Merged:-Comcast makes Bid for Sky

[nstokes]

Originally Posted by Top banana

And yet only 40% of sky customers take hd. I wonder if they would double the number taking it if they dropped the price to 7.50 or a fiver?

Maybe. The way i see it thou if you drop the price then the number of HD channels coming will be reduced as wont have as much money. I really would love to see the the price of the HD pack reduced or gone completely but i dont see if

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by Top banana

And yet only 40% of sky customers take hd. I wonder if they would double the number taking it if they dropped the price to 7.50 or a fiver?

Its annual growth from Sep 11 - Sep 12 was 543,000 which is pretty decent performance.

Originally Posted by nstokes

Maybe. The way i see it thou if you drop the price then the number of HD channels coming will be reduced as wont have as much money. I really would love to see the the price of the HD pack reduced or gone completely but i dont see if

I'd like to see them possibly start to reduce it for Sky World subscribers , it could also help with the take up of premium channels.

[nstokes]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

I'd like to see them possibly start to reduce it for Sky World subscribers , it could also help with the take up of premium channels.

I agree. Would be a good incentive for them to get more customers on Sky World

[Chad]

SKY HD has been a real success story. It has seen nothing but continual growth since being introduced by SKY. Currently there is no real good reason for SKY to drop the price. Once growth slows, or stops completely, that's when they could consider a change in pricing structure.

4,468,000 customers paying £10.25 per month for HD is raking in almost £46 million each month alone.

Ofcom recently suggested 70% of UK households are HD ready. There are estimated to be 24.3 million households in the UK. On this basis there are 17,010,000 households ready to receive HD in the UK. What this all means is 26% of households in the UK who can receive HD, choose SKY as their HD provider. A quarter of the population who can watch HD are consuming it via SKY for £10.25 per month. I think it's incredible. It also shows there is still a huge untapped market for the likes of SKY and Virgin to get their teeth into.

Out of interest how many Virgin customers have the XL package, and how many pay the extra £7.00 for SKY Sports and Movies HD?

[muppetman11]

Interesting points Chad , Sky seem to have adopted the stance of making the HD pack better value rather than reducing or doing away with the charge , don't forget the HD pack very often includes a free box for new customers or those upgrading it also offers Sky Sports F1 in HD without the need to subscribe to Sky Sports , the largest selection of HD channels in the UK with more being added all the time.

[alferret]

We signed up to sky a few weeks ago. We chose the entertainment plus package and my wife asked me if it would be worth it to pay the extra £10.25 and without a break in the conversation I said yes.
For me why have all the best in technology but watch in sd?
On top of that I get f1 a major bonus

[Chad]

Originally Posted by alferret

For me why have all the best in technology but watch in sd?

Got to agree. I recently upgraded my TV from 32 inch to 47 inch. This exposed how terrible the picture quality can be on some non HD channels. This was one of the motivating factors in me leaving Virgin for SKY.

It's not going to be long until SKY hit 70 HD channels, well worth £10.25 per month if you ask me. Anyone who suggests they see no difference between SD and HD is either lying, kidding themselves on or need their eyes tested.

[spiderplant]

Originally Posted by Chad

Anyone who suggests they see no difference between SD and HD is either lying, kidding themselves on or need their eyes tested.

or are sitting far enough from the screen to be unable to see the difference, or aren't actually watching HD at all. A lot of people have both SCART and HDMI plugged in, and the SCART takes priority when they turn the TV on.

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by spiderplant

or are sitting far enough from the screen to be unable to see the difference, or aren't actually watching HD at all. A lot of people have both SCART and HDMI plugged in, and the SCART takes priority when they turn the TV on.

In which case I'd recommend a larger TV

[denphone]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

In which case I'd recommend a larger TV

A maximum 32 inch TV is all that fits in in our sitting room as anything bigger would look absolutely stupid.

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by denphone

A maximum 32 inch TV is all that fits in in our sitting room as anything bigger would look absolutely stupid.

It was a joke Den

You must have a small sitting room , an extension may be an option

[denphone]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

It was a joke Den

You must have a small sitting room , an extension may be an option

Yes in these more modern places l am afraid the rooms are quite small and a extension is a non starter l am afraid.

Originally Posted by Chad

Got to agree. I recently upgraded my TV from 32 inch to 47 inch. This exposed how terrible the picture quality can be on some non HD channels. This was one of the motivating factors in me leaving Virgin for SKY.

It's not going to be long until SKY hit 70 HD channels, well worth £10.25 per month if you ask me. Anyone who suggests they see no difference between SD and HD is either lying, kidding themselves on or need their eyes tested.

Or they simply don't think its significant enough to pay an extra tenner for?

[Doz007]

Originally Posted by Top banana

Or they simply don't think its significant enough to pay an extra tenner for?

I don't really understand this philosophy. If you've spent hundreds if not thousands on a HD/3D TV why would you not want the picture to look as nice as possible.

Surely HD is the reason most people upgrade their TVs these days. If people have no intention of watching HD then why get a HD TV?

[colin25]

Originally Posted by Doz007

I don't really understand this philosophy. If you've spent hundreds if not thousands on a HD/3D TV why would you not want the picture to look as nice as possible.

Surely HD is the reason most people upgrade their TVs these days. If people have no intention of watching HD then why get a HD TV?

isn't hd the norm for any tv you buy? Can you still buy a tv without HD?

Even so, they may well buy for dvds, not tv.

And finally cost, £10 per month might be out of reach, time you have subscribed to other things. And I only think sport is necessary, otherwise I would drop it. Movies etc are fine in standard (and how i record them, to save space)