So THAT's what the locked half of the HD is for on a Sky + box - VOD

"JohnW" wrote in message
...

"Ed" wrote in message
ups.com...

Heracles Pollux wrote:
"Max Demian" wrote in message
...
"Ed" wrote in message
oups.com
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix....rint&ID=945710

...in 2007, Sky will introduce a new enhancement giving Sky+
customers
the chance to enjoy a selection of the week's best programmes
on-demand. The service will be available to more than one million
Sky+
and Sky HD customers from launch, making use of additional recording
capacity on the hard drive of more recent boxes.

If it has to record "a selection of the week's best programmes"[1] on
the
HD first, it's not "on-demand".

[1] IOW, dross. True on-demand allows the customer to choose what he
wants, including rare, unpopular stuff.

--
Max Demian



Interesting, and will merely browsing one minute of these programmes be
counted as share / reach?

Do bears **** in the woods. ;-)

Also it says it will be 'available' to 'more than 1 million' Sky+
viewers. As there are over 2 million active Sky+ boxes, why only half?

Presumably the other half have the type of boxes that allow access to the
whole drive.

Good call. It is only the PVR3 and HD boxes. Up to PVR2.5 (Thompson 160)
there was no reserved space.

In fact, I suspect it is more than half who don't have PVR3 as most of the
recent cut price install offers have been PVR2 refurbs.

In article , Zero Tolerance
wrote:

Presumably the other half have the older Sky+ boxes that don't have a
big enough disc to reserve any space on.

I have a Sky+160 - for which I paid good money - and all the space is
available to me (not that I've ever filled it). I should be rather
annoyed to half the space confiscated so that Sky could fill it up with
rubbish that I certainly wouldn't want to watch.

On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 19:48:44 -0000, "Heracles Pollux"
wrote:

Topfield's 160GB / 250GB TF5800PVR reserves 0% space.

Sadly it only picks up crappy channels. :-)

--

On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 10:32:26 GMT, Roger Wilmut
wrote:

I have a Sky+160 - for which I paid good money - and all the space is
available to me (not that I've ever filled it). I should be rather
annoyed to half the space confiscated so that Sky could fill it up with
rubbish that I certainly wouldn't want to watch.

Rightly so. But as I understand it, that's not the plan. You paid for
160 and that's what you get. On these other boxes, people paid for 80
and that's what they'll get. It just happens that those boxes have
another hidden 80 which can be used for stuff like this.

Will be interesting to see whether they offer any good programmes or
not, though.
--

Angus Rae wrote:

ABC wrote:
"Mike Redrobe" wrote in message
Still 5 years behind Tivo then...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/05...tivo_recorders
/

I wonder if it will go down any better when sky do it.

But with the TiVo, the space occupied by the downloaded programme
was part of the viewers hdd space. Sky's version will use the
portion of the hdd which isn't currently used by viewers.

That's exactly what TiVo did too. There's a very small portion of the
TiVo HDD reserved for that purpose. A lot of the media flap about
that whole "Dossa and Joe" thing was actually completely wrong; it
didn't take any user usable space on the HDD and it only recorded it
if the TiVo was idle (i.e. not scheduled to record anything during
the length of the programme, and also either in standby or not having
had a user input for 30 minutes - i.e. when it would have been
available to record suggestions anyway) so it didn't hijack the TiVo
at all. The only users who would have noticed any different behaviour
were those with suggestions turned off.

The real problems were a) it wasn't used on UK TiVos from day 1, so
users weren't expecting it and b) the programme chosen was absolutely
dire.

And the programme was on BBC2 so was running late, so the TiVo missed
the ending!

--
Ashley
For Windsor Weather see www.snglinks.com/wx

On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 16:35:08 +0000, Edster wrote:

As you will no doubt already know since you work for Sky, it will be
used to push advertising at viewers.

Yes Edster, everyone who doesn't share your paranoid conspiracy
theories works for Sky. Of course.

--

On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 00:56:10 +0000, Edster wrote:

No, you're the only one who pops up every time Sky thinks of a new way
to make money saying that it was obviously an "accident" and they
didn't really mean to make money doing it. Like the time they
accidentally used the red button graffitti to accidentally advertise
pizzas all the way through The Simpsons.

Yeah.. Seen it before, or since?

No. I didn't think so.

Or all the times they accidentally advertise their HD equipment during
every programme.

Examples?

Your constant crusade to leap to the defence of Sky, even over things
that are indefensible, is not the action of a normal viewer.

Can I just clear something up, are you the same guy who reckons that
MI5 is getting BBC Newsreaders to be rude to him in the nine o'clock
news? Because you two certainly sound alike...

--

On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 23:36:05 +0000, Edster wrote:

I don't watch it any more. I switched to downloading American
broadcasts when I found out they didn't have as much writing and other
garbage on the screen as the UK broadcasts.

Well if you're content with being a criminal, good luck to you.

Examples?

Every programme doesn't need examples.

So no examples, then.

--

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 17:55:26 +0000, Edster wrote:

Well if you're content with being a criminal, good luck to you.

Sky using on screen advertising during programmes is supposed to be
illegal as well, but nobody seems to care about that either.

Yet you seem to be unable to provide any examples.

If you had a longer attention span you would have read further and
seen that I said just choose any programme at random for your example.

"Officer! Officer! Just go out into the street. Pick anyone at random.
They're all breaking the law. What's that? You want me to be specific?
Otherwise I'm just wasting your time? Well!"

--