Since then all Sky+ and Sky+ HD boxes have been controlled by the card in the slot - if the card does not have Sky+ functionality on it, the box can't record (or rewind, or pause).
The Pace one was controlled by the card as well - it was just that the software was re-written to allow recording without a card. Presumably any later boxes 'could' have their software rewritten in a similar way?, but it's probably not worth it - even assuming the required tools and information was available.
There was also a team of developers/programmers working on a Linux image for IIRC the Thpmson HD+ boxes. I believe they actually succeeded in producing a working complete image that was not however bug-free. I believe the Sky+ image (based on the Pace BSKYB 3000 - a PVR2) was merely a modified/hacked version of the OEM firmware and cannot as such be legally sold whereas the Linux image having none of proprietary OEM firmeare could legally be sold.
... and as a result GIVES access to decent range of HD CHANNELS.
But you still paying a extra tenner a month, or £120 a year just so you can see the same thing in a higher quality. HD is old tech now, Surly Sky should realise that it is getting to be a normal part of TV viewing these days.
i suppose while people still pay for it, sky will still charge it.
But you still paying a extra tenner a month, or £120 a year just so you can see the same thing in a higher quality. HD is old tech now, Surly Sky should realise that it is getting to be a normal part of TV viewing these days.
i suppose while people still pay for it, sky will still charge it.
I would not pay extra for HD, no way.
I suppose you could say the same thing about 3D. But people pay more at the cinema to watch a movie in 3D, and pay more for the Blu Ray version of a 3D movie than the 2D version. It's still the same film, the same storyline.
Sky only charge a fiver extra for the non-premium HD material (and nothing for the subscription free HD channels). You only pay a tenner more if you want Sky Movies or Sky Sports in high definition.
And HD obviously is still considered a premium product with a higher price associated with it - else BluRay discs wouldn't cost any more than standard DVD discs to buy.
But you still paying a extra tenner a month, or £120 a year just so you can see the same thing in a higher quality.
I probably wouldn't watch the SD version tbh, so it's not really 'just the same thing in higher quality', HD is usually the difference between seeing something and ignoring it. Reruns of old programmes aren't that interesting. Virtually all new programming is sourced in HD.
And HD obviously is still considered a premium product with a higher price associated with it - else BluRay discs wouldn't cost any more than standard DVD discs to buy.
The last few box sets I've bought have been cheaper for blu-ray than DVD presumably because of the cheaper production costs as they use less discs.
Good point - but that may well be because it's been available to buy on BluRay/DVD for three or four years now, so neither of the prices being charged by Amazon accurately reflect what they cost when first put on sale (at Amazon or elsewhere). The price for the product now may well reflect how many of each pack Amazon have got in stock at the moment, and how much it will cost them to replace if they sell out of either.
Any new releases of box sets or movies invariably cost more for the BluRay than the DVD version - and will usually cost even more for the 3D BluRay version.
I suppose you could say the same thing about 3D. But people pay more at the cinema to watch a movie in 3D, and pay more for the Blu Ray version of a 3D movie than the 2D version. It's still the same film, the same storyline.
Again because people will pay for it and do not question it, i am pretty sure if people say I am not paying this extra for 3D, then 3D will either die, which to be honest is the best thing for it or prices will go down.
Sky only charge a fiver extra for the non-premium HD material (and nothing for the subscription free HD channels). You only pay a tenner more if you want Sky Movies or Sky Sports in high definition.
A fiver is still a fiver. Can't you see that Sky will keep on charging people these costs because people just carry on paying?
No wonder Sky makes so much money, so many people willing to pay for something that should be free.
And HD obviously is still considered a premium product with a higher price associated with it - else BluRay discs wouldn't cost any more than standard DVD discs to buy.
HD is not a premium, it have been with us for a few years now. the extra costs of Blue-ray is not just for the quality, it is also for the extra content,. I do not buy disks that often anyway, so the amount I would pay extra would add up to about 50p a yer
I probably wouldn't watch the SD version tbh, so it's not really 'just the same thing in higher quality', HD is usually the difference between seeing something and ignoring it. Reruns of old programmes aren't that interesting. Virtually all new programming is sourced in HD.
so you just sit there and say Yes Mr Murdoch I will pay this extra to watch in Hd, so you can line your pockets with even more money
I never understand people, I really don't. I am sure that sky could sell you a turd, I really am.
Yep, I'd pay for the hd version. What's the point of buying a really good hdtv if you're not going to bother watching hd content on it? Obviously, you may not have a really good hdtv.
And HD obviously is still considered a premium product with a higher price associated with it - else BluRay discs wouldn't cost any more than standard DVD discs to buy.
When ITV2/3/4 HD launched it essentially became a proper subscription package just like any other Sky offering because those channels were tied into it.
When ITV2/3/4 HD launched it essentially became a proper subscription package just like any other Sky offering because those channels were tied into it.
and those channels wouldn't exist were it not for the subscription fee... as ITV require the income to make the channels available.
Again because people will pay for it and do not question it, i am pretty sure if people say I am not paying this extra for 3D, then 3D will either die, which to be honest is the best thing for it or prices will go down.
A fiver is still a fiver. Can't you see that Sky will keep on charging people these costs because people just carry on paying?
No wonder Sky makes so much money, so many people willing to pay for something that should be free.
HD is not a premium, it have been with us for a few years now. the extra costs of Blue-ray is not just for the quality, it is also for the extra content,. I do not buy disks that often anyway, so the amount I would pay extra would add up to about 50p a yer
Considering you can buy multi disc releases (bonus disc, DVD copy) for the same/less than the standard going rate for a single disc release, I'd have to say any extras that are included make no difference to the price.
The premium price is for the high quality audio and video transfers, something I'm willing to pay for, basically because I've invested a lot of money on my cinema room, why would I watch a format of lower audio/video quality just because it's a couple of quid cheaper.
so you just sit there and say Yes Mr Murdoch I will pay this extra to watch in Hd, so you can line your pockets with even more money
I never understand people, I really don't. I am sure that sky could sell you a turd, I really am.
Blimey, what an unpleasant response.
If you're that bothered, read my earlier posts on the subject. £60 out of a month's income is buttons tbh. It doesn't bother me. When I fall on hard times, Sky HD will be the first to go though.
That isn't the case now though, they would be perfectly viable without the subscription.
Sorry, utterly ludicrous suggestion - the ONLY reason they were created was to generate revenue from the HD subscription fees - how do you imagine they would exist with no revenue stream?.
Considering you can buy multi disc releases (bonus disc, DVD copy) for the same/less than the standard going rate for a single disc release, I'd have to say any extras that are included make no difference to the price.
The premium price is for the high quality audio and video transfers, something I'm willing to pay for, basically because I've invested a lot of money on my cinema room, why would I watch a format of lower audio/video quality just because it's a couple of quid cheaper.
Why would you? I got a box set of the Carry on films on DVD, i love the carry on films,, I am not bothered that they are not in HD. Saying that a mate of mine got them for me when I was in hospital, I was going to get them in the new year.
A few months back I got the Blu-ray box set of The Big Bang Theory, the price was only slightly more than the DVD.
But those are the only disks I got this year, I prefer to stream,
I do not have a posh cinema room, because
(A) I do not have the space, I suppose I could change this room into room.
(B) I watch for the content and while quality is important to me, I can still watch stuff that is not so good. Music is a different thing
(C) Until the last few weeks I did not really watch a awful lot of video content, Mainly music and reading. But because I have been off work for 2 months and will be for another 5 months I need something to do.
If you're that bothered, read my earlier posts on the subject. £60 out of a month's income is buttons tbh. It doesn't bother me. When I fall on hard times, Sky HD will be the first to go though.
Will that do for you?
I did not mean it the way it came out, but I do think that some people put sky way ahead of other things. I know of people complaining they got no money to buy this and no money to buy that and yet still pay £50 or more a month for Sky. Oh but it is sky, you got to have sky, what will my kids watch?
The stuff I have got I can opt out at anyy time,, in fact my now entertainment package is coming to the end in December, I paid for 6 months, I doubt I will renew it. i will carry on with Netflix.
Yes, know, I paid MR Murdoch as well. but at least I can stop paying when I want and can start when I want.
My sister just given up sky, for months they been saying that they will cancel it and for months they did not, anyway they just have and got a Freesat box now. Nice box as well. They was paying for HD, on sky as well.
Next door neighbour gets nagged by sky now and again to change their box to a new HD box as theirs is only a SD sky+ box, so far they have refused, I have no idea what they will do if it breaks down
Why would you? I got a box set of the Carry on films on DVD, i love the carry on films,, I am not bothered that they are not in HD. Saying that a mate of mine got them for me when I was in hospital, I was going to get them in the new year.
A few months back I got the Blu-ray box set of The Big Bang Theory, the price was only slightly more than the DVD.
But those are the only disks I got this year, I prefer to stream,
I do not have a posh cinema room, because
(A) I do not have the space, I suppose I could change this room into room.
(B) I watch for the content and while quality is important to me, I can still watch stuff that is not so good. Music is a different thing
(C) Until the last few weeks I did not really watch a awful lot of video content, Mainly music and reading. But because I have been off work for 2 months and will be for another 5 months I need something to do.
I'm prepared to pay a little extra for better quality audio/video to make the most of the equipment I have, paying for and watching a lower quality format would be a waste of money, if that was my aim I would have fitted the room out with much lower quality components.
Whilst content is also important to me, the audio/video is important too, I've just upgraded the audio to include 4x ceiling speakers so the system can now play Dolby Atmos. 4k projection is next, and I'll be happy to pay the premium 4k Blu ray will undoubtedly have over Blu ray so I can get the best quality available.
While watching SD is your preference, watching HD on Sky/Blu ray is mine - it's about choice. ;-)
Why would you? I got a box set of the Carry on films on DVD, i love the carry on films,, I am not bothered that they are not in HD. Saying that a mate of mine got them for me when I was in hospital, I was going to get them in the new year.
A few months back I got the Blu-ray box set of The Big Bang Theory, the price was only slightly more than the DVD.
But those are the only disks I got this year, I prefer to stream,
I do not have a posh cinema room, because
(A) I do not have the space, I suppose I could change this room into room.
(B) I watch for the content and while quality is important to me, I can still watch stuff that is not so good. Music is a different thing
(C) Until the last few weeks I did not really watch a awful lot of video content, Mainly music and reading. But because I have been off work for 2 months and will be for another 5 months I need something to do.
You contradict yourself there, how many times in the past have you moaned about how bad SD is? Make your mind up.
HD is not a premium, it have been with us for a few years now. the extra costs of Blue-ray is not just for the quality, it is also for the extra content,. I do not buy disks that often anyway, so the amount I would pay extra would add up to about 50p a yer
Same with Sky's Family Pack you gain access to additional content.
Comments
The Pace one was controlled by the card as well - it was just that the software was re-written to allow recording without a card. Presumably any later boxes 'could' have their software rewritten in a similar way?, but it's probably not worth it - even assuming the required tools and information was available.
But you still paying a extra tenner a month, or £120 a year just so you can see the same thing in a higher quality. HD is old tech now, Surly Sky should realise that it is getting to be a normal part of TV viewing these days.
i suppose while people still pay for it, sky will still charge it.
I would not pay extra for HD, no way.
I suppose you could say the same thing about 3D. But people pay more at the cinema to watch a movie in 3D, and pay more for the Blu Ray version of a 3D movie than the 2D version. It's still the same film, the same storyline.
Sky only charge a fiver extra for the non-premium HD material (and nothing for the subscription free HD channels). You only pay a tenner more if you want Sky Movies or Sky Sports in high definition.
And HD obviously is still considered a premium product with a higher price associated with it - else BluRay discs wouldn't cost any more than standard DVD discs to buy.
Not always, Stargate Atlantis here is £36 for blu-ray and £60 for DVD. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Stargate-Atlantis-Seasons-1-5-Complete/dp/B002ACP2QI http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B005EPD93G/ref=ox_ya_os_product
The last few box sets I've bought have been cheaper for blu-ray than DVD presumably because of the cheaper production costs as they use less discs.
Good point - but that may well be because it's been available to buy on BluRay/DVD for three or four years now, so neither of the prices being charged by Amazon accurately reflect what they cost when first put on sale (at Amazon or elsewhere). The price for the product now may well reflect how many of each pack Amazon have got in stock at the moment, and how much it will cost them to replace if they sell out of either.
Any new releases of box sets or movies invariably cost more for the BluRay than the DVD version - and will usually cost even more for the 3D BluRay version.
Again because people will pay for it and do not question it, i am pretty sure if people say I am not paying this extra for 3D, then 3D will either die, which to be honest is the best thing for it or prices will go down.
A fiver is still a fiver. Can't you see that Sky will keep on charging people these costs because people just carry on paying?
No wonder Sky makes so much money, so many people willing to pay for something that should be free.
HD is not a premium, it have been with us for a few years now. the extra costs of Blue-ray is not just for the quality, it is also for the extra content,. I do not buy disks that often anyway, so the amount I would pay extra would add up to about 50p a yer
so you just sit there and say Yes Mr Murdoch I will pay this extra to watch in Hd, so you can line your pockets with even more money
I never understand people, I really don't. I am sure that sky could sell you a turd, I really am.
and those channels wouldn't exist were it not for the subscription fee... as ITV require the income to make the channels available.
Considering you can buy multi disc releases (bonus disc, DVD copy) for the same/less than the standard going rate for a single disc release, I'd have to say any extras that are included make no difference to the price.
The premium price is for the high quality audio and video transfers, something I'm willing to pay for, basically because I've invested a lot of money on my cinema room, why would I watch a format of lower audio/video quality just because it's a couple of quid cheaper.
If you're that bothered, read my earlier posts on the subject. £60 out of a month's income is buttons tbh. It doesn't bother me. When I fall on hard times, Sky HD will be the first to go though.
Will that do for you?
That isn't the case now though, they would be perfectly viable without the subscription.
Sorry, utterly ludicrous suggestion - the ONLY reason they were created was to generate revenue from the HD subscription fees - how do you imagine they would exist with no revenue stream?.
Why would you? I got a box set of the Carry on films on DVD, i love the carry on films,, I am not bothered that they are not in HD. Saying that a mate of mine got them for me when I was in hospital, I was going to get them in the new year.
A few months back I got the Blu-ray box set of The Big Bang Theory, the price was only slightly more than the DVD.
But those are the only disks I got this year, I prefer to stream,
I do not have a posh cinema room, because
(A) I do not have the space, I suppose I could change this room into room.
(B) I watch for the content and while quality is important to me, I can still watch stuff that is not so good. Music is a different thing
(C) Until the last few weeks I did not really watch a awful lot of video content, Mainly music and reading. But because I have been off work for 2 months and will be for another 5 months I need something to do.
I did not mean it the way it came out, but I do think that some people put sky way ahead of other things. I know of people complaining they got no money to buy this and no money to buy that and yet still pay £50 or more a month for Sky. Oh but it is sky, you got to have sky, what will my kids watch?
The stuff I have got I can opt out at anyy time,, in fact my now entertainment package is coming to the end in December, I paid for 6 months, I doubt I will renew it. i will carry on with Netflix.
Yes, know, I paid MR Murdoch as well. but at least I can stop paying when I want and can start when I want.
My sister just given up sky, for months they been saying that they will cancel it and for months they did not, anyway they just have and got a Freesat box now. Nice box as well. They was paying for HD, on sky as well.
Next door neighbour gets nagged by sky now and again to change their box to a new HD box as theirs is only a SD sky+ box, so far they have refused, I have no idea what they will do if it breaks down
simply not true
Whilst content is also important to me, the audio/video is important too, I've just upgraded the audio to include 4x ceiling speakers so the system can now play Dolby Atmos. 4k projection is next, and I'll be happy to pay the premium 4k Blu ray will undoubtedly have over Blu ray so I can get the best quality available.
While watching SD is your preference, watching HD on Sky/Blu ray is mine - it's about choice. ;-)
You contradict yourself there, how many times in the past have you moaned about how bad SD is? Make your mind up.
the guy is a serial moaner.
you should see the stuff he spouts in the mobile phones forum (specifically about android).
Certainly...
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/market-data-research/statistics/
Open the Tech Tracker docs and search for "Sports".
That's hardly surprising as you don't even pay for broadcast SD...
You claim to subscribe to Netflix who charge extra or HD... can you give us a link to any of you posts condeming Netflix for charging extra for HD?
OR is your trolling limited to your hatred of Murdock and the fact he owns some shares in Sky?
Same with Sky's Family Pack you gain access to additional content.