See: AppleTV.

(Yes, the selection is lacking, there's no broadcast reception, etc etc. But this direction is clearly what they're banking on.)

I'd be very very surprised to see sky launch a new HD box anytime soon. I just think the new price is a way of getting boxes into peoples homes.

Maybe they might put in a bigger HDD but that would be about it.

I'm pretty sure the current HD box can do everything sky need it to do for a number of yrs yet (or at least with download updates it could)

I for 1 do think sky HD is a lot of month each month and do plan to review/cancel down once my 12 months is up (i know I can do it before the 12 months is up but want the full package for at least 12 months, or at least until o lose my job!) The big thing for me though and it has already been mentioned on here is sky broadband.

I have had it for around 4 months and it's really good.

If I drop to the basic sky package of £17 and pay £5 for broadband I'm still only paying around £7-8 each month more than I would for just broadband. That £7-8 is well worth the extra channels you get through sky IMO

I think the next freesat box needs RF1 and RF2 on it. It's worth a few quid a month to me to be able to watch what I've taped downstairs in the bedroom.

I really want freesat to take off (which I'm sure it will) and get C4HD asap. But I agree with a post above, you can't really compare sky and freesat.

On a forum that discusses a product that is a rival for Sky it's relevant that people make that type of post. I dumped Sky for all the reasons pointed out by others and I am very happy with the freesat+ box. I also dumped by gym membership but that was a number of stones ago.

Well I was discussing the OP which was about Sky "feeling the heat" because they were reducing the price of it's HD box.

It's more likely that they are recruiting loads more Customer Service folks so that they can cope with the "Massive" number of complaints they will get when they launch their new EPG next month


Graham.

No they can't. They announce those customer figures as "subscriber" numbers. FSFS viewers are not subscribers - no way, no how.

£150 FSFS customers might not be considered subscribers but I think the people who took the £75 Dixons pay once watch forever deal would be considered as subscribers as you were basically just paying for a 4/6 month minimum subscription instead of the usual 12 months. I think a lot of people who signed up to that deal just did so to get a cheap installation and an extra box before Freesat HD came in.

No.

You are bigging up Freesat.

Just look at what Freesat is supposed to provide.

It is there to provide a basic service for those who cannot receive Freeview.

Sky only offer subscription TV with the further option of premium channels.

There is no way that thet are in competition.

It's just that some Sky haters have tried to big-up Freesat as some sort of Sky killer free platform.

It is no such thing.

Its not a sky killer but I dont think anyone would say freesat hasnt affected sky subscriptions.

Im very happy with what I have. Ive been waiting years for a reliable PVR (that excludes all freeview) and the HD is a bonus.

For those people fed up with being charged a lot of money, endless repeats, unable to get a satisfactory freeview service but wanting to keep the PVR functionality this is a killer platform.

The only way I would ever consider Sky again is if money becomes no object or they start showing all my teams games live(despite our current crapness this is what I really want).

freesat is a Killer platform for the reasons you say and i am no anti-sky. I can't afford to pay for channels I don't like just to get one or two I do, there system of anytime tv is a joke, it sends content that is not viewable as it is not related to your package so it only acts as a add to take on more channels.

I wouldnt even consider it then. I have a season ticket so I would only get to see away games, plus theyd make you get sky, SS and then the season ticket package. A rip off.

I could watch 1000 NHL games for a one off playment of £70 online. That wouldnt even cover a month of sky.

Viewing figures ...

http://www.barb.co.uk/graph/viewingShare?data_series ... set start date to 1981

BBC1 and ITV1 show a very similar trend...

A very valid comment with regard to the many FTA channels BSkyB are forced to carry...

Which of the BSkyB subscription channels do you consider to be crud...

You obviously don't know how much BSkyB subscriptions cost...

http://packages.sky.com/buy/?CMP=KNC-UKesalesSearch

No NHL available on BSkyB subscription channels...:

You can get it via Setanta and a BSkyB FSFS access card.

That would be the current Sky+ HD box following the new EPG release.

In the past 28 years - a time which has seen two new FTV terrestrial channels, the explosion of digital channels and the rise of the Internet both as media distributor and haven for piracy - they've both lost just 10% of viewer share, give or take. If you ask me, that's a resounding success.

(And I barely ever watch ITV1, but clearly many do)

The graph indeed shows the trend you indicate. However, I don't think it illustrates clearly that over a third of the 43% achieved by 'Others' is made up of PSB sibling channels. In fact the subscription channels have very small penetration - Sky One at 1.3% share of viewing makes ITV2 (even without ITV2+1) at 2.2% look almost respectable. They are dwarfed by BBC1's over 20%.
http://www.barb.co.uk/report/monthlyViewingSummary?_s=4

Just to make this clear - Sky haven't 'cut the price of the box' - it's just the present special offer (which I mentioned here back in December).

Presumably it's only a short term offer, particularly when boxes aren't even available.

They will need them to handle all those subscription cancellations too.

Wow, it makes you realize what a large part of our viewing is terrestrial.

I liked the 20min a week of Sky Movies! Seems like my average when I subscribed!

Where is the breakdown by Analogue/Terrestrial/Freesat/Sky/Cable though? I can't find it.

Also, what is "Other viewing"?

It's the new subsided twelve month contract price. It's being described by Sky as a new everyday price.


http://whathifi.com/News/Sky-slashes...yHD-box-to-49/

Hence what I posted in post #9 in this thread.....

"How many Sky subscribers pay this (£440) each year and still spend the vast majority of their time watching the FTA channels?"


What Sky depend on is that the average punter can't be bothered to spend hours on a 0871 line trying to cancel their sub and direct debit

If Freesat was to get C4HD, more ITVHD, CH5HD and the econonmy does continue to go belly up, then Sky would start to feel the heat??

The 20 minutes is based on all viewers, not just those who can receive Sky Movies!!

I like this debate it is similar to the one when Freeview 1st came out. Freeview was never going to be the killer of Sky because of its limitations, the amount of households who can not receive it and the time share feature.

I doubt that Freesat will be the killer of Sky either, if anything ever will be. There are plenty of people leaving Sky for Freesat and I would imgaine in time that trend will grow but it wont kill Sky off, maybe just make them offer cheaper / better deals. If anything Freesat in time may eventually kill of Freeview. I have had Freeview virtually since its launch but have now got Freesat. As much as anything because I got so fed up with the time share on Freeview.

It wont be too long before you go out and buy a new TV and you get Freesat thrown in. Panasonic already put Freesat tuners in their new TV's, LG have said they are going to do the same and no doubt other manufacturers will do the same in time, thats what happened with Freeview but unlike Freeview if you have a dish installed everyone can get Freesat regardless of what area you live.

Like others I initially intended to get the £75 FSFS option to get the cheap installation with the intention of buying a Humax HDR later, but after reading on here of people going down that road and not being able to cancel the Sky package then I decided to just buy the Humax and pay for the dish install.

I myself would never choose to subscribe to Sky, but that is my choice. The cost for one and like others I dont agree with buying a box then having to pay Sky £10 a month for the privilage of using it. Imagine car manufacturers saying thank you for buying your shiney new car, now if you dont pay us an extra £10 a month we wont let you drive it. There would be a riot!!! Also I dont like Sky's trading practices. For example; as I pointed out in another thread, if you look on the Sky website it says with every Sky package you also get for free all the major TV channels, BBC,ITV,CH4 and CH5 as well as all that is availible on the Freeview platform. That is not true there are about 8 channels on Freeview that Sky do not list as free but are included in their Variety package, if that is an honest mistake they have made then they should change it but I doubt it is.

The future of Freesat and Sky depends on Freesat and Sky. What new content and more importantly HD content Freesat get, and what Sky do to combat it. Somone said earlier that Sky are releasing something big in the 1st quarter. An official Sky CI-Module? Lol.

Now the snow they forcasted has started, lets see how my Freesat handles it, better then Sky I hope
Last edited by rjay60 : 01-02-2009 at 14:27