The Sky+ £10 fee letter hath arrived

"Gaz" wrote in message
...

Tivo reached for the moon, Sky+ barely manages s****horpe.

Sky+ is just superb IMO - let's the Americans enjoy their creaky, clunky,
outdated technology, Tivo, which fell at the first fence in this country.

Ian

Nigel Barker wrote:
On Sun, 27 May 2007 19:59:22 +0100, "John Russell" wrote:

"Nigel Barker" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 May 2007 18:33:58 +0100, "John Russell"
wrote:

"Nigel Barker" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 May 2007 15:58:04 +0100, "Gaz" wrote:

John Russell wrote:

Sky contract the design of box's to their spec for use by SKY
customers.
SKY
are not in the business of producing box's for general use. SKY are
not
responsible for the crap design of non SKY box's!
Sky will not allow the use of their cam in non approved boxes, to keep a
tight reign on what will be the future pvr market. Sky+ is a truly awful
retarded product, which has had little innovation over the last few
years,
using outdated technology and interface. It will not change, because it
doesnt have to, it is the only game in town, because nobody else has
access
to the cam.
The User Interface for Sky & SKy+ has not changed since launch. It looks
very old & clunky compared
to Vista Media Center for example. The UI for the Sky HD box is just the
same. It's crazy as by
definition the user must have an HDTV so why is the UI designed for an
SDTV?
If you don't like it get Virgin Media!
Not an option for the majority of the population in the UK.
--

Life's a bitch!

I suggest you start your own company if accepting the limitations of being a
customer is getting you down.

My comments on the ugly Sky+ interface were more of an observation than a complaint. It does the job
but it's a shame that they didn't ake the opportunity to rework the GUI with the launch of the HD
model.

That was the major attraction of the Topfield box for me - if you don't
like the GUI just install another one and customize it however you like
it. Most people take it for granted that they can tweak the appearance
of their computers and mobiles, so why not something like a PVR?

--
neil h.
Google Brights

"neil h" wrote in message
...
Nigel Barker wrote:
On Sun, 27 May 2007 19:59:22 +0100, "John Russell"
wrote:

"Nigel Barker" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 May 2007 18:33:58 +0100, "John Russell"
wrote:

"Nigel Barker" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 May 2007 15:58:04 +0100, "Gaz" wrote:

John Russell wrote:

Sky contract the design of box's to their spec for use by SKY
customers.
SKY
are not in the business of producing box's for general use. SKY are
not
responsible for the crap design of non SKY box's!
Sky will not allow the use of their cam in non approved boxes, to
keep a
tight reign on what will be the future pvr market. Sky+ is a truly
awful
retarded product, which has had little innovation over the last few
years,
using outdated technology and interface. It will not change, because
it
doesnt have to, it is the only game in town, because nobody else has
access
to the cam.
The User Interface for Sky & SKy+ has not changed since launch. It
looks
very old & clunky compared
to Vista Media Center for example. The UI for the Sky HD box is just
the
same. It's crazy as by
definition the user must have an HDTV so why is the UI designed for
an
SDTV?
If you don't like it get Virgin Media!
Not an option for the majority of the population in the UK.
--

Life's a bitch!

I suggest you start your own company if accepting the limitations of
being a customer is getting you down.

My comments on the ugly Sky+ interface were more of an observation than a
complaint. It does the job
but it's a shame that they didn't ake the opportunity to rework the GUI
with the launch of the HD
model.

That was the major attraction of the Topfield box for me - if you don't
like the GUI just install another one and customize it however you like
it. Most people take it for granted that they can tweak the appearance of
their computers and mobiles, so why not something like a PVR?

Most People?
Most people turn things on and use them as they are, usually at crap default
settings!

"the dog from that film you saw" wrote
in message ...

"Ed" wrote in message
oups.com...


I'm sure I'll get flamed for this, but I love my sky plus machine.
It's pathetically simple to use - even my 6 year old navigates the
menus like a pro, it can be set to record via the sky web site or by
text message. Now i know its a little tricky for people from Preston,
but what else do you need it to do? I dont want it 'suggesting' things
I might like recording and I dont want sky stealing half my hard drive
for sky's 'suggestions' either, but that's about the only problem I
have with it.




the main scope for improvement is in the season pass department etc - it's
pretty annoying when the sky+ box forgets the season pass due to the show
being off for a week.
with tivo i could set the pass, the series ends, then a new series starts
6 months later and it remembers.
also if there was a film i wanted that had a habit of turning up on late
night tv once every 2 years i could enter it as a wishlist, and in 3 years
time when it finally gets aired, there it is - recorded for me.
it's only when you use the tivo software that you can see the difference.
i dearly wish it could be loaded onto my sky+ box - best of both worlds.
Most of these things are patented by Tivo. So lets have a go at Tivo for
monopolising the best ideas and stopping others using them without coughing
up huge wages of cash.

"Mike" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 May 2007 14:29:36 +0100, "Gaz" wrote:

Imagine xp media centre with cam access to sky and skyhd? It would give
incredible picture and flexibility.

No, the picture "quality" would be typical Sky, i.e full of MPEG
artifacts.

Quality in respect of broadcast TV went irretrievably down the pan
about two decades ago.

Sky do not control the quality of the broadcasts other than their own. In
fact SKY's OB broadcasts for footy show how good DVB can be.

John Russell wrote:
"neil h" wrote in message
...

Most People?
Most people turn things on and use them as they are, usually at crap
default
settings!

You would be amazed at the number of houses i go into, who have their nice
shiny new widescreen tv, stretching a 4:3 picture because they havent
changed the options in the sky box.

Gaz

"Gaz" wrote in message
...
Nigel Barker wrote:
On Sun, 27 May 2007 14:29:36 +0100, "Gaz" wrote:

John Russell wrote:
"Nigel Barker" wrote in message
...

Exactly. The SKY+ is designed for those who want SKY channels. One
minute
posters condemn SKY's kit for being crap, the next they can't find
anything
as good as the SKY+ elsewhere and blame SKY for that as well.

A pvr that wishes to access subscription based sky channels has to
capture
the signal in an anolgue fashion. This increases manufacturing costs
massively, and reduces the picture quality, it also makes dual lnb
feature
impossible.

This is the direct fault of sky, who prevent their box manufacturers
from
accessing the cam with equipment that is not SKY+. An open cam (the
encryption is not at risk), would result in an avalaunch of tivo like
variants on the market, and not what is in essence a retarded sky+
interface.

Imagine xp media centre with cam access to sky and skyhd? It would give
incredible picture and flexibility.

Sky HD is not possible in Media Center because HD outside the US is not
supported.

This is for technical reasons, more then anything else. The HD supported
in the us is largely over the air. It isnt the 'hd' that is the sticking
point for MCE, as a hd stream, is just another stream, and can be
displayed with a standard spec up to date media centre computer, the
problem is in accessing and decoding the stream.

SD with a CAM & a legitimate Sky subscription card is possible &
works very well with Vista Media Center, FloppyDTV tuners & Dragon/T.Rex
CAMs. There is a very long discussion over on AVForums
http://www.avforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=319927

It works, it doesnt work very well, and it isnt a reliable long term
solution. It is a botch up, it isnt in the slightest wife friendly, and
likely to result in more failed recordings. It is also liable at any
moment for sky to change their encryption key, and render the whole
process pointless.

We should be able to buy a sky approved cam, which will only work from a
sky subscription card, and build our own media centres. The technology
now, with the demise of vhs, means that consumers are been shoved into
limited, and highly controlled series of DRMs.

Gaz


What's with the "should"? We "could" yes, but markets never offer all
possible options. Governments do not want to decide what markets "should"
supply. If the "market" decides Sky's approach is crap they go bust and
others "might" then offer products you describe.

"Gaz" wrote in message
...
Dom Robinson wrote:
In article ,
says...

"Dom Robinson" wrote in message
...


Exactly. The SKY+ is designed for those who want SKY channels. One
minute
posters condemn SKY's kit for being crap, the next they can't find
anything
as good as the SKY+ elsewhere and blame SKY for that as well.

TiVo - that's better than Sky+



in software by a mile, in hardware nowhere near - inferior picture and
sound, only 1 tuner.

Here we go again...

Best Quality on a TiVo is a negligible difference to the original
quality, and
at least I can set recordings of different qualities so I can do radio
stations in basic quality (since it only affects the picture) and
maximise the
hard drive space that way (since Sky+ only records at one quality
setting).

But this is not true. Mode 0 is very good etc, but you cannot escape the
fact that often you are re-mpeg encoding an mpeg encoded video stream, and
doing it on the fly. This creates visual problems that are most certainly
noticable on a big screen (well my 55inch shows it all up now).


Sure, an extra tuner would be nice, and we'd have it if TiVo had taken
off in
the UK since they're on a lovely HD model in the US, but the majority of
stuff
I want to record is repeated within the week and TiVo searches out the
alternate broadcasts very easily.

Yes, tivo is magic at that..... Tivo seems to be like the Americans
reaching for the moon in 1969, and then happy to continue circling the
earth in a daft shuttle for the rest of time.

Tivo reached for the moon, Sky+ barely manages s****horpe.

Gaz

SKY+ is a well liked product. Compared to the complexity of most VCR's it
offers fantastic functionality via an easy to use interface. Even my
Technophobe wife can use it!

On Mon, 28 May 2007 11:15:57 +0100, "Ian F." wrote:

"Gaz" wrote in message
...

Tivo reached for the moon, Sky+ barely manages s****horpe.

Sky+ is just superb IMO - let's the Americans enjoy their creaky, clunky,
outdated technology, Tivo, which fell at the first fence in this country.

The mistake that Tivo made when entering the British market in early 200 was getting into bed with
Sky. When Sky introduced their own Sky+ PVR in September 2001 they had no interest in promoting Tivo
any more in fact quite the contrary as it is a competing product. Hardly suprising that Tivo pulled
out of the UK market in January 2003.

Tivo in the US has evolved & DirecTivo is the equivalent of a Sky+ digibox for the DIRECTV satellite
service. There are HDTV versions available too.

Sky+ has hardly changed at all since launch apart from enabling the dual record function that was
missing for the first 18 months or so.
--

Cheers

Nigel Barker
Live from the sunny Cote d'Azur

On Mon, 28 May 2007 11:43:18 +0100, "Gaz" wrote:

John Russell wrote:
"neil h" wrote in message
...

Most People?
Most people turn things on and use them as they are, usually at crap
default
settings!

You would be amazed at the number of houses i go into, who have their nice
shiny new widescreen tv, stretching a 4:3 picture because they havent
changed the options in the sky box.

But you have to strectch the 4:3 picture to get rid of those annoying black bars either side. What's
the point of spendinf all that money on a widescreen TV & then only using 2/3 of the screen?
--

Cheers

Nigel Barker
Live from the sunny Cote d'Azur