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.


LOL. Sense of humour failure detected.

--
Tumbleweed

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

"Jomtien" wrote in message
...



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 (according 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.


What, the software in the SKy+ coded itself? And new features are designed,
added, tested, debugged, and rolled out 'for free'? Remarkable!
Perhaps all companies that produce software should go with that model and
avoid all the unpleasant costs that normally come when producing a computer
program.

--
Tumbleweed

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

"Tumbleweed" wrote in message
...
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 (according 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.


What, the software in the SKy+ coded itself? And new features are
designed, added, tested, debugged, and rolled out 'for free'? Remarkable!
Perhaps all companies that produce software should go with that model and
avoid all the unpleasant costs that normally come when producing a
computer program.

Whilst it may be true that Sky continue to provide software updates and that
may in itself justify an ongoing subscription, it is also fair to say that
on the day you initially buy it then it does come with fully functioning
software that is however disabled from recording unless you enter into a
subscription contract.
Similar software exists in many other PVRs for Freeview for example, yet
they require no on-going subscription in order to use their recording
capability. The cost of the software loaded into the machine at purchase is
already reflected in the cost of the unit.
And without any subscription costs, AFIAK it doesn't stop some of them
providing over the air updates too.

So, your remarks certainly don't cut it with me...

loz

"loz" wrote in message
...

"Tumbleweed" wrote in message
...
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 (according 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.


What, the software in the SKy+ coded itself? And new features are
designed, added, tested, debugged, and rolled out 'for free'? Remarkable!
Perhaps all companies that produce software should go with that model and
avoid all the unpleasant costs that normally come when producing a
computer program.

Whilst it may be true that Sky continue to provide software updates and
that may in itself justify an ongoing subscription, it is also fair to say
that on the day you initially buy it then it does come with fully
functioning software that is however disabled from recording unless you
enter into a subscription contract.

So? Whats that got to do with whether its free for Sky to create the Sky+
program?

Similar software exists in many other PVRs for Freeview for example, yet
they require no on-going subscription in order to use their recording
capability. The cost of the software loaded into the machine at purchase
is already reflected in the cost of the unit.

And maybe it isnt in the case of SKy+? Whatever, the point is, it most
certainly wasn't free for Sky or the PVR companies.

And without any subscription costs, AFIAK it doesn't stop some of them
providing over the air updates too.

So, your remarks certainly don't cut it with me...


What, that software really isnt free? Bear in mind Jomtien said that SKy+
can record 'for free' because thats what it does. A Sky+ box is a computer
running a program.That program, the software than does the recording,
playback, etc had to be designed, written and tested, and maintained, and
that costs money. Which bit of that doesn't cut it with you?

How other compnies choose to get their money from PVRs is irrelevant to the
'it doesn't cost anything to produce a program' part of Jomtiens argument.

Tw

"Tumbleweed" wrote in message
...
What, that software really isnt free? Bear in mind Jomtien said that SKy+
can record 'for free' because thats what it does. A Sky+ box is a computer
running a program.That program, the software than does the recording,
playback, etc had to be designed, written and tested, and maintained, and
that costs money. Which bit of that doesn't cut it with you?

The fact that every other PVR also requires such a programme and yet none of
them charge an ongoing subscription charge in order to use the recording
programme. And few of them cost more than a Sky+ box to buy either. So they
are clearly recovering their software development costs in the cost they
sell the unit for.

loz

"loz" wrote in message
news

"Tumbleweed" wrote in message
...
What, that software really isnt free? Bear in mind Jomtien said that SKy+
can record 'for free' because thats what it does. A Sky+ box is a
computer running a program.That program, the software than does the
recording, playback, etc had to be designed, written and tested, and
maintained, and that costs money. Which bit of that doesn't cut it with
you?

The fact that every other PVR also requires such a programme and yet none
of them charge an ongoing subscription charge in order to use the
recording programme. And few of them cost more than a Sky+ box to buy
either. So they are clearly recovering their software development costs in
the cost they sell the unit for.

loz

yep they must be. Maybe (shock horror) Sky want to make an additional profit
on Sky+? That is their choice,and its our choice not to buy Sky or Sky+ if
we dont want to. Still doesnt alter the fact that it wasnt free to produce
the program, and it isnt free to maintain it.

--
Tumbleweed

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

"Tumbleweed" wrote in message
...
The fact that every other PVR also requires such a programme and yet none
of them charge an ongoing subscription charge in order to use the
recording programme. And few of them cost more than a Sky+ box to buy
either. So they are clearly recovering their software development costs
in the cost they sell the unit for.
yep they must be. Maybe (shock horror) Sky want to make an additional
profit on Sky+? That is their choice,and its our choice not to buy Sky or
Sky+ if we dont want to. Still doesnt alter the fact that it wasnt free to
produce the program, and it isnt free to maintain it.

And looking carefully at what Jomtiem said, he never said it was.
So what's your point?

Loz

Paul wrote:

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

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.

Indeed. I don't care what they do.
They are still all pillocks though.

--
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. ;-)

Tumbleweed wrote:

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.


What, the software in the SKy+ coded itself?

Of course not, any more than the Ipod invented itself. However all
other recording devices cover their development and manufacturing
costs from the purchase price. Just as happens with every other thing
you buy.


And new features are designed,
added, tested, debugged, and rolled out 'for free'? Remarkable!

Well, that is exactly what does happen with updates for all other
devices. But it is all funded from the purchase cost.


Perhaps all companies that produce software should go with that model and
avoid all the unpleasant costs that normally come when producing a computer
program.

They don't avoid them but nor do they charge end-users a high monthly
fee to cover them. That is what the purchase price is for.

--
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. ;-)

Tumbleweed wrote:

What, that software really isnt free? Bear in mind Jomtien said that SKy+
can record 'for free' because thats what it does. A Sky+ box is a computer
running a program.That program, the software than does the recording,
playback, etc had to be designed, written and tested, and maintained, and
that costs money. Which bit of that doesn't cut it with you?

Go back and read what I actually wrote.


How other compnies choose to get their money from PVRs is irrelevant to the
'it doesn't cost anything to produce a program' part of Jomtiens argument.

Go back and read what I actually wrote.

--
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. ;-)