SKY+

loz wrote:

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?

My point: the costs for the development are irrelevant in this matter.

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?

Someone stated that the price for a box or for the service would relate
to the cost for developing software. That's not neccessarily true.
Software which has been developed by open source developers and the
services which the software can provide is still worth a lot and can
therefore be very expensive for the consumer.

What has this got to do with whether Sky charge for the Sky+ service
or not?

I wanted to point out that it's the service of being able to record
which sky is charging for and NOT the costs of developing the neccessary
soft- and hardware.

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

You mistake Sky for a PVR manufacturer. The boxes are actually
manufactured by other companies. Sky however is a service provider. To
put the service in toaction you need some piece of equipmentt.But it's
not the equipment or the developing costs of the equipment that you pay
for with is 10 pound fee. You are paying for the service itself. So it's
no use to compare products of other PVR manufacturers with the services
of Sky.

There are people who use their Sky subscription with linux based PVRs.
According to your argument, those people wouldn't have to pay anything
at all, because they are not using the Sky Digibox. Doesn't make sense,
does itß?

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.

As stated above: Sky is no PVR manufacturer but a service provider. So
any comparison between Sky and PVR manufacturers is nonsense.


Earlier in the thread it was claimed it was because of the software
development costs and ongoing maintence.

Yes, and that's simply not true. Sky doesn't charge for the software or
development costs but for a simple service which any subscriber is free
to buy it or not.

But has been pointed out many times, similiar software exists in every other
PVR, and with updates provided, without any ongoing cost

Are those other PVR manufacturarers providing a digital tv plattform
with hundreds of channels and tons of content? I don't think so. So why
would they charge if no such service exists?

--
Regards,
Joern

"Joern Bredereck" wrote in message
...
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.

But why does Sky+ need to be a "service", or Sky charge a monthly fee for
it?

Every other PVR has the same capability, yet none requires an on-going
subscription.
So your comparisons with internet access is irrelevent - it is a different
product.

Compare the costs of Sky+ to another PVR - that is the only thing that is
valid.

The fact is Sky get away with the Sky+ charge simply because they can.
The lock users into their hardware, hence there is no competition in the Sky
hardware market.
If there was, the Sky+ charge wouldn't last a second.

I believe the only reason they do charge is more because when they started,
the only alternative was Tivo - who also charged a £10 monthly fee.
Hence Sky simply matched the competition.

However, since then the DTT PVR market has exploded and not one of them
charges a monthly fee. And we all know what happened to Tivo in the UK.
If the Sky+ fee was so easily justifiable why would Sky give it away to any
of their users with 2 premium channels?

loz

"Joern Bredereck" wrote in message
...
But has been pointed out many times, similiar software exists in every
other
PVR, and with updates provided, without any ongoing cost

Are those other PVR manufacturarers providing a digital tv plattform
with hundreds of channels and tons of content? I don't think so. So why
would they charge if no such service exists?

Snipped much of the prior statements, but your arguement that Sky is a
service provider not a PVR manufacturer is ridiculous.
Sky as you well know keep total control over those boxes and permit no other
manufacturer to enter the market.
Hence there is no separation of service provision and hardware provision.
Your arguement is even weaker when it comes to PVR capabilities.
If there was separation of service provider and PVR manufacturer, how on
earth could recording be considered as fitting in the service provision side
of the equation? What manufacturer on earth would sell a PVR that couldn't
record in normal circumstances (it wouldn't be a PVR) - unless the
manufacturers hands are tied by the service provider of course?
Why is *just* recording that is part of the service provision? Why aren't
other functions part classified as "services" too? After all, it is the same
software, hardware that provides those functions. Should changing channels
be a "service"? It uses the same EPG, software, hardware after all. Should
"change contrast settings" be a "service" too? Again, it uses the same
services menu, software, hardware...
What a totally ludicrous arguement.
I can only come to the conclusion from defensive stance and the fact you
have never commented in this group before that you are someway connected to
Sky...

Name one PVR besides Sky+ boxes that requires any fee for recording?
The only one is Tivo and that is easily excused on the basis that they *are*
providing an additional service that is not inherent in the TV service
providers EPG. Though personally I don't think it is worth as much as some
claim. But at least it is independent of the service provider.

The reason there is so many, extremely good low cost PVRs for the DTT market
that charge no monthly fee is precisely because it is an open market with no
control of content providers over hardware.

Loz

On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 08:32:57 +0200, Jomtien wrote:

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.

You purchased the hardware outright. The software inside remains the
property of Sky and selected features of that software only work with
certain subscription packages.

If you don't like this, keep the hardware and write your own software.


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.

Who says they'd be obliged?

And that's some nice work on lobbying for the release of a VideoGuard
CAM. "Hey Sky, release a CAM so we can pay you less money" - yeah,
that's really going to convince them, isn't it.


--

loz wrote:

Are those other PVR manufacturarers providing a digital tv plattform
with hundreds of channels and tons of content? I don't think so. So why
would they charge if no such service exists?

Snipped much of the prior statements, but your arguement that Sky is a
service provider not a PVR manufacturer is ridiculous.

So, you would say, there is no difference between Sky and the PVR
manufacturers? IF this was the case, then a direct comparison between
Sky and the PVR manufacturerer would become valid. But as long as Sky is
not even close to being compareable to a regular PVR manufacturer it's
just nonsense to campare those.

Sky is a content and plattform provider. And it's up to Sky how they
sell their services and what restrctions apply. Not being able to record
content without the propper subscribtion is one of those restrictions.
But this has absolutely nothing to do with the infrastracture
underneath; including whether the Box is capable of recording from a
technical point of view.

So all this wining about the fact that recording is only allowed with
the proper subscription is just a sign that many people don't get the
difference between a feature of a contract and a feature of a piece of
electronics. The features of the electronics are totaly irrelevant. It's
the contract that matters.

Just because your car is technicaly able to reach speeds of more than
120 MPH doesn't mean, that you're automaticly allowed to drive that
fast.

So cut the crap about what the box can do or can't do. It's the contract
that matters. As long as you don't get this, it's no use to argue about
the question if this is a "ripp off" or not.

Once again: Sky ist not charging 10 pounds for a techical feature but
for a contract that allows to USE a technical feature. That's a big
difference!

Your mobile phone is probably technicaly capable of sending and
receiving email. Unfortunately you will have to pay a fee in order to
use this service; eventhough the neccessary software is already on your
mobile.

It the same with the Sky box: The feature is there, but in order to use
it, you have to pay for it. Easy isn't it?

Sky as you well know keep total control over those boxes and permit no other
manufacturer to enter the market.

It's their plattform. Why would they want to allow third party
manufacturers to gain any profit from it? Would you allow anyone to have
a barbecue in your front yard?

Hence there is no separation of service provision and hardware provision.
Your arguement is even weaker when it comes to PVR capabilities.

The fact that there is no separation makes this totaly incomparebale to
any regular PVR (eg. FTA) receiver. But for some reason you keep on
comparing those.

If there was separation of service provider and PVR manufacturer, how on
earth could recording be considered as fitting in the service provision side
of the equation?

Bingo. You just answered yourself the question why it is neccessary for
the NDS plattform _not_ to open up to other vendors.

It's like asking the questions: Why is there no free accessabile
entrance to the cinema? Because only when you have to enter through the
box office the cinema owner can make sure, that everyone is paying for
the service. Why doesn't anybody wine about this?

I can only come to the conclusion from defensive stance and the fact you
have never commented in this group before that you are someway connected to
Sky...

My only connection to Sky is my subscribtion.

Name one PVR besides Sky+ boxes that requires any fee for recording?

Every licenced PVR of the German PREMIERE plattform for example. And not
to forget the Italian Sky plattform. The major German TV chains (RTL
Group + German MTV, Pro7/Sat.1 will follow) have just signed a contract
with the new Astra/APS "Dolphin" plattform. The Dolphin receivers also
have the capability to record only if the subscribtion allows it.

My guess is, that sooner or later all major plattform providers in
europe and around the world will use this business modell.

You make the mistake of thinking of PVRs as consumer electronics. This
will not be the case any more in the future. The PVRs will just be a
small part of the infrastructure chain of the plattform providers. The
PVR vendors have no say in the future development of (pay)tv. It's the
plattform providers like Sky that will decide the future of (pay)tv.

If you don't like their decisions, you can send them letters or stop
subscribing to their services. But wining publicly about it is just lame
and doesn't help anyone. Especially not, if the wining goes along with
wrong assumptions and invalid comparisons between FTA PVR vendors and
plattform proviers like Sky.


The reason there is so many, extremely good low cost PVRs for the DTT market
that charge no monthly fee is precisely because it is an open market with no
control of content providers over hardware.

a market that will disappear soon; no doubt about it. If everone would
be happy with FTA PVRs there wouldn't be so much bitching about Sky's
price politics.

BTW: By no means I wanted to offend you or anyone in this group. As you
might have noticed, English is not my native language. Therefore some
unapropriate words or sentences could have slipped out. Sorry for that
and no offense!


--
Regards,
Joern

"Joern Bredereck" wrote in message
...
Snipped much of the prior statements, but your arguement that Sky is a
service provider not a PVR manufacturer is ridiculous.

So, you would say, there is no difference between Sky and the PVR
manufacturers? IF this was the case, then a direct comparison between
Sky and the PVR manufacturerer would become valid. But as long as Sky is
not even close to being compareable to a regular PVR manufacturer it's
just nonsense to campare those.

Hence there is no separation of service provision and hardware provision.
Your arguement is even weaker when it comes to PVR capabilities.

The fact that there is no separation makes this totaly incomparebale to
any regular PVR (eg. FTA) receiver. But for some reason you keep on
comparing those.

If there was separation of service provider and PVR manufacturer, how on
earth could recording be considered as fitting in the service provision
side
of the equation?

Bingo. You just answered yourself the question why it is neccessary for
the NDS plattform _not_ to open up to other vendors.

I am confused. One minute you are arguing Sky are a service provider not a
PVR manufacturer, then the next you are agreeing that Sky for all intensive
purposes is a PVR manufacturer because it has such tight control over the
boxes.
You cannot have it both ways.

It's like asking the questions: Why is there no free accessabile
entrance to the cinema? Because only when you have to enter through the
box office the cinema owner can make sure, that everyone is paying for
the service. Why doesn't anybody wine about this?

Analogies are pointless. The arguement always break down. We are not talking
about the cinema.
Keep discussing Sky and PVRs - compare it to other PVR is you want to make a
comparison.

Name one PVR besides Sky+ boxes that requires any fee for recording?

Every licenced PVR of the German PREMIERE plattform for example. And not
to forget the Italian Sky plattform. The major German TV chains (RTL
Group + German MTV, Pro7/Sat.1 will follow) have just signed a contract
with the new Astra/APS "Dolphin" plattform. The Dolphin receivers also
have the capability to record only if the subscribtion allows it.

So what? This is the UK, not Germany or Italy.
They are just the local equivalents of Sky.
So name one UK PVR besides Sky+ boxes that requires any fee for recording in
the UK.

My guess is, that sooner or later all major plattform providers in
europe and around the world will use this business modell.

Not DTT providers in the UK.

You make the mistake of thinking of PVRs as consumer electronics. This
will not be the case any more in the future. The PVRs will just be a
small part of the infrastructure chain of the plattform providers. The
PVR vendors have no say in the future development of (pay)tv. It's the
plattform providers like Sky that will decide the future of (pay)tv.

Not DTT providers in the UK - who Sky must compete against

If you don't like their decisions, you can send them letters or stop
subscribing to their services. But wining publicly about it is just lame
and doesn't help anyone. Especially not, if the wining goes along with
wrong assumptions and invalid comparisons between FTA PVR vendors and
plattform proviers like Sky.

But that is an entirely valid comparison in the UK.
Sky channels for example are available on DTT in the UK.
They can be recorded on a DTT PVR without any ongoing monthly fee.
So why does Sky charge it if you use Sky+
Why does Sky charge to record BBC and other FTA channels that are available
via satellite if you use a Sky+ box?


The reason there is so many, extremely good low cost PVRs for the DTT
market
that charge no monthly fee is precisely because it is an open market with
no
control of content providers over hardware.

a market that will disappear soon; no doubt about it. If everone would
be happy with FTA PVRs there wouldn't be so much bitching about Sky's
price politics.

Not in the UK it wont. Not whilst DTT boxes are now outselling Sky

BTW: By no means I wanted to offend you or anyone in this group. As you
might have noticed, English is not my native language. Therefore some
unapropriate words or sentences could have slipped out. Sorry for that
and no offense!

no offence taken
But remember this is a UK group - so the arguements you put forward must be
representative of the UK market.
Where DTT is widely used, where DTT PVRs are widely used, and no charges are
made for using them.

Loz

"Joern Bredereck" wrote in message
...
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".

I wasn't going to post any more on this thread as the bitching was just
going round in circles. But it is good to see someone with some sense at
last.

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.

Good explaination, these guys will be bitching next because they will be
wanting free Sky, free GSM, free broadband next because they have already
paidf for the set-top box, GSM handset and the ADSL router.

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.

Becareful here, some people just don't understand free choice. They think
they have to do it just becasue their neighbours have it!

loz wrote:

But why does Sky+ need to be a "service", or Sky charge a monthly fee for
it?

Why does your mobile phone provider charge you for sending an receiving
email? They could offer it for free as the neccessary functions are
already implemented in your mobile phone. Couldn't they?

Or why does Sky need to charge anything at all? They could offer their
plattform for free, couldn't they?

Hint: The recording function of the Sky Box is part of that plattform
and not some function you bought with the Box itself just like the
sending/receiving mail function in your mobile phone is part of your
mobile providers plattform. Your Sky Box needs the content of the Sky
plattform to have something to record. Your mobile phone needs the
infrastructure of your mobile service provider in order to be able to
send and receive emails. None of those functions can work without the
ongoing service, both Sky and your mobile company provide.

Every other PVR has the same capability, yet none requires an on-going
subscription.

Wrong again. If it would have the SAME capability, then it would be
possible to record Sky content with it. I doubt that. Or at least that
would be illegal.

As you can see it is definitely NOT the SAME capability. The difference
is exactly what you pay for:

1. The legal right and
2. the technical ability[*]

to record Sky content. This is exactly the SERVICE that Sky askes money
for. Nothing more, nothing less.

[*] keep in mind that in order to record sky content it is not
sufficiant to have a hard drive built in, but you also need a
VideoGuard-capabel decoder. So those free PVRs are far from having the
same capabilities that the Sky boxes have.


So your comparisons with internet access is irrelevent - it is a different
product.

it was supposed to show you, that we're talking about an ongoing service
and not a technical feature that you buy with the box.

Compare the costs of Sky+ to another PVR - that is the only thing that is
valid.

How can you compare two products with totally different capabilities? As
I showed above those "other PVRs" are not even close to having the same
capabilities. If you are happy with recording BBC or ITV programmes an
alternative PVR could be a way to go. But we'rere talking about
recording Sky content, aren't we?

The fact is Sky get away with the Sky+ charge simply because they can.

No one is getting away with anyting. Sky offers a service and no one is
forced to subscribe to it.

The lock users into their hardware, hence there is no competition in the Sky
hardware market.
If there was, the Sky+ charge wouldn't last a second.

Sky wouldn't be able to charge for their services. This can lead only to
two things:

1. Either they are going out of business (very unlikely)
2. Or they restructure their other fees so that their business modell is
still profitable.

At the end of the day nothing would change. The only long term solution
would be some competition in the market of the plattform providers. The
market of the PVR vendors doesn't have any influence on the situation.

However, since then the DTT PVR market has exploded and not one of them
charges a monthly fee.

Once again: how could they charge for anything? They don't have any
content to record or any content to charge for. Sky has. That's the big
difference, which your are not willing to accept.


--
Regards,
Joern

"Zero Tolerance" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 08:32:57 +0200, Jomtien wrote:

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.

You purchased the hardware outright. The software inside remains the
property of Sky and selected features of that software only work with
certain subscription packages.

If you don't like this, keep the hardware and write your own software.

But every DTT PVR in the UK is a combination of hardware and software.
Yet no DTT PVR manufacturer charges you extra to use the recording feature.

You can try to justify the Sky+ sub anyway you want, but personally I
haven't seen the logic in a single arguement you or anyone else has come up
with yet.

Of course Sky *can* charge for it if they wish - they operate a closed
system, and you don't *have* to buy it.
But AFAIAC saying that isn't providing a valid justification for it. It's
just saying "that's the way it is - take it or leave it".

Loz
PS - note that I do have Sky+ and have the premium channels so I don't pay
for the Service.
I am not "anti sky", I am just facinated why people keep trying to justify
the Sky+ subscription and other aspects of there service.
Personally, I would rather there were better options but I simply recognise
that "that's the way it is", and currently choose to take it rather than
leave it.

"loz" wrote in message
...

"Zero Tolerance" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 08:32:57 +0200, Jomtien wrote:

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.

You purchased the hardware outright. The software inside remains the
property of Sky and selected features of that software only work with
certain subscription packages.

If you don't like this, keep the hardware and write your own software.

But every DTT PVR in the UK is a combination of hardware and software.
Yet no DTT PVR manufacturer charges you extra to use the recording
feature.

You can try to justify the Sky+ sub anyway you want, but personally I
haven't seen the logic in a single arguement you or anyone else has come
up with yet.

Of course Sky *can* charge for it if they wish - they operate a closed
system, and you don't *have* to buy it.
But AFAIAC saying that isn't providing a valid justification for it. It's
just saying "that's the way it is - take it or leave it".

Loz
PS - note that I do have Sky+ and have the premium channels so I don't pay
for the Service.
I am not "anti sky", I am just facinated why people keep trying to justify
the Sky+ subscription and other aspects of there service.
Personally, I would rather there were better options but I simply
recognise that "that's the way it is", and currently choose to take it
rather than leave it.


Think I:m agreeing with you here....'justify' implies some moral end, which
is irrelevant to this conversation. They do it because they can. If they
could charge double or ten times for their current packages and people would
pay it, they'd do that as well. The "justification" is that people pay it.

--
Tumbleweed

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