It seems to me that Freesat PVRs are much more expensive that Freeview ones. Does anyone know of the reason for the difference?

Im thinking of replacing my Sky+ as I only seem to watch the basic channels and am not too bothered about HD.
Last edited by TeeGee : 09-08-2009 at 15:43

The performance requirements for HD need more expensive components, in fact at around £250.00 is way cheaper than any other twin tuner HD pvrs of which there a quite a few generic fta models.

There aren't any twin tuner SD pvrs available although you can buy single and twin tuner generic fta SD pvrs. A single tuner fta pvr ready box that can record to an external HDD starts at around £60.00

Useful comment. A generic fta box with disk might not only be a temporary solution but upgrade my fta box too!

I considered this route for a while when there was no Freesat PVR but you do lose an enormous amount of functionality.

I agree with you there except with the ITV HD red button service (which we hope will be solved soon) when I find it more reliable to use my Technomate with manual timers.

The actual price of the uit varies wherever you buy it from. Argos are still trying to flog them for just under £300 yet Play.com or Amazon are selling them for almost £50 less.

Humax don't/won't budge on trade price, so prices are likely to stay around £240 with 1 years warranty, or around £250 with 2 years warranty. If any where is selling much cheaper brand new at stage, ask questions!!!

Richer sounds are selling the Foxsat for £249 and for £25 you can up the warranty to 5 years.

Yep, £275 with 5 year warranty is good, though this is a retailer risk warranty, not one supplied as part of the distribution deal from Humax (1 or 2 years).

I got mine from Laskys for £250 which included 2 year warranty, i also went through topcashback to recieve just over £7.00 cashback.

To put it into context, after 13 months i've broken even compared to a minimum Sky sub. They're not that expensive

Can I humbly suggest "can't": yes economies of scale typically encourage prices to come down after launch, but currency exchange rates are a strong factor at the moment. We didn't front load the cost to make the first batch obscenely expensive and there has been no evolution in the technology used in the past year to allow us to reduce the cost. However that will doubtless change in the future...

Bob

I would have thought the HD chipsets might have come down in price as Argos can now sell HD freesat boxes for half the price they were, also hard drive prices have dropped.

But if you shop around you can pick a HDR up for a fair price anyway. I managed to get one from Dixons online for £222.30, they had a £10 reduction for last weekend plus a 5% off voucher.

loopie,

I can't comment on other manufacturers pricing, but for the price of the chip-set we won't get to take advantage of any cost reductions during this so far relatively short lifetime of this piece of latest generation silicon because they are not commodity parts. If you run a piece of silicon for a long time you might get some price advantage but actually each new generation of silicon changes the pricing more substantially when it comes to leading technology.

We already negotiate the best price for commodity components such as HDDs, but any purchasing advantages we might have gained over the past year will have suffered at the hands of $/£/€ rates.

Bob

I doubt those prices are anything to do with chipset reductions - more likely dumping stock to get rid of it, and according to many posters here the cheap boxes aren't new ones.

I'm always very wary of buying electrical/electronic goods from Argos, and check the packaging very carefully for signs of not being brand new from the manufacturer.

Sorry Bob, want of a better word, should have stated "can't". I appreciate the position Humax are in, I've discussed it with the supply chain a number of times and I'm sure your aware of the volumes I shift. It actually comes as some advantage for a price not to adjust constantly (like Panasonic PVR's do) as it allows control over pricing without constant under-selling by major retailers. Isn't ideal for the customer, but then seeing a product drop 10% in price just after you've bought isn't great either. Keep up the good work, and continue to give the best price to me

To further illustrate my point.

After 13 month of paying minimum subs, totalling £250 should you wish to cancel you're left with nothing more than a frustratingly basic satellite reciever with next to no features. Should your painfully simple STB break within the next 11 months you've gotta spunk out more cash for repairs or replacements anyway.

I don't think £250 quid is that much for decent tech, with tons of features and a two year warranty.

That is 12 months of basic Sky so the arithmetic does stack up. Its just that £250 seems expensive to pay out all in one go!

But you can look at it this way too- you'll be £20 better off each month.

You could also look at it as been LOT's and LOT's of programmes worse off every month - a fact that people recommending Freesat seem to ignore.

Yes but there are so many available on Freesat that it's prefectly possible to sate even the most highly developed TV appetite without sjelling out all but £200 a year to Sky.

This is particularly true with a PVR where you are no longer limited to watching what's broadcast when you want to watch plus a few things timeshifted on tape.

Anyone with an ounce of intelligence can look at the schedules and know whether there is enough on Freesat to satisfy their needs. They don't need some Sky shill to state the obvious every time the subject comes up.

I tend to agree, but in the end it's all down to personal preference. There are some channels I think I might enjoy on Sky, but I chose not to subscribe. My loss.

But also not forgetting that freesat is aimed at DSO and therefore the potential lack of all programmes, not at being an alternative to Sky. My gain.

It is a clear cut "you pays your money and you takes your choice".

Sorry if you would prefer to try and hide the truth, there are two sides to this - why do you feel you have to hide one of the sides and criticise if someone dares to mention it?.

You also appear to consider anyone who doesn't think exactly as you do as 'lacking in intelligence' - as suggested above. Perhaps you should try a more reasoned and balanced approach instead of your bigoted one?.

Ultimately this thread is about the pricing of the Freesat+ PVR. The OP has stated that they only really watch the standard channels so would like to record them, but not really bothered about a subscription, so the Humax is presently the ideal choice and pays for itself in 2 years compared to paying Sky £10 / month for Sky+ and standard channels. In situations like that with personal circumstances clearly stated, this is a sensible move. Obviously there is a balanced argument to this, but it all depends on what you want to watch, free or subscription....simples

Agree with this. I used to have Sky with family pack and HD pack. Moved over to Freesat+ last december and the box has already paid for itself. I miss some of the sky 1 stuff but was only watching a couple of hours a week - probably not dissimilar to the OP - a big saving.
My brother is just moving house and when he saw what channels he would lose by cancelling his sky sub and moving to freesat he decided the money was worth it for sky and I supported him in making the decision.
Just depends on what you want. If you want premium content then get sky and pay for it. If you don't and you just want a decent PVR for freesat channels then the Humax is a great value product (especially if you don't experience the locking problems that some get).