SKY+

"Jomtien" wrote in message
...
Clueless2 wrote:

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.

You will be disappointed to learn that may electronic devices (e.g. Mobile
phones) contains exactly the same hardware and firmware across certain
model
range with some functions disabled in order to allow the
manufacturer/service providers to differentiate and sell the devices at
different price points.

And precisely what does this have to do with video recorders requiring
a monthly payment to be allowed to record?

That the price of something doesn't have to bear a relationship to its cost
of manufacture.


--
Tumbleweed

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

"Jomtien" wrote in message
...
Why do you have to pay the same sum to record just one programme at a
time?

For a long time the Sky+ couldn't record two things at once. It still
cost the same per month.

You are entitled to your views and me to mine. The additional service on
Sky+ to be able to a) Record two programmes simutaneously or b) Record one
and while watching another is to me an additional service which a normal Sky
subscription does not offer. For me (even though I would prefer not pay an
additonal fee) I can see why there is a different subscription to
differentiate this "additional" service.

Why would you need to record two things at the same time anyway when
nearly all pay broadcasts are repeated endlessly? I suspect that only
very rarely do Sky+ units get used to record two things at once.

For this is only worth while for living broadcasts of sport events - for
example I sometimes work all hours of the day and cannot always watch the
sports events live. Even when I am at home I often cannot decide which
sporting events I want to watch. With Sky+ I can watch one while I record
the other and I can watch that straight after the first one and not have to
watch the highlights.

The vast bulk of pay TV is not live. I will happily forego the
privilege of being able to record two live pay broadcasts in return
for not paying the £10 fee.

Great so don't subscribe to Sky+ then if you do not need the additional
service being provided. I don't fly Business Class because I do not need to
sleep in a flat bed across the Atlantic, but I don't bitch about the cost of
a Business Class ticket either!

You/we are going round in circles - in my opinion if I don't like a service
I vote with my feet. In this case, however you seem to be making a case that
you don't actually need or appreciate the additional service provided by
Sky+. Not sure why you are bitching about it then, as you can record your
(singular) Sky program via a normal PVR of your choice.

Get out a bit more and have a great life.

Tumbleweed wrote:

You will be disappointed to learn that may electronic devices (e.g. Mobile
phones) contains exactly the same hardware and firmware across certain
model
range with some functions disabled in order to allow the
manufacturer/service providers to differentiate and sell the devices at
different price points.

And precisely what does this have to do with video recorders requiring
a monthly payment to be allowed to record?

That the price of something doesn't have to bear a relationship to its cost
of manufacture.

That's as may be, but it has nothing to do with the Sky+ which, as we
know, has only two models which are priced differently according to
the size of the drive.

The main point of having one is to be able to record and this is what
it doesn't do unless you pay even more.

--
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. ;-)

Clueless2 wrote:

Why do you have to pay the same sum to record just one programme at a
time?

For a long time the Sky+ couldn't record two things at once. It still
cost the same per month.

You are entitled to your views and me to mine. The additional service on
Sky+ to be able to a) Record two programmes simutaneously or b) Record one
and while watching another is to me an additional service which a normal Sky
subscription does not offer. For me (even though I would prefer not pay an
additonal fee) I can see why there is a different subscription to
differentiate this "additional" service.

But you still don't explain why there should have been an identical
fee when the Sky+ *couldn't* record two things at once, nor do you
explain why it isn't free to record just one thing.

The argument "this fee is valid because I think it's worth the money"
is totally fallacious.


Why would you need to record two things at the same time anyway when
nearly all pay broadcasts are repeated endlessly? I suspect that only
very rarely do Sky+ units get used to record two things at once.

For this is only worth while for living broadcasts of sport events - for
example I sometimes work all hours of the day and cannot always watch the
sports events live. Even when I am at home I often cannot decide which
sporting events I want to watch. With Sky+ I can watch one while I record
the other and I can watch that straight after the first one and not have to
watch the highlights.

Fine. You can pay £10 in order to record a couple of football matches
if you like. I never watch any sport of any type and so will willingly
forego this. What I do want to do is to use a Sky+ recorder that I may
have purchased outright at full list price and I don't see why I
should have to pay a fee to Sky in order to do so.

And, in spite of much prompting, you still haven't come up with a
single good reason as to why there should be such a fee for the Sky+
but not for any other type of recorder or indeed any other type of
device.

You have explained why you think it is worth it but that doesn't
justify it.


The vast bulk of pay TV is not live. I will happily forego the
privilege of being able to record two live pay broadcasts in return
for not paying the £10 fee.

Great so don't subscribe to Sky+ then if you do not need the additional
service being provided. I don't fly Business Class because I do not need to
sleep in a flat bed across the Atlantic, but I don't bitch about the cost of
a Business Class ticket either!

This is totally irrelevant. There isn't a choice when it comes to
Sky+.


You/we are going round in circles - in my opinion if I don't like a service
I vote with my feet. In this case, however you seem to be making a case that
you don't actually need or appreciate the additional service provided by
Sky+. Not sure why you are bitching about it then, as you can record your
(singular) Sky program via a normal PVR of your choice.

No, that's what you can't do. Only the Sky+ can make a direct
recording of the three FTV channels because Sky won't release a
VideoGuard CAM. This is what must change.

When there is a competing product that can do the same job then I will
buy one and I will have no more to say about the Sky+ fee. In fact no
one will have anything to say about the Sky+ fee because the day after
a VideoGuard CAM is released Sky will be obliged to scrap the Sky+ fee
altogether, to the benefit of all Sky+ owners.

--
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. ;-)

loz wrote:

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.

Many of the other PVRs use Linux based software which is licenced under
the GPL and therefore generate (close to) no costs for the box vendors
at all.

According to your logics nobody could ever charge money for developing
software, because there are actually developers who do it for free.

That doesn't make sense... just because someone does it for free doesn't
mean that someone who charges money for his work ripps other people off.

Anyway in the case of Sky+ it's not the cost of the software sky charges
for. It's the service itself. How this service is being put into
action on the technical side is irrelevant in this matter.

In fact there are Linux based PVRs which are perfectly capable of
receiving and recording Sky even without paying 10 Pound to Sky and the
possibility to simply FTP and burn the recorded movies. The only catch:
it's illegal, bause the software (NDS-capable software-CAM such as
"NewCS") isn't licenced by NDS/Sky.

After all it comes down to charging money for a service which Sky is
providing. The fact that software is required to put the service in
action and the fact that there is software which does the same job
for free doesn't change anything about it.

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.

As mentionned above: that's completely irrelevant. Being able to
digitally record Sky is a feature/service regulated by a contract. How
this service works is irrelevant.


--
Gruß,
Jörn

Clueless2 [email protected] wrote:

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.

You will be disappointed to learn that may electronic devices (e.g. Mobile
phones) contains exactly the same hardware and firmware across certain model
range with some functions disabled in order to allow the
manufacturer/service providers to differentiate and sell the devices at
different price points.

One of the best examples would be Windows XP (Home/Professional). You
can turn any "XP Home" to "XP Professional" by changing some registry
keys but that would mean breaking the licencing contract with Microsoft.

There is no law to say that cost of manufacturing has anything to do with
selling price.

right.

--
Gruß,
Jörn

Jomtien wrote:

That's as may be, but it has nothing to do with the Sky+ which, as we
know, has only two models which are priced differently according to
the size of the drive.

The main point of having one is to be able to record and this is what
it doesn't do unless you pay even more.

Right. So what? Being able to record is an service provided by Sky. What
makes you think Sky wouldn't have the right to charge for their
services?

You can choose whether you want to use that service or not. If you do,
you have to pay. If you don't you don't have to pay. Fair is fair.

Saying that it's a ripp off to charge for this service is like saying
that it's a ripp off having to pay for a train ticket - after all the
train is going from station to station anyway - with or without you
riding on it. So the costs are the same, right? So why are they charging
for a ride in the train?


--
Regards,
Joern

"Joern Bredereck" wrote in message
...
loz wrote:

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.

Many of the other PVRs use Linux based software which is licenced under
the GPL and therefore generate (close to) no costs for the box vendors
at all.

So what?

According to your logics nobody could ever charge money for developing
software, because there are actually developers who do it for free.
doesn't make sense... just because someone does it for free doesn't
mean that someone who charges money for his work ripps other people off.

Who said no one could charge money for developing software?
What has this got to do with whether Sky charge for the Sky+ service or not?

Anyway in the case of Sky+ it's not the cost of the software sky charges
for. It's the service itself. How this service is being put into
action on the technical side is irrelevant in this matter.

Agreed.
But it is still a service that other PVR manufacturers with similar
capabilities, albeit not satellite based, do not charge for

As mentionned above: that's completely irrelevant. Being able to
digitally record Sky is a feature/service regulated by a contract. How
this service works is irrelevant.

Don't think anyone has ever argued otherwise.
The question is how do Sky justify this cost, when other PVR manufacturers
do not.
Earlier in the thread it was claimed it was because of the software
development costs and ongoing maintence.
Hence this discussion.
But has been pointed out many times, similiar software exists in every other
PVR, and with updates provided, without any ongoing cost

Loz

"Joern Bredereck" wrote in message
...
Jomtien wrote:


Saying that it's a ripp off to charge for this service is like saying
that it's a ripp off having to pay for a train ticket - after all the
train is going from station to station anyway - with or without you
riding on it. So the costs are the same, right? So why are they charging
for a ride in the train?


money grabbing *******s!

--
Tumbleweed

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

Jomtien wrote:

But you still don't explain why there should have been an identical
fee when the Sky+ *couldn't* record two things at once, nor do you
explain why it isn't free to record just one thing.

that's simple: The service has been improved without an additional
charge. Would you be happier if the Sky increased the fee after
improving the service?

The argument "this fee is valid because I think it's worth the money"
is totally fallacious.

No, it's how free market works: supply and demand. As long as there are
people willing to buy at a certain price, this price is "valid".

And, in spite of much prompting, you still haven't come up with a
single good reason as to why there should be such a fee for the Sky+
but not for any other type of recorder or indeed any other type of
device.

I think I see now where your missunderstanding is: You think of "Sky+"
as a piece of electronics. But that's dead wrong. Sky+ is an ongoing
service, provided continuesly. You can't "buy" a service like this by
purchasing a piece of electronics. The Digibox is nothing more than the
neccessary infrastructure you need in order to use the service. Think of
it as your PC: Just because you bought a piece of hardware that is
capable of displaying web sites that doesn't mean that you bought the
internet access itself. You still have to pay a monthly fee for your
internet service.

Great so don't subscribe to Sky+ then if you do not need the additional
service being provided. I don't fly Business Class because I do not need to
sleep in a flat bed across the Atlantic, but I don't bitch about the cost of
a Business Class ticket either!

This is totally irrelevant. There isn't a choice when it comes to
Sky+.

Take it or leave it. That sounds like a choice to me. Noone forces you
to subscribe to an ISP just because your PC came with the Internet
Explorer preinstalled. If you want to use it, you have to pay. It's the
same with your Digibox: Just because it comes with the neccessary
software and a harddrive doesn't mean that you have the right to use it
for free.

No, that's what you can't do. Only the Sky+ can make a direct
recording of the three FTV channels because Sky won't release a
VideoGuard CAM. This is what must change.

This fact is based on a valid and legal contract. And it is up to the
Channel owners itself, if they are happy with this contract. If Ch4/5
wanted to broadcast FTA noone could hold them back. But apperently they
are happy with the fact, that only Sky+ customers can digitally record
their programmes. If you want to blame someone blame the channel owners;
not Sky! Sky is only providing a plattform. It's up to the channel
owner's whether they want to use it or not.

When there is a competing product that can do the same job then I will
buy one and I will have no more to say about the Sky+ fee. In fact no
one will have anything to say about the Sky+ fee because the day after
a VideoGuard CAM is released Sky will be obliged to scrap the Sky+ fee
altogether, to the benefit of all Sky+ owners.

What makes you think Videoguard/NDS would be licenced to any other
vendor? No channel is forced to use the NDS plattform. They could
encrypt their channels with any other system if they wanted or they
could broadcast FTA. In this sense there ARE competing "products", but
it's up to the channel owners to use them. If you are not happy with
their decision feel free not to watch them or send them a letter
complaining about the situation.


--
Gruss,
Joern