Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Headlines - Sky HD gets cheaper, still too expensive?

  1. #1
    HEXUS.admin
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    31,709
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    2,073 times in 719 posts

    Headlines - Sky HD gets cheaper, still too expensive?

    Sky has announced that its HD service is to be re-branded and given a healthy price drop.
    Read more.

  2. #2
    Admin (Ret'd)
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    18,481
    Thanks
    1,016
    Thanked
    3,208 times in 2,281 posts

    Re: Headlines - Sky HD gets cheaper, still too expensive?

    Is Sky's HD price drop enough to convince customers?
    Not this one it isn't, though I'd guess it'll probably provide incentive to those that were wavering, but holding back because of cost.

    Personally, there is not sufficient content (either in quantity or quality) for me to be willing to even contemplate it. But each to his own, I guess.

    As for Freesat .... interesting, but it looks like a rather different proposition. Content is king.

  3. #3
    SiM
    SiM is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    London
    Posts
    7,787
    Thanks
    300
    Thanked
    633 times in 422 posts
    • SiM's system
      • Motherboard:
      • P5K Premium
      • CPU:
      • Q6600
      • Memory:
      • 8GB PC2-6400 OCZ ReaperX + Platinum
      • Storage:
      • 3 x 320gb HD322HJ single platter in Raid 0
      • Graphics card(s):
      • PNY GTX285
      • PSU:
      • Corsair TX650W
      • Case:
      • Antec 1200
      • Monitor(s):
      • 2407-HC

    Re: Headlines - Sky HD gets cheaper, still too expensive?

    Think of how many HD DVD movies you can buy for the same cost as the box!

    Certainly hasn't made me even consider it...

  4. #4
    Laird Of The Glen jimborae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    I come from a land of plenty......not
    Posts
    3,495
    Thanks
    260
    Thanked
    372 times in 305 posts
    • jimborae's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte Aorus Z390 Pro
      • CPU:
      • Core i7 9700K@4.7Ghz
      • Memory:
      • Team Group DDR-3000 32Gig
      • Storage:
      • 1x Samsung 870 Evo 500Gb SSD, 1 x WD Red 4TB
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Gigabyte Radeon 5700XT watercooled
      • PSU:
      • XFX 850W Black Edition
      • Case:
      • Phantek Enthoo Prime
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • 2 xDell 24"
      • Internet:
      • PlusNet 70Mb

    Re: Headlines - Sky HD gets cheaper, still too expensive?

    Ha that's still £100 too much for the bug ridden box of cr@p they send you. Or 4th box in my case. The HD-box has been built so cheaply that it's an unreliable hunk of junk that the user then has to sort out themselves by doing the following.

    1. Replace the hard disk with a much more reliable and much larger, quieter and cooler one.

    2. Replace either the individual capacitors on the HD-box's PSU or replace the whole psu itself.

    Once you have done these two things you'll wind up with a rather good HD box but it will still be prone to Sly's random software errors and glitches. Then to add insult to injury you still have to pay the £10 extra a month for a very limited number of true HD programmes.

    Somebody please remind me why I do this......Oh yeah cos there's no competition in the market and Virgin Media are 20x worse.

  5. #5
    Comfortably Numb directhex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    /dev/urandom
    Posts
    17,074
    Thanks
    228
    Thanked
    1,027 times in 678 posts
    • directhex's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus ROG Strix B550-I Gaming
      • CPU:
      • Ryzen 5900x
      • Memory:
      • 64GB G.Skill Trident Z RGB
      • Storage:
      • 2TB Seagate Firecuda 520
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVGA GeForce RTX 3080 XC3 Ultra
      • PSU:
      • EVGA SuperNOVA 850W G3
      • Case:
      • NZXT H210i
      • Operating System:
      • Ubuntu 20.04, Windows 10
      • Monitor(s):
      • LG 34GN850
      • Internet:
      • FIOS

    Re: Headlines - Sky HD gets cheaper, still too expensive?

    there are a grand 2 HD channels on freesat, 3 if your box supports the full FTA channel set. for free. not the best content, mind, but still...

  6. #6
    Laird Of The Glen jimborae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    I come from a land of plenty......not
    Posts
    3,495
    Thanks
    260
    Thanked
    372 times in 305 posts
    • jimborae's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte Aorus Z390 Pro
      • CPU:
      • Core i7 9700K@4.7Ghz
      • Memory:
      • Team Group DDR-3000 32Gig
      • Storage:
      • 1x Samsung 870 Evo 500Gb SSD, 1 x WD Red 4TB
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Gigabyte Radeon 5700XT watercooled
      • PSU:
      • XFX 850W Black Edition
      • Case:
      • Phantek Enthoo Prime
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • 2 xDell 24"
      • Internet:
      • PlusNet 70Mb

    Re: Headlines - Sky HD gets cheaper, still too expensive?

    Quote Originally Posted by directhex View Post
    there are a grand 2 HD channels on freesat, 3 if your box supports the full FTA channel set. for free. not the best content, mind, but still...
    And those 2 HD channels are free on Sky HD as well......Hmmm makes me think I should just cancel my sky sub, pay £10/month for Sky+ recording facilities and keep the box just for Sky Freesat and free HD channels. That would save me £47/month

  7. #7
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    4
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts

    Re: Headlines - Sky HD gets cheaper, still too expensive?

    Absolutely,

    the box is not the problem price BUT the £10 per month to watch sky HD definitely is,
    so till this stops I will not be upgrading.!!!!!!!

  8. #8
    DR
    DR is offline
    on ye old ship HEXUS DR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    HEXUS HQ, Elstree
    Posts
    13,412
    Thanks
    1,060
    Thanked
    841 times in 373 posts

    Re: Headlines - Sky HD gets cheaper, still too expensive?

    There is not much HD content as it is... (!) I canceled mine - I had it with all the channels and realised - I don't need this - I will save the pennies.

    I'm now attempting to use MythTV - thing which makes me smile the most? the web interface so I can record everything I want from my desk....

  9. #9
    Seething Cauldron of Hatred TheAnimus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    17,168
    Thanks
    803
    Thanked
    2,152 times in 1,408 posts

    Re: Headlines - Sky HD gets cheaper, still too expensive?

    The main complaint i have with sky is the quality of the SD stuff, because theres sod all in HD. First off, i don't pay for the sky HD, there is no way i would. My 52" LCD really does bring out HD/BlueRay films, stunning. But on sky its all 720p, which isn't the native and whilst better looking than SD just smacks of "could try harder".

    Now given that most of the SD stuff is transmitted in such low quality you'd think it was routed over a mobile phone network, i think sky really should consider upping their game.

    You've also now got an insaine number of channels, 90% of which are crap. I'm not menstrating so about 30% of them are irrevlivent. I don't know who these 'celebreties' are so don't care another 40% gone, i mastered surfing for porn on the net by the time i was 11, so don't need that other 20%.

    But somehow repeats of the A-Team never get old.
    throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)

  10. #10
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts

    Re: Headlines - Sky HD gets cheaper, still too expensive?

    Quote Originally Posted by TheAnimus View Post
    The main complaint i have with sky is the quality of the SD stuff, because theres sod all in HD. First off, i don't pay for the sky HD, there is no way i would. My 52" LCD really does bring out HD/BlueRay films, stunning. But on sky its all 720p, which isn't the native and whilst better looking than SD just smacks of "could try harder".

    Now given that most of the SD stuff is transmitted in such low quality you'd think it was routed over a mobile phone network, i think sky really should consider upping their game.

    You've also now got an insaine number of channels, 90% of which are crap. I'm not menstrating so about 30% of them are irrevlivent. I don't know who these 'celebreties' are so don't care another 40% gone, i mastered surfing for porn on the net by the time i was 11, so don't need that other 20%.

    But somehow repeats of the A-Team never get old.
    The quality of the SD stuff on Sky is mainly down to how much bandwidth the broadcaster is prepared to pay for.
    Hence ITV1 looks quite good but ITV4 is awful.
    To be fair to Sky (dodgy ground I know) Freeview is no better in this respect.

    Also the HD content on Sky is as far as I can tell (I have Sky HD) transmitted at 1080i not 720p (this is an option if the broadcaster wants to pay for the extra bandwidth needed for 720p).

    In my opinion Sky HD is only worth the £10 subsciption if you already take the full sport and film package.
    Otherwise for film fans a monthly rental fee from somewhere such as Lovefilm which offers Blu Ray rental may be a better value option.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Sky Broadband, your thoughts?
    By Steven W in forum Networking and Broadband
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 14-11-2007, 08:11 PM
  2. Replies: 51
    Last Post: 03-11-2007, 06:05 PM
  3. Sky HD
    By doddsy in forum Retail Therapy and Bargains
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 21-09-2007, 06:28 PM
  4. Anyone upgraded from Sky to sky +?
    By kopite in forum Consumer Electronics
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 18-07-2007, 01:42 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •