Sky Atlantic on Virgin Media

[mersey70]

Originally Posted by Digital Fanatic

hmmm... I think saying 300 million people and only 3 million TiVo subs is using the wrong comparison! It should be how many homes have cable and then take TiVo. TiVo in the US had 4.7mil customers in 2006, but lost some market share due to some cable co's releasing a basic DVR. plus it's more expensive in the US with a higher monthly cost. The VM way is much better at a low monthly cost.

I know, but I think you said Tivo will be less 'niche' than Sky Atlantic.

As far as I am aware Sky Atlantic will be available in 10 million homes from February. I beleive VM have less than 4 million TV customers.

I guess what I am saying is that whilst Tivo is no doubt very good it is merely a set top box, a very good set top box but thats it and I still think that the average subscriber merely wishes to receive all the channels they like, perhaps in HD, and to be able to record them and not get watered down versions of applications like red button. Until it is the de facto platform for VM it will be a niche product. I don't even know if V+ is in the majority of VM homes now but I am sure you can answer that.

---------- Post added at 11:29 ---------- Previous post was at 11:25 ----------

[/COLOR]

Originally Posted by ahardie

I think saying it is not ideal for everyone is an understatement. People just dont bother to do that. We are talking about two diferent experiences here anyway. For instance I can watch iplayer on my games machine but it is such a frustrating experience that I would only do it if desperate. By comparison the cable interface is a joy to use even on my old SA box.



The point I made was that it has the potential to be better than a Sky box where even their customers say they sometimes lose the end of programmes. Which with reduced (or non existant?) padding, when then the third tuner is enabled, should give a clear advantage over the Sky box.



Yes it is a great feature and yes you may be able to do it other boxes but you wont be able to do it on a Sky box. They will have to purchase another box from another platform. Not ideal is it? Also if it is a great feature then that is a plus to buying the new box. The fact that I will be able to do it by buying a youview box in the future or subscribing to tangytv is as meaningless to me as it will be to sky users. Sky users cant even watch iplayer yet or HD with no timeframe as to when they will be able to. When they can it will eat in to there internet bandwidth. A real problem if you aren't near the telephone exchange.



The tivo will also have smashing search options in fact I would imagine second to none. The cnet review says it is superior to both Sky and existing cable boxes.

The thing is that the tivo box has the potential to make the V+ and Sky + HD look like something from the ark. Saying you can do some of those things on other boxes isn't much of a defence any more than saying a universal remote is useless because I can use all these other remotes. It would be an even dafter argument if I had to buy all the other remotes to replace the one universal one.
One more thing just to turn your arguments on their head. People will be able to view the content on Sky Atlantic by other means both legal and not so legal. Unlike many of the things you have said it might actually offer a better viewing experience because it can be viewed dog and advert free. Is that an ideal situation? Of course not but then neither are most of the reasons you say the new box wont be worth paying some dosh for. As it happens neither of us are personally bothered about having that channel anyway. I do like the look of the new tivo box though. I just hope that VM exploit it's full potential.

Everything you say is no doubt true but I say it again, Tivo is merely a set top box, a piece of hardware. It isn't what drives mainstream subscriptions. Let's remember Sky (sort of) had Tivo, albeit not as good an application of it as VM's at one point and canned it in favour oif their own Sky Plus which has been quite a hit to the point 'Sky Plus' has almost entered common language but I doubt it was Tivo, or Sky Plus or any STB that made people subscribe, it was what channels were offered. If you look at the forums on DS you don't really see that many people bemoaning the fact Sky Plus only has two tuners, honestly you don't. You do see many saying they wouldn't get cable full stop because of the lack of HD channels and other features.

I cannot help but think that people are way overegging it's ability to take a decent share of Sky's customers for the reasons I have said already, I would guess a Sky customer who is maybe considering Tivo is likely to be a higher tier HD subscriber, would they give up all the extra HD channels which they pay about a tenner extra for which is about the same as having Sky HD and Tivo on VM isn't it?

BT Vision's box (in my opinion) is significantly better than V+, how many subscribers have they got? The reason for this is probably down to a number of factors but the main one for me is a lack of linear content but their on demand offer was excellent and better than VM's but that is just my own opinion, but the lack of linear content sounds familiar dosen't it and you know who will be highlighting this to the max when Tivo is launched, they did a hatchet job on BT too, and sadly it seems to have worked.

Nevertheless I am a reasonably happy VM customer with no plans to leave, certainly not for Sky anyway but I really think we should get Tivo into perspective. It is a set top box and a very good one if you really need all the bells and whistles.

I doubt average Joe does though.

Originally Posted by mersey70

I know, but you say it will be less 'niche' than Sky Atlantic.

As far as I am aware Sky Attlantic will be available in 10 million homes from February.

I guess what I am saying is that whilst Tivo is no doubt very good it is merely a set top box, a very good set top box but that's it and I still insist that the average subscriber merely wishes to receive the channels they like, in HD, and to be able to record them.

---------- Post added at 11:29 ---------- Previous post was at 11:25 ----------



Everything you say is no doubt true but I say it again, Tivo is merely a set top box, a piece of hardware. It isn't what drives mainstream subscriptions. let's remember Sky had Tivo had one point and canned it in favour oif their own Sky Plus which has been quite a hit to the point 'Sky Plus' has almost entered sommon language but I doubt it was Tivo, or Sky Plus that made people subscribe, it was what channels were offered.

I cannot help but think that people are way overegging it's ability to take a decent share of Sky's customers for the reasons I have already said but I hope it will be a success, for competitions sake.

I find much to agree in this post Mersey70. Personally I have been careful to talk about the potential it has rather than say it will have this or that killer feature. I have seen independent reviewers go overboard about the box but they haven't actually seen it working in someones home (I think digital fanatic has though). Like I say though, for me, it is the complete package that will make it worthwhile plus I am ready to try something new. People on other platforms have paid more recently to get just a box with larger hard drive.

[Digital Fanatic]

Originally Posted by mersey70

I know, but you say it will be less 'niche' than Sky Atlantic.

As far as I am aware Sky Atlantic will be available in 10 million homes from February. I beleive VM have less than 4 million TV customers.

I guess what I am saying is that whilst Tivo is no doubt very good it is merely a set top box, a very good set top box but thats it and I still think that the average subscriber merely wishes to receive all the channels they like, perhaps in HD, and to be able to record them and not get watered down versions of applications like red button. Until it is the de facto platform for VM it will be a niche product. Is V+ in the majority of VM homes now?, genuine question, I don't know the answer.
---------- Post added at 11:29 ---------- Previous post was at 11:25 ----------

[/COLOR]

Everything you say is no doubt true but I say it again, Tivo is merely a set top box, a piece of hardware. It isn't what drives mainstream subscriptions. let's remember Sky had Tivo had one point and canned it in favour oif their own Sky Plus which has been quite a hit to the point 'Sky Plus' has almost entered common language but I doubt it was Tivo, or Sky Plus that made people subscribe, it was what channels were offered. If you look at the forums on DS you don't really see that many people bemoaning the fact it only has two tuners, honestly you don't.

I cannot help but think that people are way overegging it's ability to take a decent share of Sky's customers for the reasons I have already said but I hope it will be a success, for competitions sake.

BT Vision's box (in my opinion) is significantly better than V+, how many subscribers have they got? The reason for this is probably down to a number of factors but the main one for me is lack of linear content, sounds familiar dosen't it and you know who will be highlighting this to the max when Tivo is launched, they did a hatchet job on BT too, and it worked.

Just over 25% of VM's tv subs are for at least 1 V+HD box, which is appox 1.1 million subs

Sky Atlantic is just a channel with yet more American imports, which didn't do particulary well on Terrestrial tv, never mind Pay-tv.

Maybe if VM thought it was worth fighting over, then they would have offered more to keep the On Demand rights to HBO?

VM have more than enough content to make TiVo an exciting product for customers. i don't expect a "mass exidous" from Sky to VM for it, in the same way I don't expect VM customers going to Sky for 1 channel.

I think that TiVo is a good product to attract new customers though and help keep churn down :

[nomadking]

The more content that Sky moves/adds to this new channel, the more pressure is applied to VM etc to overpay for the channel. There would be nothing stopping Sky doing the same thing in the future.

[mersey70]

Originally Posted by Digital Fanatic

Just over 25% of VM's tv subs are for at least 1 V+HD box, which is appox 1.1 million subs

Sky Atlantic is just a channel with yet more American imports, which didn't do particulary well on Terrestrial tv, never mind Pay-tv.

Maybe if VM thought it was worth fighting over, then they would have offered more to keep the On Demand rights to HBO?

VM have more than enough content to make TiVo an exciting product for customers. i don't expect a "mass exidous" from Sky to VM for it, in the same way I don't expect VM customers going to Sky for 1 channel.

I think that TiVo is a good product to attract new customers though and help keep churn down :

I think that is the most pertinent comment you have made.

To be honest I am amazed only just over a million people have V+ so that is by far the minority of TV customers many years after it's launch. 4:1 isn't it? That suggest the vast majority of VM's customer base are lower tier subscribers, would they really be that interested in paying around £200 and a ongoing sub for Tivo when they don't even have V+?

I don't expect customers to be swayed by one channel in the case of Sky Atlantic but it will be a bigger draw than a set top box and a pretty expensive set top box, I'm convinced of that. But it isn't one channel we are talking about when a new customer compares Sky HD to VM though, is it? Far from it. Show average Joe a list of channels available and I bet most would go with the provider with the widest offering, in fact we know that to be the case and could explain why VM is only in a third of the homes passed.



---------- Post added at 12:23 ---------- Previous post was at 12:16 ----------

[/COLOR]

Originally Posted by ahardie

I find much to agree in this post Mersey70. Personally I have been careful to talk about the potential it has rather than say it will have this or that killer feature. I have seen independent reviewers go overboard about the box but they haven't actually seen it working in someones home (I think digital fanatic has though). Like I say though, for me, it is the complete package that will make it worthwhile plus I am ready to try something new. People on other platforms have paid more recently to get just a box with larger hard drive.

I think the 1TB Sky Plus box is a pretty good baromoter for Tivo although I accept it is functionally the same as the standard Sky Plus HD box.

But the 1TB Sky Plus HD box is also a niche product right now, how many people really need 1TB of recording space? Not the majority of Sky customers it would appear. How many 1TB PVR's do you see for sale on the highstreet? Not many and there is probably a good reason for that.

However I wouldn't bet against the 1TB Sky Plus HD box being offered as standard, or at least heavilly discounted in the not too distant future as a spoiler. BSkyB own Amstrad so it would be a doddle to do so and they have really improved the reliability to the point they are considered superior to the Samsung and Thomson boxes.

And as DF says, only just over a million VM customers even have V+ which costs peanuts, how long has it been around for?

And you make an excellent point, hardly anyone has even tried the Tivo yet, me included. I know I will only receive the same channels as I do now though.

Originally Posted by mersey70

[/B]

I think that is the most pertinent comment you have made.

I am amazed only just over a million people have V+ so that is by far in the minority, years after it's launch. 4:1 isn't it?

I don't expect customers to be swayed by one channel in the case of Sky Atlantic but it will be a bigger draw than a set top box, i'm convinced of that. But it isn't one channel we are talking about when comparing Sky HD to VM though, is it?

Far from it.

---------- Post added at 12:23 ---------- Previous post was at 12:16 ----------



I think the 1TB Sky Plus box is a pretty good baromoter for Tivo although I accept it is functionally the same as the standard Sky Plus HD box.

But the 1TB Sky Plus HD box is also a niche product right now, how many people really need 1TB of recording space? Not the majority of Sky customers it would appear. How many 1TB PVR's do you see for sale on the highstreet? Not many and there is probably a good reason for that.

However I wouldn't bet against the 1TB Sky Plus HD box being offered as standard, or at least heavilly discounted in the not so distant future as a spoiler. They own Amstrad so it would be a doddle to do so.

And as DF says, only just over a million VM customers even have V+ which costs peanuts, how long has it been around for?

That wont be much of a spoiler though. Their new box only has one advantage over their old ones, namely the larger drive. Also i wouldn't be too happy if I had paid £300 for the box and suddenly they were giving it away. VM at least can cut the price by offering a tivo box with a smaller drive without peeing off early adopters too much. At the end of the day content aside the new VM box should be far superior to the Sky boxes. With many modern features. It will be hard for Sky to counter that. I'm not saying that will make many (or any) people change from Sky. I am just saying we should give credit were it is due.

[mersey70]

Originally Posted by ahardie

That wont be much of a spoiler though. Their new box only has one advantage over their old ones, namely the larger drive. Also i wouldn't be too happy if I had paid £300 for the box and suddenly they were giving it away. VM at least can cut the price by offering a tivo box with a smaller drive without peeing off early adopters too much. At the end of the day content aside the new VM box should be far superior to the Sky boxes. With many modern features. It will be hard for Sky to counter that. I'm not saying that will make many (or any) people change from Sky. I am just saying we should give credit were it is due.

I don't personally think it would be a huge draw cutting the cost of a 1TB box either simply because most people don't need it, but I could see them doing it. Most people probably record their shows and more often than not delete a lot of it. We do but I obviously cannot speak for everyone but 1TB? Like I say you don't see them for sale much on the highstreet do you? Maybe as you say they will introduce smaller HDD's but............

When we consider only around a quarter of VM's customer base even has V+, which is dirt cheap and been around for donkeys years I cannot possibly see why VM think they are going to spend a couple of hundred pounds on Tivo.
Maybe they don't, as DF says maybe it's a way to tie in higher tier subscribers and avoid churn.

Almost 3/4 of VM's customer base clearly don't require ANY recording facilities, let alone a 1TB box which isn't surprising to me personally given the excellent on demand catch up service which in a way seems to be a shot in Tivo's foot to me.

Maybe the V HD box with Tivo will be the real draw, who knows.

[alwaysabear]

Originally Posted by ahardie

That wont be much of a spoiler though. Their new box only has one advantage over their old ones, namely the larger drive. Also i wouldn't be too happy if I had paid £300 for the box and suddenly they were giving it away. VM at least can cut the price by offering a tivo box with a smaller drive without peeing off early adopters too much. At the end of the day content aside the new VM box should be far superior to the Sky boxes. With many modern features. It will be hard for Sky to counter that. I'm not saying that will make many (or any) people change from Sky. I am just saying we should give credit were it is due.

The TiVo box should be the best on the market I don't think anyone is denying that. But to release it without the three tuners operational is just plain stupid why would anyone pay for some thing that does less than what they have already.
Lets be honest the only way that Virgin can compete with sky as far as tV is concerned is VOD and I imagine that is the direction VM will go more into in the future.

[mersey70]

Originally Posted by alwaysabear

The TiVo box should be the best on the market I don't think anyone is denying that. But to release it without the three tuners operational is just plain stupid why would anyone pay for some thing that does less than what they have already.
Lets be honest the only way that Virgin can compete with sky as far as tV is concerned is VOD and I imagine that is the direction VM will go more into in the future.

I must say it seems a mistake to launch a box that isn't fully functional but hopefully an upgrade will follow sooner rather than later. Not 'coming soon' as we often hear.

A pay VOD service is only as good as the content offered, you can have all the technology and fibre you like but you need something compelling to broadcast. They stuck with OD for years and finally realised it was linear HD that a lot of people also wanted, and to their credit they have come on leaps and bounds now.

Let's be clear though you don't need fibre for a decent OD service, I had BT Vision on a maximum 7mb ADSL2 line and it was faultless, ok no HD streaming but it was really good. I think the free YouView services are going to be huge and offer real competition in this financial climate so long as they can get the boxes sold at a reasonable price. Of course if you cannot get a decent line speed you are snookered but a lot of people can. A Freeview HD+ box with all manner of on demand is a brilliant offer for many, and no ongoing costs unless you choose to buy content and it will offer many of the bells and whistles of Tivo too like apps and a backwards EPG. I was lucky enough to see an offline demo of it at BT in Liverpool and it looks mightly impressive.

I only really use catch up but maybe I am in the minority, however you don't see that many posts on here when OD is discussed about anything other than catch up though, do you?

[alwaysabear]

Originally Posted by mersey70

I must say it seems a mistake to launch a box that isn't fully functional but hopefully an upgrade will follow sooner rather than later. Not 'coming soon' as we often hear.

A pay VOD service is only as good as the content offered, you can have all the technology and fibre you like but you need something compelling to broadcast. They stuck with OD for years and finally realised it was linear HD that a lot of people also wanted, and to their credit they have come on leaps and bounds now.

Let's be clear though you don't need fibre for a decent OD service, I had BT Vision on a maximum 7mb ADSL2 line and it was faultless, ok no HD streaming but it was really good. I think the free YouView services are going to be huge and offer real competition in this financial climate so long as they can get the boxes sold at a resaonable price. Of course if you cannot get a decent line speed you are snookered, but a lot of people can.

I only really use catch up but maybe I am in the minority, however you don't see that many posts on here when OD is discussed about anything other than catch up though, do you?

My daughter had BT vision ,but she was not impressed as there was so little content when she had it two years ago, she is now on VM. So again we comeback to content ,content,content, that is what the average customer wants.

[Digital Fanatic]

Originally Posted by alwaysabear

My daughter had BT vision ,but she was not impressed as there was so little content when she had it two years ago, she is now on VM. So again we comeback to content ,content,content, that is what the average customer wants.

This is why VM's TiVo will do well... they have a lot of good content, On Demand and HD, plus all the little extras that TiVo brings.

It's a good mix.

Plus have a look at the results at the top of the page... only a tiny amount *may* leave VM for Sky Atlantic. the poll speak for itself.

[mersey70]

Originally Posted by alwaysabear

My daughter had BT vision ,but she was not impressed as there was so little content when she had it two years ago, she is now on VM. So again we comeback to content ,content,content, that is what the average customer wants.

Personally I found the OD content on Vision to be better than VM as it seemed to get refreshed more but of course linear content was limited to Freeview and ESPN although this has improved since I left with Sky Sports 1 and 2 being added although they have lost Channel 5 OD now.

But you are absolutely correct in my opinion. It isn't fibre, or satellite, or ADSL, or Sky Plus or even Tivo that wins susbcribers.

It is the programming that the particular person is looking for that sways them to one platform or another, and always has.

---------- Post added at 14:18 ---------- Previous post was at 14:13 ----------

Originally Posted by Digital Fanatic

This is why VM's TiVo will do well... they have a lot of good content, On Demand and HD, plus all the little extras that TiVo brings.

It's a good mix.

Plus have a look at the results at the top of the page... only a tiny amount *may* leave VM for Sky Atlantic. the poll speak for itself.

Again I go back to my comments earlier, I doubt many users of this forum are typical of the average VM subscriber. There is a staggering bias at times almost to the point of hatred towards Sky, the subscriber numbers simply don't back that up. How many of those votes were placed by VM staff?

Have a look at what many people are saying on DS or indeed the VM forums, it isn't anywhere near as clear cut as that small poll you refer to.

And by your own admission DF only around a quarter of VM customers seem to require V+. A V+ box which has been around for many, many years and is WAY cheaper than Tivo. Why do you think they are going to shell out a few hundred pounds, sign a new contract and pay an additional sub when the vast majority of customers don't even seem to need V+, probably because of the excellent catch up services.

V HD with Tivo priced smartly might be a different kettle of fish to these people altogether. If 3/4 of VM's customer base currently don't require any PVR whatsoever why on earth would you think they need a 1TB PVR? I do need a PVR, I certainly don't need a 1TB PVR though.

Which goes back to what I said to you, it will be a niche product until it is the de facto platform and even then the majority of STB's will almost certainly be non PVR's unless the price drastically reduces, as will the 1TB Sky box. It simply isn't required by most people as your own V+ subscriber numbers prove.

[alwaysabear]

Originally Posted by Digital Fanatic

This is why VM's TiVo will do well... they have a lot of good content, On Demand and HD, plus all the little extras that TiVo brings.

It's a good mix.

Plus have a look at the results at the top of the page... only a tiny amount *may* leave VM for Sky Atlantic. the poll speak for itself.

I never thought that a single channel would make people switch, I certainly would not.
I do feel that VM do need to keep adding HD channels to keep there top tier customers, there are plenty of HD channels we do not have, that are nothing to do with sky and therefore should be readily available eg ESPN America this channel has been coming soon/ in negotiation for 7 months at least.
Coming soon to VM seems to be sometime in the yet to be determined future.

[Digital Fanatic]

Originally Posted by mersey70

Personally I found the OD content on Vision to be better than VM as it seemed to get refreshed more but of course linear content was limited to Freeview and ESPN although this has improved since I left with Sky Sports 1 and 2 being added although they have lost Channel 5 OD now.

But you are absolutely correct in my opinion. It isn't fibre, or satellite, or ADSL, or Sky Plus or even Tivo that wins susbcribers.

It is the programming that the particular person is looking for that sways them to one platform or another, and always has.

---------- Post added at 14:18 ---------- Previous post was at 14:13 ----------



Again I go back to my comments earlier, I doubt many users of this forum are typical of the average VM subscriber. There is a staggering bias at times almost to the point of hatred towards Sky, the subscriber numbers simply don't back that up.

Have a look at what many people are saying on DS or indeed the VM forums, it isn't anywhere near as clear cut as that small poll you refer to.

By you own admission DF, only around a quarter of VM customers seem to require V+. A V+ box which has been around for many, many years and is WAY cheaper than Tivo. Why do you think they are going to shell out a few hundred pounds when they don't even seem to need V+?

There are plenty on here who bash VM and you know that. I bet if the poll showed loads would go to Sky, then you'd say it was an indication of what will happen.

I don't hate Sky, in fact I admire them in some ways. They are good at what they do. They have some underhand ways about them though.

[alwaysabear]

Originally Posted by mersey70

Personally I found the OD content on Vision to be better than VM as it seemed to get refreshed more but of course linear content was limited to Freeview and ESPN although this has improved since I left with Sky Sports 1 and 2 being added although they have lost Channel 5 OD now.

But you are absolutely correct in my opinion. It isn't fibre, or satellite, or ADSL, or Sky Plus or even Tivo that wins susbcribers.

It is the programming that the particular person is looking for that sways them to one platform or another, and always has.

---------- Post added at 14:18 ---------- Previous post was at 14:13 ----------



Again I go back to my comments earlier, I doubt many users of this forum are typical of the average VM subscriber. There is a staggering bias at times almost to the point of hatred towards Sky, the subscriber numbers simply don't back that up. How many of those votes were placed by VM staff?

Have a look at what many people are saying on DS or indeed the VM forums, it isn't anywhere near as clear cut as that small poll you refer to.

And by you own admission DF only around a quarter of VM customers seem to require V+. A V+ box which has been around for many, many years and is WAY cheaper than Tivo. Why do you think they are going to shell out a few hundred pounds when they don't even seem to need V+?

I had the option of the V+ or the V HD box when I switched to Hd in March last year, I opted for the VHD as I do not record a lot of programming and VOD demand covers much of what I would want to see. I already owned a PVR which covers everything else. I have to say the V HD box has been excellent and for me it was the right choice, I understand that the TiVo software will eventually find its way on to my box, which will be interesting as the current epg on VM is poor.