SKY+
 

"Jomtien" wrote in message
...
Zero Tolerance wrote:

The label on a thing is not a guarantee of quality and so to be
charged for the label and not the quality is clearly a rip-off.

Certainly, if the label alone is all that you are being charged for.
However, sometimes if you pay more, then along with the label you do
get a better quality of fabric, deeper dyeing, etc., and all the
things that make "a better pair of jeans". If that matters to you then
there is sometimes value in spending more than the minimum possible.
As a wearer of jeans, this is something only you can judge for
yourself as to whether (a) there IS any difference in quality, and (b)
whether it is important enough to you so as to be worth the extra.

If you look at my initial comment about this you will see that I
specifically mentioned that the designer jeans probably came out of
the same sweatshop and were of no better quality.

*If* the quality is better then they are worth more. However I doubt
that the quality of any pair of jeans could ever be 15 times better
than that of the £3 Tesco pair.


Blimey they are getting cheaper by the minute, next time you post they will
be paying you to take them away!

--
Tumbleweed

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com

SKY+
 

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 08:25:04 +0200, Jomtien wrote:

If you look at my initial comment about this you will see that I
specifically mentioned that the designer jeans probably came out of
the same sweatshop and were of no better quality.

Yes, I saw you say that, and yet I did not agree that this hypothesis
was always true.

*If* the quality is better then they are worth more.

Then we agree.

However I doubt
that the quality of any pair of jeans could ever be 15 times better
than that of the £3 Tesco pair.

Mm, law of diminishing returns and the £30,000 hi-fi speakers, of
course.

--

SKY+
 

"Jomtien" wrote in message
...
Paul wrote:

what something is worth is very much a perceived notion.

I agree with you 100%. Asking those at work with me today and they
also agree. However, Jomtien doesn't and so we are wrong and
he is right !

Well, there you go.


A rip-off is anything being sold for substantially more than its
normal price or for which the price bears little or no relation to the
cost of providing the item or service.
Given that the Sky+ recording function (aka "service") has NO
production costs at all above those of the EPG which is provided free
to all digibox users, this £10 fee is clearly a rip-off.

So the value of something isn't defined by the market then ?
If the market allows me sell a product at a certain price then
can it be a rip off ? Surely if it was a rip off there wouldn't
be a marktet as nobody would pay ?

The cost of providing the recording service on Sky+ is not zero.
There were, and still are, development costs involved. I'm not
saying it cost them £10/month/user to development but it
certainly wasn't free. There are many products which are sold
at a far higher price than they cost to make purely to recoup
development costs.

In many cases the cost of a product is driven by supply and demand
and what people in that market are prepared to pay and
has nothing to do with how much it costs to provide or make.

Anyway, there are far more important things to worry about
than this.

SKY+
 

"Paul" wrote in message
...
"Jomtien" wrote in message
...
Paul wrote:

what something is worth is very much a perceived notion.

I agree with you 100%. Asking those at work with me today and they
also agree. However, Jomtien doesn't and so we are wrong and
he is right !

Well, there you go.


A rip-off is anything being sold for substantially more than its
normal price or for which the price bears little or no relation to the
cost of providing the item or service.
Given that the Sky+ recording function (aka "service") has NO
production costs at all above those of the EPG which is provided free
to all digibox users, this £10 fee is clearly a rip-off.

So the value of something isn't defined by the market then ?
If the market allows me sell a product at a certain price then
can it be a rip off ? Surely if it was a rip off there wouldn't
be a marktet as nobody would pay ?

The cost of providing the recording service on Sky+ is not zero.
There were, and still are, development costs involved. I'm not
saying it cost them £10/month/user to development but it
certainly wasn't free. There are many products which are sold
at a far higher price than they cost to make purely to recoup
development costs.

In many cases the cost of a product is driven by supply and demand
and what people in that market are prepared to pay and
has nothing to do with how much it costs to provide or make.



Jomtien seemingly believes* that the price of something should always be a
certain percentage above its cost to manufacture (I'm not even sure he'd
include development and sales and marketing costs,since price to manufacture
is the only cost he ever mentions).

Thats no doubt why he thinks Sky+ should be free, because the box has been
sold for a price and therefore the service should be free since it doesnt
cost anything to make it record (accrding to him, though as you point out,
it does cost something).

As you say, there are costs involved in keeping it going, but also Sky are
free to make the price of the box and the price of the service (recording)
meet whatever objective they want, That could be boxes at £1,000 each and
free recording, or free boxes and £10/week recording fee or everything free
to encourage people to stay with Sky, or £1M a box and £10,000/week
recording fee. The point being as you say that the price is arbitrary and
controlled much more by supply and demand ,and not generally related to cost
of manufacture.

Another POV might be that the people being ripped off are the ones in China
making the jeans.

--
Tumbleweed

*judging from previous messages

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com

SKY+
 

"Tumbleweed" wrote in message
...

"Paul" wrote in message
...
"Jomtien" wrote in message
...
Paul wrote:

what something is worth is very much a perceived notion.

I agree with you 100%. Asking those at work with me today and they
also agree. However, Jomtien doesn't and so we are wrong and
he is right !

Well, there you go.


A rip-off is anything being sold for substantially more than its
normal price or for which the price bears little or no relation to the
cost of providing the item or service.
Given that the Sky+ recording function (aka "service") has NO
production costs at all above those of the EPG which is provided free
to all digibox users, this £10 fee is clearly a rip-off.

So the value of something isn't defined by the market then ?
If the market allows me sell a product at a certain price then
can it be a rip off ? Surely if it was a rip off there wouldn't
be a marktet as nobody would pay ?

The cost of providing the recording service on Sky+ is not zero.
There were, and still are, development costs involved. I'm not
saying it cost them £10/month/user to development but it
certainly wasn't free. There are many products which are sold
at a far higher price than they cost to make purely to recoup
development costs.

In many cases the cost of a product is driven by supply and demand
and what people in that market are prepared to pay and
has nothing to do with how much it costs to provide or make.



Jomtien seemingly believes* that the price of something should always be a
certain percentage above its cost to manufacture (I'm not even sure he'd
include development and sales and marketing costs,since price to
manufacture is the only cost he ever mentions).

Thats no doubt why he thinks Sky+ should be free, because the box has been
sold for a price and therefore the service should be free since it doesnt
cost anything to make it record (accrding to him, though as you point out,
it does cost something).

As you say, there are costs involved in keeping it going, but also Sky are
free to make the price of the box and the price of the service (recording)
meet whatever objective they want, That could be boxes at £1,000 each and
free recording, or free boxes and £10/week recording fee or everything
free to encourage people to stay with Sky, or £1M a box and £10,000/week
recording fee. The point being as you say that the price is arbitrary and
controlled much more by supply and demand ,and not generally related to
cost of manufacture.

Another POV might be that the people being ripped off are the ones in
China making the jeans.


p.s just saw this. Its not you is it Jomtien?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/5292860.stm

:-)

--
Tumbleweed

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com

SKY+
 

Tumbleweed wrote:

Jomtien seemingly believes* that the price of something should always be a
certain percentage above its cost to manufacture (I'm not even sure he'd
include development and sales and marketing costs,since price to manufacture
is the only cost he ever mentions).

Not a certain percentage; just a percentage.

The other costs are merely parts of the whole.


Thats no doubt why he thinks Sky+ should be free, because the box has been
sold for a price and therefore the service should be free since it doesnt
cost anything to make it record (accrding to him, though as you point out,
it does cost something).

No, it costs nothing. Therefore there is no reason why one should pay
for it. Anyone who thinks that it costs Sky something to let the Sky+
record is an idiot. The functionality is contained in the box. Just
like any VCR, DVDR, Freeview hard drive recorder, Ipod etc. etc.


As you say, there are costs involved in keeping it going,

These are the costs of EPG provision and these are met (many times
over) by the broadcasters who pay for an EPG slot.

There are NO ongoing costs to Sky to let the Sky+ record.


but also Sky are
free to make the price of the box and the price of the service (recording)
meet whatever objective they want, That could be boxes at £1,000 each and
free recording, or free boxes and £10/week recording fee or everything free
to encourage people to stay with Sky, or £1M a box and £10,000/week
recording fee. The point being as you say that the price is arbitrary and
controlled much more by supply and demand ,and not generally related to cost
of manufacture.

Sky should not be free to restrict the manufacture of competing
devices thus artificially affecting the price of the service.
Supply and demand is precisely what is *not* deciding the fee charged
for Sky+ use.

--
Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these.
The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/8vef5
UK TV overseas: http://tinyurl.com/6p73
BBC/ITV reception trouble? ; http://www.astra2d.com/
----
Only the truth as I see it.
No monies return'd. ;-)

SKY+
 

Tumbleweed wrote:

p.s just saw this. Its not you is it Jomtien?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/5292860.stm

Hardly. I never buy branded products if I can avoid them by getting
the same thing in a plain packet.

And I would certainly never buy brand-name clothes, trainers,
sunglasses, shopping bags etc.

The chap writing the article is a self-confessed brandname junkie and
to me that makes him a total pillock.

--
Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these.
The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/8vef5
UK TV overseas: http://tinyurl.com/6p73
BBC/ITV reception trouble? ; http://www.astra2d.com/
----
Only the truth as I see it.
No monies return'd. ;-)

SKY+
 

Paul wrote:

A rip-off is anything being sold for substantially more than its
normal price or for which the price bears little or no relation to the
cost of providing the item or service.
Given that the Sky+ recording function (aka "service") has NO
production costs at all above those of the EPG which is provided free
to all digibox users, this £10 fee is clearly a rip-off.

So the value of something isn't defined by the market then ?
If the market allows me sell a product at a certain price then
can it be a rip off ? Surely if it was a rip off there wouldn't
be a marktet as nobody would pay ?

The market does decide, when the market is open. In the case of the
Sky+ it is a firmly closed monopoly. Hence the bizarre pricing that
works, unsurprisingly, to the total detriment of the user.


The cost of providing the recording service on Sky+ is not zero.

Yes it is.


There were, and still are, development costs involved.

That is not the cost of providing the service. It is the cost of
providing the box. The cost of providing the box should be met from
the profit made from selling the box, just as it is with other
consumer electronic devices that perform a similar function. Once
purchased the expense for the user ends.


I'm not
saying it cost them £10/month/user to development but it
certainly wasn't free. There are many products which are sold
at a far higher price than they cost to make purely to recoup
development costs.

The router I am using gets free firmware updates, even though I pay no
fee for this. Windows gets regular free updates. Freeview boxes get
free firmware updates. My DVD player gets free firmware updates. The
subscription-free FreesatfromSky digibox gets free firmware updates.

None of these products require a subscription to function or to be
updated and the Freeview and Sky EPGs are both provided free of charge
to all users, with or without pay subscriptions. The same free Sky EPG
drives the Sky+ recording function.

The end user does not directly pay for ongoing development costs.

--
Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these.
The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/8vef5
UK TV overseas: http://tinyurl.com/6p73
BBC/ITV reception trouble? ; http://www.astra2d.com/
----
Only the truth as I see it.
No monies return'd. ;-)

SKY+
 

"Jomtien" wrote in message
...
Tumbleweed wrote:

p.s just saw this. Its not you is it Jomtien?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/5292860.stm

Hardly. I never buy branded products if I can avoid them by getting
the same thing in a plain packet.

And I would certainly never buy brand-name clothes, trainers,
sunglasses, shopping bags etc.

The chap writing the article is a self-confessed brandname junkie and
to me that makes him a total pillock.

You are entitled to your view just like everyone else is entitled to theirs.
It is only a view though, it might be right for you and wrong for others.
If someone is happy to buy branded goods then that's fine, lots of people
try to kill themselves by taking drugs or smoking - it's entirely up to
them.

SKY+
 

"Jomtien" wrote in message
...
Tumbleweed wrote:

Sky should not be free to restrict the manufacture of competing
devices thus artificially affecting the price of the service.
Supply and demand is precisely what is *not* deciding the fee charged
for Sky+ use.

Years ago Sky took a risk by starting a satellite TV service.
Anyone could have done it but with the exception of BSB
or whatever they were called nobody could be bothered.
Don't blame Sky for spotting an opportunity and exploiting
it to the full. If you want to blame anyone blame the laws
which allow them to do it.

Now the kids are ready to go back to school it's time to
go on holiday. That is one area that is definitely a rip off.