All posts by MikeB
Below are all of MikeB's postings, with the most recent are at the bottom of the page.
Paul: The recorder and the TV have seperate tuners - so that you can record whilst watching another programme etc. Think of them as to different boxes, but one plugs into the other.
Since I've never even heard of Techwood and a google brought up very little info, it looks like tech support is unlikely. If Brianist's solution does not work, then a very decent PVR can be yours for around £150. The one we recommend at work is generally Humax (the BT Youview box is a version of their Youview recorder), and the latest 2000 model (with twin Freeview HD tuners, 500gb hard drive and the capacity to get Iplayer) is about £169. It has both HDMI and scart/RCA connections, so its very flexible.
| link to this comment |
Paul: Sorry, the HUmax 2000 is £179.95, the Panasonic PVR is £169.95 (although the 500gb seems a little thin on the ground).
| link to this comment |
MikeP: Since all TV's now have at least HD-Ready resolution, and the bulk of them have HD tuners, I suspect that one more or less HD channel will make no difference to people buying a new TV.
Mark Agius - the ITV player is widely seen as a bit of a pain to work, most on-demand boxes have BBC, C5 on increasingly C4, but ITV's is more limited, and not all browsers like it (Panasonics use Opera, with ITV does not like).
The former head of C5 points out that online content is even less cost effective than BBC3 content - its the content which costs. Hopefully it should end up on BBC2.
| link to this comment |
Dave Lindsay: It sounds weird, but a look at the figures suggests that people are still watching around 90% of programmes 'live' (now what that means is an interesting question). In the States it seem to be much the same (Nielson figures are 87% for broadcast, and 93% for cable).
Personally, my household does a fair amount of timeshifting, but there are many who want to sit down at 8pm on a Sunday and watch a particular programme. We are creatures of habit, and there are certain programmes where watching live is important, in order to be part of the conversation.
I also suspect that a lot of people have not replaced their VCR with a PVR, but instead have just stopped recording (thats what a large number of my customers tell me).
I suspect that the 'live' viewing figures will fall, but the trend looks like its going to be a while yet before the majority are timeshifting.
KMJ - MikeP suggested something similar about the takeup of DVB-T2 equipment, and my view was that since pretty much all PVR's/TV's have a DVB-T2 tuner as standard now, its going to make no difference.
R Taylor - Since CBBC and Cbeebies are on at about the same time, and the audience overlaps, but is not the same, putting the two together is unworkable.
Mazbar: Although BBC3 has a bigger audience, much of that is for Family Guy - if/when that came to an end, the figures would fall back a lot. And frankly, BBC4 has a vocal and solid audience that would make life much more difficult for the BBC than BBC3's more fragmented supporters.
BBC1 plus 1 makes sense if you look at the other broadcasters, but its a shame that BBC3 couldn't have been saved. Hopefully, the next licence fee settlement will be fairer for the BBC, and they will have the resources available to serve all parts of the audience.
| link to this comment |
Betamax man: have a look at when programmes are actually repeated - during prime-time there are very few, because thats when most people are watching. Cash in the Attic might be repeated, but its not at 8pm. If you did not repeat any programmes at all, there would simply not be enough money to cover all day on one or two channels.
As for CBBC and Cbeebies - I've got two kids under ten, who love CBBC, and loved Cbeebies before it. I pay my licence fee, like everyone else, so why shouldn't children have a really good channel that does not show constant adverts for toys? In fact some of the best programmes around are on those channels, and have a 2.4% and 3.9% market share. lets not play the game of getting rid of stuff that we dont like/use, while forgetting that the BBC serves all the audience.
How will having one less channel allow less compression?
| link to this comment |
MikeP: If you look at the report that Brianist linked to, it states that 29% of households still have a VCR. Far from being encouraged to throw away their VHS recorder (although that was always going to be the weak link on going to full digital), it seems a lot of people have just left them alone, gathering dust. I've only come across one person who used a digibox with a VCR (apart from me, before I gave up!) - for most people it had not really occured to them.
Frankly, I tried my best to stop people buying Freeview equiped VHS machines coming up to digital switchover - they were more expensive than buying a HDD Recorder, and were an obsolecent technology. They tended to be bought by older people who had a VCR and were a bit nervous of getting a new technology.
A modern HD PVR is about £180 for a Humax 2000, and a little less for a cheapish brand. You get a lot for your money, including two HD tuners and the ability to get Iplayer. It would be interesting to compare the takeup trend of video's with more modern PVR's - I assume its slower, but still steady. Remember that VCR's did not really hit the market in affordable terms until the late 1970's, and it was the 1980's that they became almost universal. PVR's are not yet as cheap, and have been around for less time.
| link to this comment |
Ian: My middle-aged eyes can certainly see the difference between SD and HD, although its more difficult with the programme showing in SD which has been made in HD. But have a look at Eastenders on a Sunday in SD and HD - there is a big difference (I'm looking at it on about 70 screens on a Sunday at work, which is the only reason I'm seeing that particular programme at all!). Yes, the sound is not great, but over 30% of people have a sound system attached to their TV, and many nont feel the need at all.
MikeP: People buy new TV's/PVR's for lots of reasons, and although HD is not always one of them (lots of people still watch in SD even though they have HD, they are just used to switching on 1, rather than 51), the reality is that if they are buying any new kit, its going to be HD, by default. And costs have fallen hugely. You can buy a main brand 32in full HD TV with a DVB-T2 tuner for less than £270 in the high street. Relatively speaking, its not that expensive. And bear in mind that 70% of the population already have an HD Ready TV - its not that big a step to HD.
| link to this comment |
J Peter Wilson: Although your not the only person to have commented ' brings the BBC into disrepute with license fee payers' over such an error, in reality, its not the BBC's doing. Like many other services, its contracted out to Capita. And Capita is...Capita!
Lawyers have a saying - 'Hard cases make bad law'. One or two 'hard cases'/cockups by Capita does not mean that the whole financing of the BBC has to be done in a different way (Brianist has posted a couple of articles about this, and the lack of viable alternatives). Instead, TV Licensing (and whoever runs it) should have been a bit more clear about what needed to be done.
| link to this comment |
MikeP: ' whether many without HD equipment will yet see any benefit in spending money they can ill afford on HD equipment when they can see no distinct advantages as they are not technophiles'
Since I'm one of the 30% or less without any form of HD equipment (I know, ironic), my viewing pleasure isn't especially impaired by have only SD equipment, and I can still enjoy the same programmes as everyone else. I'm not being forced to buy an HD TV or tuner.
However, as I've said before, people buy new equipment for all sorts of reasons. When my TV does go bang (although hopefully not for a while yet), its going to be replaced with a TV that has Full HD with a HD panel, be smart and have wifi. Thats not me being fancy and spending money I can ill afford - thats just bog standard (its the quality of the panel that increases the price). I must admit that having such a TV would have its advantages, not the least the availablity of Iplayer etc in the TV (rather than via the Xbox), the ability to use Apple TV etc via HDMI's, the fact that I can then get a blu-ray player, and of course HD! And you dont have to be a technophile to see the difference of that.
Customers who spoke to me about TV's today had varying reasons for buying new sets, but pretty much all already had a flat screen, even if it was not DVB-T2 equiped. The most common reason was that it was a little small or old (going from 32in/37in up to 40-42 or 46-47in), had moved house, were having a new extention built (more a 55in), or buying a TV for the bedroom etc. Very few mention HD (smart gets mentioned more), and actually many/most have an HD feed via Sky, Virgin or a PVR. HD is a fact for them, not a new and expensive option.
If you have an SD TV, you are not getting the better picture quality of HD, but thats fine. However, I do come across many people who have gone to their childrens/parents/friends house, seen their newer TV, and have decided that a bigger screen, slimmer frame, HD and online functions are all worth having. Again, nobody is forcing them, and in fact I will offer ways to get smart functions or HD on their existing TV.
Ultimately, it is now an HD digital world, not an SD analogue one. People are no more being forced into HD than those who currently still have black and white TV's are being forced to buy colour ones. Its simply the nature of what is available, at least until Ofcom decide that the DVB-T2 tuner should be standard. However, thats a little while away, and I suspect that the market will get there sooner rather later.
| link to this comment |
Saturday 1 March 2014 9:08PM
Alvin Pritchard: The BBC gets £4.5m extra to put into programming, with the other channels also saving some money. Sky is very slightly poorer, but since it benefits from its subscribers being to watch all channels on its platform, it should think itself lucky it got away with it for so long.