Let's face it. Virgin didn't give Sky the money they wanted so they're not getting the channels. If Virgin had given them the 30% extra that Sky had, in their own right, asked for then this wouldn't be happening. But it doesn't matter "who started it", Sky will lose advertising revenue and Virgin will lose subscribers who are Lost and 24 fans.
It's bad for both of them. In the end, unfortunately, they'll both lose out.
Serves Cable customers right anyway - it's their own fault for choosing an inferior service.
It does have it's plus points VOD being one of them. It's also worth remembering that there are many people who have cable because they can't have Sky.
Quote:
I just feel sorry for Richard Branson. Those idiots at (what was) NTL:Telewest are really dragging the Virgin name through the mud
Not really, it's good publicity and follows the Virgin reputation of trying to fight against the big boys quite well - Virgin Atlantic Vs BA, Virgin Cola vs Coke etc.
Also it's good publicity, many more people will have heard of Virgin media through this and when Sky's channels come back again (which they will) it will just promote their services more
You could say the same about Sky - and they've not done anything silly.
I'm going to have to assume you work for Sky.
Sky were the ones who ran a commercial prompting customers to call NTL "demanding" Sky be retained on the platform.
They were the first to drag the viewers into this debacle. Virgin merely followed suit.
At least get the facts right.
When I say Sky haven't done anything silly - I mean they haven't reverted to changing channel EPG titles to ridiculous and childish names. I wasn't referring to the actual fight between them - so there weren't any "facts" to get right. In the aftermath of the channels being removed, Virgin have done what they have done, but Sky have taken a much more grown up approach, as you can see in that advert.
I don't actually work for Sky or know anyone that does. I just feel that everyone is siding with the juvenile (and massive conglomerate) Virgin, saying that Sky are bullying the little companies - when it's nothing like that.
If Sky want to charge more for their channels - they should be able to. I'm not saying Virgin are completely to blame as Sky have been as stubborn, negotiations shouldn't have broken down so easily. If Virgin don't like the price hike - they don't have to take the channels - which is what has happened. This would have been fine, had they just switched them off - but they haven't - instead we've got this ridiculous bad mouthing campaign which is a shameful way to run a business.
***
I earlier said that Cable was an inferior service, due to my own experience. As I see it (and i've had experience of both platforms), Cable boxes are slow and clumsy and i've yet to see a red button application that hasn't crashed the box. It has fewer channels than Sky (yes I know most of them are shopping channels, but you can't argue about taste). In my experience, Sky has much faster software, which is much easier to use. I'm not saying it is perfect, or never crashes, but i've had many more problems with cable software. Everytime a Cable user visits my home, it is always met with 'oh my god - this is so much better than mine'.
When I say Sky haven't done anything silly - I mean they haven't reverted to changing channel EPG titles to ridiculous and childish names. I wasn't referring to the actual fight between them - so there weren't any "facts" to get right. In the aftermath of the channels being removed, Virgin have done what they have done, but Sky have taken a much more grown up approach, as you can see in that advert.
Yeah... that "grown up" approach of deliberately getting your competitor's name wrong in order to have a swipe at them.
I don't know about anyone else, but childish or not, I've loved watching this unfold. It's a real battle of blue vs red. Ultimately, although Murdoch has more political power, people actually respect Virgin a lot more. It will be interesting to see how it pans out.
Besides, it is actually Sky that is the inferior platform, it just lacks content (even more today!) and high-definition channels. Virgin actually has proper video-on-demand services, whereas with Sky's (which hasn't launched yet) you have to wait for a "selection" of programmes to be downloaded and stored on the hard drive overnight.
However, it can be debated that the Sky Anytime on PC service is true Video on Demand, which it is. The difference is it's on PC rather than TV, and as it works with Media Center, many people can view it on their TV. For example, I download movies from Sky Anytime, and then using the Media Center Extender on my Xbox 360, I watch them on TV. Also, how does Sky lack HD channels, last I checked it had a lot more than Virgin. Also, don't forget, Sky has a much superior interactivity platform than Virgin's dated system.
Whataday posted:
Yeah... that "grown up" approach of deliberately getting your competitor's name wrong in order to have a swipe at them.
As I said over at DS, it could be to avoid confusion. I have many mates who have Virgin, but they all still think it's NTL for the simple reason that the NTL logo is still on the EPG. When I mentioned about the channel losses to them the other week, they had no idea why I was telling them as I said Virgin, the moment I mentioned NTL it made sence to them.
I switched from NTL to SKY about 6 months ago and I haven't looked back since! The NTL boxes were extremely slow and would crash and hang daily.
In the end I wouldn't go near the red button, if I did I'd be waiting ten minutes before anything happened (and usually when it did it just crashed.
Sky has more channels than NTL (evem more so today!), their hardware is better, their software is better, their innovation is better in terms of Sky+, SkyHD etc.
I personally prefer their customer service...NTL's was non existent!
VOD will appear on Sky soon, but to be honest I'd much prefer Sky+ where I can pick what I want to watch rather than be told!
I'm agree with Virgin at how unfair Sky are being. But I'm surprised at how unprofessional and uncool Virgin are taking this development. As much as I like the Virgin empire I'm not impressed. I hope when the end comes Virgin will be victorious and Sky will be embarressed.
Let's face it. Virgin didn't give Sky the money they wanted so they're not getting the channels. If Virgin had given them the 30% extra that Sky had, in their own right, asked for then this wouldn't be happening.
So you think the Sky channels in question are worth ten times the price of the Virgin media portfolio?
Charlie Wells posted:
I guess if Sky wish to reinstate their channels they may now have lost the 120 channel number and get allocated one further down.
They should use the Sky tactic of telling them they can't put them on the EPG for six months!
All because they said "Old Sky Snooze try
BBC
News" that's your idea of being childish --
I know it's a bit childish, but at the same time they have a sense of humour, the Virgin brand is known for being daring, anyone remember that Virgin Atlantic advert?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bon-qNCnePY and.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XW4anfq_IZM
