to wait until HD has become mainstream, and Sky has nothing left to gain by keeping the content exclusive to their own platform. In the intervening years, VM has instead concentrated on what it has perceived as the main differentiating product between it and Sky - namely, VOD.

With respect VM constantly said that the way to go was with HD On Demand and they were clearly totally wrong.

Also they did not really have the capacity to offer more until NGTV which in some areas was as late as the summer of 2010.

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by mersey70

With respect VM constantly said that the way to go was with HD On Demand and they were clearly totally wrong.

And there wasnt much HD On demand at that.

Originally Posted by mersey70

With respect VM constantly said that the way to go was with HD On Demand and they were clearly totally wrong.

Also they did not really have the capacity to offer more until NGTV which in some areas was as late as the summer of 2010.

It what way were they totally wrong?

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by Chris

It what way were they totally wrong?

In the way that people clearly want linear HD channels just look how many joined Sky HD

[mersey70]

Originally Posted by Chris

It what way were they totally wrong?

I think maybe we should start a poll to see why they were totally wrong, do we want linear HD channels or just HD on demand.

I think the hundreds if not thousands of posts on this very forum prove the demand for linear HD channels, not so many asking for HD on demand though.

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by mersey70

I think maybe we should start a poll to see why they were totally wrong, do we want linear HD channels or just HD on demand.

I think the hundreds if not thousands of posts on this very forum prove the demand for linear HD channels, not so many asking for HD on demand though.

To be fair I would like a mix of both , I would like more catchup TV in HD.