SKY+

At 16:06:27 on 10/09/2006, loz delighted uk.media.tv.sky by announcing:


"Zero Tolerance" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 9 Sep 2006 23:23:24 +0100, "loz"
wrote:

Not digitally.

A DVD recorder is digital. An offboard PVR like TiVo is digital.

But, doesn't accept a digital signal
So we have multiple AD conversions to degenerate the signal.
In the digital age, when bitstream recorders are widely available,
why should I have to use anything else? People who can receive DTT
don't have to

So campaign for wider coverage.

At 16:14:08 on 10/09/2006, loz delighted uk.media.tv.sky by announcing:


"Zero Tolerance" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 9 Sep 2006 23:14:51 +0100, "loz"
wrote:

But DTT PVR "convenience foods" are free.
It is only Sky who charge for convenience.

And everyone is free to make the choice that suits them.
What's wrong with that?

I don't know. You were the one that raised convenience as a factor of
Sky+, not me. But clearly Sky+ convenience comes at a price.

But to be dropped in 6 years though isn't it?
Why do they charge it now then?

Because the market isn't right to drop it just yet, perhaps?

At 16:36:04 on 10/09/2006, loz delighted uk.media.tv.sky by announcing:


"Alex" wrote in message
...

They do not record a digital signal at all. They record an
analog one.

The same analog one that your TV accepts, whether it's from the
Sky box or the recorder. If the quality's crap perhaps you need a
better cable or recording device.

My TV also accepts a digital signal.
Which my SkyHD box outputs.

Now you're changing the rules yet again! Let's play this game then.
Are you going to insist that 75% of the UK can get
non-copy-protected HD over DTT and that their recorders can record
this for free so you should be able to do the same?

Not at all, and I have no idea why you are suggesting that.

The point implied was that TV's only accept an analog signal and that
is all a Sky box or any other recorder outputs. I was mearly
correcting that point.

But we were talking about digitally recording DTT v digitally recording
Sky. There is no real competitor to SkyHD in the UK market right now,
so bringing SkyHD into the argument is a little pointless. You still
would not be able to record anything you want digitally over HDMI if
the content provider enforced HDCP.

At 16:18:12 on 10/09/2006, loz delighted uk.media.tv.sky by announcing:


"Zero Tolerance" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 9 Sep 2006 23:20:12 +0100, "loz"
wrote:

The government recognises that for many the complexity of setting
up external recorders and scheduling recording is not as easy as
it is using a PVR. Clearly they are not so backward thinking or
selfish as you.

The Government recognises that Tesco Value Sausage Rolls do not
taste as nice as Tesco Finest Premium Sausage Rolls. What are they
going to do, make the cheaper option illegal?

But they do not discuss the difference between Tesco Value Sausage
Rolls and Tesco Finest Premium Sausage Rolls in parliment. But they
do discuss the difference between VCRs and digital PVRs and recognise
that they need to be widely available as part of the digital
transition

And what are they going to do when the content providers *prevent* you
from making digital recordings, other than for time-shifting purposes?

"Alex" wrote in message
...

Because it is higher quality

Granted. But decent equipment gets you a perfectly acceptable
recording over scart - certainly much better than VHS, for instance. I
still don't see why you want this exact quality recording other than to
keep up with the Joneses.

and easier to use

This is nonsense. There's nothing about recording the digital signal
that makes a device inherently easier to use. Are you talking about
Sky+ now? In which case, it's got nothing to do with you not being
able to get DTT

If these points are the case, why are *you* the one so vehemently argueing
the case for Sky+?
By the arguements you put forward here, Sky+ seems to be of little value at
all.

I want Sky+ for the very same reasons *you* have put forward.
But I don't agree with the Sky+ monthly fee. To me it there is no valid
justification for it.

Loz

"Alex" wrote in message
...
Why?

Apparently people with Sky+ are so delighted with the service that
not only are they happy to pay for it, but they're also far less
likely to cancel their Sky subscriptions overall. On that basis, my
guess is that it can't be too long before Sky will earn more cash
from loyal and happy non-cancelling customers by making Sky+ free
to all.

But if it is so valuable, and a clearly identifiable and justifiable
Service provision, as you have constantly maintained, then why do
they need to give it away?

You spend all your time argueing why the fee is valid, and then in
the next breadth say it is will be free. If it is free, it clearly
cannot have any justifiable value otherwise they would not give it
away.

It's called marketing. Companies do it all the time. Sometimes they
actually make a loss doing it; these are called 'loss leaders'.

Well if you want a marketing 101, then it is also true that
1. No one give things away at a loss permanently - it is a special offer.
2. you don't give things away permantently that customers value (as you
claim they do) as once you do, they cease to have a value. You cannot say
something has a value if it is free.
3. you don't give something away for nothing in return. Non-Sky subscribers
give Sky nothing in return

In the case of Sky+, are you suggesting it will be given away free to
non-Sky subscribers? (you said "free to all")
I would welcome it of course, but by your arguements surely you cannot be
suggesting that.

Loz

"Alex" wrote in message
...
Does your television display a digital signal? Oh no it doesn't, it
only displays an analogue one. It only accepts an analogue input,
and it only displays it in analogue.

Do you know nothing about Sky HD and HDMI connections?
Pure digital, all the way.

With copy protection so that you *cannot* make a copy if the provider
doesn't want you to.

What has that got to do with it?
The question was one of whether the TV displays a digital signal, not
whether it was copy protected or not.

Loz

At 16:57:36 on 10/09/2006, loz delighted uk.media.tv.sky by announcing:


"Alex" wrote in message
...

Because it is higher quality

Granted. But decent equipment gets you a perfectly acceptable
recording over scart - certainly much better than VHS, for
instance. I still don't see why you want this exact quality
recording other than to keep up with the Joneses.

and easier to use

This is nonsense. There's nothing about recording the digital
signal that makes a device inherently easier to use. Are you
talking about Sky+ now? In which case, it's got nothing to do with
you not being able to get DTT

If these points are the case, why are you the one so vehemently
argueing the case for Sky+? By the arguements you put forward here,
Sky+ seems to be of little value at all.

What? You seem to be confused again. "There is nothing about
recording the digitral signal that makes a device inherently easier to
use," in no way equates to "There is nothing about Sky+ that is easier
to use."

I want Sky+ for the very same reasons you have put forward.
But I don't agree with the Sky+ monthly fee. To me it there is no
valid justification for it.

Then don't pay for it. It's really that simple.

"Alex" wrote in message
...
But we were talking about digitally recording DTT v digitally recording
Sky. There is no real competitor to SkyHD in the UK market right now,
so bringing SkyHD into the argument is a little pointless.

Telewest HD doesn't exist then?

You still would not be able to record anything you want digitally over
HDMI if
the content provider enforced HDCP.

Content protection is a valid point, but nothing to do with the ascertion
that TVs only have an analog input to which I was replying.
And there is currently no suggestion that recording will be prevented by
these means

Loz

At 17:04:52 on 10/09/2006, loz delighted uk.media.tv.sky by announcing:


"Alex" wrote in message
... Why?

Apparently people with Sky+ are so delighted with the service that
not only are they happy to pay for it, but they're also far less
likely to cancel their Sky subscriptions overall. On that basis,
my guess is that it can't be too long before Sky will earn more
cash from loyal and happy non-cancelling customers by making Sky+
free to all.

But if it is so valuable, and a clearly identifiable and
justifiable Service provision, as you have constantly maintained,
then why do they need to give it away?

You spend all your time argueing why the fee is valid, and then in
the next breadth say it is will be free. If it is free, it
clearly cannot have any justifiable value otherwise they would
not give it away.

It's called marketing. Companies do it all the time. Sometimes
they actually make a loss doing it; these are called 'loss leaders'.

Well if you want a marketing 101, then it is also true that
1. No one give things away at a loss permanently - it is a special
offer.

Ooh, that's so wrong. That's what a loss leader is all about.

2. you don't give things away permantently that customers
value (as you claim they do) as once you do, they cease to have a
value. You cannot say something has a value if it is free.

You certainly can, unless you don't value air.

3. you
don't give something away for nothing in return. Non-Sky subscribers
give Sky nothing in return

Eh?

In the case of Sky+, are you suggesting it will be given away free to
non-Sky subscribers? (you said "free to all")

I said nothing of the sort.

I would welcome it of
course, but by your arguements surely you cannot be suggesting that.

Perhaps you should remember exactly who said what.