A lot of people will probably just think that HQ means the same as HD.
Eh? HD is a ubiquitous term for high definition television; I doubt anyone will confuse the two.
I'm on about the same sort of people who don't understand aspect ratios. Also in Internet video 'HQ' means high quality don't forget I'm not on about the tech savy I'm on about everyday people who aren't stupid but have other concerns.
A lot of people will probably just think that HQ means the same as HD.
Eh? HD is a ubiquitous term for high definition television; I doubt anyone will confuse the two.
I'm on about the same sort of people who don't understand aspect ratios. Also in Internet video 'HQ' means high quality don't forget I'm not on about the tech savy I'm on about everyday people.
I know you are. My point still stands - it is a ubiquitous term. Considering how much Sky has pushed their HD offering, especially for sport, there won't be any confusion other than feigned.
EDIT: YouTube uses "HD" to refer to its HD offering.
I think my point is people just glancing may just assume they've seen 'HD' because the general shape of the channel name is the same and 50% of the letters of the addition letters are the same when tuning into the SD variant and most people won't realise the channels changed name.
I think my point is people just glancing may just assume they've seen 'HD' because the general shape of the channel name is the same and 50% of the letters of the addition letters are the same when tuning into the SD variant and most people won't realise the channels changed name.
That's a different issue altogether - even television presentation fans can misread things when having a flick. If the worst comes to the worst, then someone is going to look for a non-HD version of the channel, only to find that they've been mistaken and read a Q as a D. If anything, it'll be a public service, showing people that they really do need that eye test doing,
Let's face it, if Freeview/Freesat announced that BBC One would be on 102/2 etc, there would be uproar.
Either the execs were on a controlled substance when they made the decision, or they made the right one, as we're all talking about something that hasn't even happened yet!
I think from a marketing position it has to be seen as the right decision. Stick your (I assume) least watched sport channel on the EPG number that your (I assume) most watched sport channel has occupied for the past 15 years and you guarantee that every subscriber to the sport channels is going to see the new look Sky Sports News[HQ][HD] at least once and probably more as they gradually wean themselves off a 15 year habit. Great news for brand awareness, not so great for usability but as most people don't even know that is a thing and Sky have a monopoly on the Sport channels, they don't really need to consider that.
If this works out, expect to see Sky Livingit+1 moved to 106 before the end of the year.
I think from a marketing position it has to be seen as the right decision. Stick your (I assume) least watched sport channel on the EPG number that your (I assume) most watched sport channel has occupied for the past 15 years and you guarantee that every subscriber to the sport channels is going to see the new look Sky Sports News[HQ][HD] at least once and probably more as they gradually wean themselves off a 15 year habit. Great news for brand awareness, not so great for usability but as most people don't even know that is a thing and Sky have a monopoly on the Sport channels, they don't really need to consider that.
If this works out, expect to see Sky Livingit+1 moved to 106 before the end of the year.
The thing is that it is actually the sports channel that is available to the most amount of subscribers - it is in the "big basic" Variety TV pack whereas all the other Sky Sports channels (apart from Sky Sports F1, which is available to all HD subscribers) are premium tier channels. Likewise on cable it is typically in a basic tier package. So from the point of view it actually makes a bit more sense.
