VM CEO: We don't need HD channels

[robinkidderminst]

Thankyou brundles. I was considering moving to Sky when my HD subscription expires next month. Now I know I will move since Virgin have seen fit to ignore the 'few' HD customers. Any advice for the changeover would be appreciated since I have TV, phone and broadband from Virgin.

Regards to all.

[Toto]

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.

What you on about, 7 feet away, BBC HD looks superb, watched Heroes season 2, recorded the HD version and the BBC 2 version....nothing wrong with my eyes HD is superior.

[moroboshi]

Is this the same Neil Berkett who said net neutrality was '*******s' and is implementing phorm?

I don't think there has ever been a CEO as arrogant, ill informed, incompetent, and frankly stupid as this guy. He seems to be trying everything imaginable to alienate his customers. Putting it simply, the guy is an **** hole.

VM need to remove this nut case before he does any more damage.

[Ignatius]

I don't have an HD TV - yet.

Reason? (other than the fact that I don't have the money just now)

because it would only be for me.

There's a slight problem with my setup at home at the moment. I have both the RF and Scart inputs into the back of the TV. There's some sort of conflict on the RF (maybe channel 5, maybe just mains hum) which leads to an annoying herringbone effect when virgin is viewed via RF rather than by Scart.

I've explained time and again to my family that the picture's better if they select the AV channel rather than RF. It gets me nowhere - I actually get told they can't see the problem!

Now if an annoying problem like that is irrelevent to a (possibly significant) part of the population, what are they going to think about HD?

I honestly suspect that (although there'll always be those who appreciate clear crisp pictures) a fair chunk of people are not going to give a fig whether a channel is HD or SD so long as the latest episode of X factor or emmerdale can be seen.

I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but I wouldn't lay a bet on it.</p>

[moroboshi]

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.

You either need a better TV, or better eyes. Maybe both.

The difference between SD and HD is night and day on my TV (50" 1080p Pioneer plasma). In fact I find many SD channels simply unwatchable, such is the level of blur and blockyness.

[raefil]

Well thats the straw that broke the camels back, Im offsky.

Yes Sky is going cost me more but I for one bought my TV and got V+ box for HD content. Ive hung about for 2 years believing it was only a matter of time.

[frogstamper]

Originally Posted by moroboshi

You either need a better TV, or better eyes. Maybe both.

The difference between SD and HD is night and day on my TV (50" 1080p Pioneer plasma). In fact I find many SD channels simply unwatchable, such is the level of blur and blockyness.

Add to the better eyes and TV, a more mature attitude, this isn't a children's forum

[nialli]

The Digital Spy spin on this story is pretty appalling - no-one says that "one HD channel is enough", they said they're concentrating on marketing Virgin's VoD and Broadband services. Nowhere is there a direct quote that justifies the headline. What they actually say is that they're not currently losing a significant number of customers due to lack of HD channels, and they're in a better position to judge that than us no matter what we personally feel.

If someone has recently bought Virgin thinking they're getting HD on a par with Sky's service, they haven't done their homework. Similarly, if someone's bought Sky expecting a decent On Demand service, they're going to be disappointed too. Quite simple really: if you want more HD and it's your main criteria for selecting a supplier, go Sky. Sad but true.

[moroboshi]

Originally Posted by nialli

If someone has recently bought Virgin thinking they're getting HD on a par with Sky's service, they haven't done their homework. Similarly, if someone's bought Sky expecting a decent On Demand service, they're going to be disappointed too. Quite simple really: if you want more HD and it's your main criteria for selecting a supplier, go Sky. Sad but true.

I signed up for VM after being told by a customer service person that Virgin would be adding more HD channels this year. If it turns out that was a lie, then I have been sold a product on false pretences and I want out.

I've nothing against VOD, it could be a wonderful service but the fact is after all this time the amount of HD content on VOD is absolutely laughable. Sky broadcast vastly more HD content every single day, so for Virgin to use VOD as an argument not to add HD channels is truly pathetic.

I'm going to speak to Virgin and get out of my contract if I can and go to Sky. I'd much sooner not, as I find Murdoch repugnant, but the truth of the matter is that Virgin's service is far inferior to Sky's offering and is showing no signs of improving. And frankly Virgin Media's CEO isn't far behind Murdoch in the offensive stakes now anyway. They guy is one of the most obnoxious figures ever to run a large corporation.

---------- Post added at 21:19 ---------- Previous post was at 21:18 ----------

Originally Posted by frogstamper

Add to the better eyes and TV, a more mature attitude, this isn't a children's forum

You've completely lost me there with that snide remark. HD is a vast improvement over HD, and if someone can't see that then the only explanations are either that their viewing hardware is inadequate, or they simply lack good enough eye sight to appreciate the difference.

Neither of which is at all uncommon.

[supremus]

Originally Posted by nialli

The Digital Spy spin on this story is pretty appalling

Nothing new there. DS has over the last few years become a detestable, online gossip rag.

What they actually say is that they're not currently losing a significant number of customers due to lack of HD channels, and they're in a better position to judge that than us no matter what we personally feel.

Yes, if they didn't lose significant numbers when the basic Sky channels went, they're certainly not going to take much of a hit over HD.

[frogstamper]

Originally Posted by moroboshi

You've completely lost me there with that snide remark. HD is a vast improvement over HD, and if someone can't see that then the only explanations are either that their viewing hardware is inadequate, or they simply lack good enough eye sight to appreciate the difference.

I was agreeing with you moroboshi, my remark was, as was yours, towards Hokkers999

[moroboshi]

Originally Posted by frogstamper

I was agreeing with you moroboshi, my remark was, as was yours, towards Hokkers999

Oh okay, sorry about that, I thought you were having a dig at me!

[frogstamper]

Originally Posted by moroboshi

Oh okay, sorry about that, I thought you were having a dig at me!

No mate,


I was having a dig at Hokkers999.

[G UK]

Originally Posted by moroboshi

You either need a better TV, or better eyes. Maybe both.

The difference between SD and HD is night and day on my TV (50" 1080p Pioneer plasma). In fact I find many SD channels simply unwatchable, such is the level of blur and blockyness.

Yes and that is on a 50" TV which you will most certainly see the benefit unfortunately most people dont have one. The standard TV at the moment has crept upto about the 32" mark
from what I have seen. In an average front room you would be looking at a viewing distance of what 7 - 8 feet minimum. At that range on a 32" screen the difference between HD & SD is barely discernable. This has already been discussed several times on here.

Anyway back on topic, no matter the real benefit, HD is still a selling point especially for those that dont understand it. I understand the technical difficulties but without at least 2 or 3 channels VM are going to be left behind. VoD is a bonus for most people not the main feature which is Linear TV.

Berkett is living upto his name with his stupid comments recently and I can see him being out on his ear soon. To be honest I think this has not been well reported but still to leave yourself open to this is stupid.

[kibblerok]

Sky could simply give HD boxes away for free, £5 extra per month sub (even free if they dared maybe 18 month contract?) and crush virgin media TV like a paper cup.

Taking that hit now could destroy virgin... and if they gain the TV customers, they're likely to gain the phone & bb as they are likely to move at the same time

VMs head in the sand attitude may well hold now, but its not going to last.