SKY+

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. ;-)

"Jomtien" wrote in message
...
Paul 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.

So all TVs should have the John Logie Baird logo on them, should they?

I'm sure if that was the case there would have been an alternative
system developed.
Sky are provided a product/service and they are free to market it and
make it available to others in whatever way they want as long as they
are not breaking any laws/regulations.

"Jomtien" wrote in message
...
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.

At least they aren't doing any harm to anyone else and they're happy
with what they doing. I'd be more concerned with those who vote
for war mongers like Blair and Bush, God knows what anyone was
thinking of putting them in power. (Figure of speech, I'm not stupid
enough to believe there is a God or any of that religious crap)

"loz" wrote in message
...

"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


This is exactly what Jomtien said;
"Given that the Sky+ recording function (aka "service") has NO
production costs at all above those of the EPG ..."

e.g he is saying it had no production hosts, eg it was free.

Thats plainly incorrect, since in order to record and playback a Sky+ box
has additional software compared to a standard box (which also has to read
the EPG) and that software cost something to produce (and maintain)

--
Tumbleweed

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

"Jomtien" wrote in message
...
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.


You mean this?
"Given that the Sky+ recording function (aka "service") has NO
production costs at all above those of the EPG "

--
Tumbleweed

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

"Jomtien" wrote in message
...
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.

Different argument.


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.


No, thats what you _want_ it to be for.

--
Tumbleweed

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

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 07:47:47 GMT, "Paul" wrote:

"Jomtien" wrote in message
.. .
Paul 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.

So all TVs should have the John Logie Baird logo on them, should they?

I'm sure if that was the case there would have been an alternative
system developed.

An alternative system was indeed developed. The TV systems we use today bears no
relationship at all to the mechanical TV system invented by Baird. The
electronic television technology developed by Marconi-EMI is what supplanted it.

--
Nigel Barker
Live from the sunny Cote d'Azur

"Jomtien" wrote in message
...
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.

I am no fan of the extra Sky+ subscription either, but I think you are
missing a key point here. With a normal Sky subscription one can only watch
one program at a time. With a Sky+ subscription one can watch one program
while recording another or record two programs at the same time. In my
opinion Sky is charging for this "additional" service and not for the
ability to record which in my opinion would have been paid for in the higher
purchase price of the Sky+ box.

This is also why a multiroom subscription costs more a single subscription
even though it does not actually cost Sky any real additional service cost
to provide a multiroom service or a single room service.

"Clueless2" [email protected] wrote in message
...
I am no fan of the extra Sky+ subscription either, but I think you are
missing a key point here. With a normal Sky subscription one can only
watch one program at a time. With a Sky+ subscription one can watch one
program while recording another or record two programs at the same time.
In my opinion Sky is charging for this "additional" service and not for
the ability to record which in my opinion would have been paid for in the
higher purchase price of the Sky+ box.

But again you can argue that the functionality to enable this is already in
the box - i.e. twin tuners.
You can only *watch* one thing at a time as there is only one decoder, so
cannot be considered equal to a mirror sub.

The fact is, Sky have never really clearly justified what the Sky+ sub is
for. They have never said it is because you can record one and watch another
channel. Nor have they said it is just to record. I guess it is the sum of
all these things - it is a Sky+ sub, not a recording sub, not a twin tuner
sub, etc.

Loz

Tumbleweed wrote:

This is exactly what Jomtien said;
"Given that the Sky+ recording function (aka "service") has NO
production costs at all above those of the EPG ..."

e.g he is saying it had no production hosts, eg it was free.

Thats plainly incorrect, since in order to record and playback a Sky+ box
has additional software compared to a standard box (which also has to read
the EPG) and that software cost something to produce (and maintain)

The Sky+ box as sold is perfectly capable of recording. It requires no
extra software and no extra development (even though all digiboxes, in
common with many other bits of technology, do get free updates from
time to time : so why not the Sky+?). Any costs involved in getting it
to record at the point of sale are, of course, covered by the purchase
price.

--
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. ;-)