Shut up Sky, there's a reason I'm not watching channel 170

As usual, please make your insightful analogies about Apple and the hypocrisy of Bitterwallet in the comments below.



  • Interesting T.
    Whoever XKCD is must be a bit of a twat. Or, for Bitterwallet, an avid twat.
  • skybod
    What is the point of this? Is it a resolution thing? Is it a criticism of Sky content? Is it an HDTV dis?
  • Milky
    Buy a HD freesat box such as Humax with a PVR facility (easier than the sky unit), more reliable than a shonky sky unit, one off payment compared to a few months of substandard don't give a toss sky.. etc etc.. yes why the hell would I have sky HD?
  • Gunn
    That reminder at the start of every show is starting to grate now. And no doubt we will soon get the "Even better in 3D on Channel ???"
  • Interesting T.
    More reliable than a 'shonky Sky unit'? Have you any evidence for that or is it just an unsubstantiated claim? You might want Sky HD to get some actual HD content. BBC HD is only a few hours a day (and then it's filled with repeats) and ITV HD only springs into life when there's a football match on. There's not even Channel 4 HD or E4 HD on Freesat. Even Virgin TV has got more HD than Freesat. (Oh, yes, and no BBC red button on Freesat. No Sky News or Sky Sports News. No Dave. No Virgin 1. It's a proposition that makes Freeview look good.)
  • MickeyB
    It's a dig at those people who think HD is impressive technology. Computer monitors have been capable of the amazing feat that is displaying images at a vertical resolution of 1080p for around 20 years. Such monitors have been widely used by consumers since the early noughties. I'm sure the owner of xkcd is bashing one out to granny porn on his WQUXGA monitor as we speak.
  • JonnySpandex
    HD is impressive because the media you watch via the TV is also now getting to that higher resolution - not because the TV itself can do it. Also the hardware required to play Blu-Ray's and MKV's is available to home users where as in the mid 90's when you could do those high resolutions your processor, RAM and VGA couldn't support it, and neither could the technology inside the TV's. It's one of those statements that wasn't particularly well thought through on XKCD's part. The same could be said of many things - the industry get's stuff literally years before it becomes available for the average home user. Look how advanced the graphics of Jurassic Park were when it came out and yet home computers were shit hot IF they had a 3D graphics card.
  • FIVE
    It does annoy me that HD has simply become more of a marketing term than anything else. More to the point, it annoys me that companies are actually changing their products to suit this HD-obsessed market, without actually making the products technically better. Most notebooks now, for example, come with 1366x768 resolution displays, when they used to have 1280x800. This has also meant that notebooks are now bigger (15.6" instead of 15.4"). Worse still, PC monitors used to be available in a wide range of resolutions and sizes. 1920x1200 has now been killed off in favour of 1920x1080, meaning that those of us with a 1680x1050 display won't really see much benefit in upgrading. If the HD buzzword had been kept to TVs, it'd be fine. Instead, it's being thrown about inappropriately and unnecessarily all over the place.
  • JJ
    I think I heard about Sky doing HD the other day.
  • CompactDistance
    FIVE, I have one of these 1366x768 notebooks and think the move to 16:9 widescreen is a good thing. Most video content online these days is now in 16:9 which means no borders when watching, and also mid-range notebooks are now large enough to fit on a proper numeric keypad.
  • Timmo
  • Kevin
    Yes the resolution has been around for ages, but the size of the screens haven't been. Are you telling me you had a 50 inch tv with that resolution years ago? I don't think so.
  • milky
    @Interesting Theory, I've had more skyboxes than fingers over a short period of time, they are shonky. I only want to watch a few hours of tv per day maximum, not be stuck to my sofa with sweat drooling whilst watching the repetetive shite that sky proffer. When we had it, movies would disappear for up to 6 months at a time, & no responce or solution from the crappy sky "we value your custom" customer service, ..which they did not serve the customer period. by the 3rd or 4th time of this lacklustre shite (oh & them trying to downgrade our package) we told them where to go, clearly I've hit a nerve with you, go & google for the moans NOT applauds to sky for their diabolical pisspoor offerings. The Humax freesat pvr is simpler & more reliable period, 2 humax (one in each tv room) versus multiple skyboxes 4+ replacements per year..

What do you think?

Your comment