News - Sky cuts the cost of premium HD service, hits sub-£50 sweet spot

[HEXUS]

Sky+HD is cheaper than ever before, but is it still too pricey in the long run?

Read more.

[dave87]

Yup, still got the extra subscription for HD content.

Irritating, especially in the case of Sky1 HD a lot of the content is the same, just upscaled (badly).

[s_kinton]

Not a bad price for the box now, but as pointed out there is no way I would part with that kind of money on a monthly basis to watch TV!!!

I often find the number of people paying for some scandalously expensive Sky package quite amusing, especially since most can't really afford it!

[this_is_gav]

[edit: as above] The reason more don't go with Sky aren't the initial costs, but the subscription ones. I'd happily pay £200 for installation if the monthly rates weren't so ludicrous (in my eyes).

I think they need to have a more flexible approach or a complete pricing structure overhaul to entice many more to their service, HD or not.

[matty-hodgson]

i still don't understand why they're charging for the recording of programs aswell.
it doesn't affect their end at all!

[Fatboy40]

i still don't understand why they're charging for the recording of programs aswell.
it doesn't affect their end at all!

They don't charge if you subscribe to at least on 'mix'.

And if you use your Sky box 'FTA' it's not really a charge for the recording anyhow, it's the fact that you're using the Sky EPG which they maintain and update, it's Sky's EPG that makes the Sky+ and HD boxes so easy to use.

[dave87]

I often find the number of people paying for some scandalously expensive Sky package quite amusing, especially since most can't really afford it!

Currently £46/month here.


Expensive but affordable, however I will be dropping at least the movies, possibly the HD part. Was good for a year, just not a huge amount I actually want to watch now

[matty-hodgson]

They don't charge if you subscribe to at least on 'mix'.

And if you use your Sky box 'FTA' it's not really a charge for the recording anyhow, it's the fact that you're using the Sky EPG which they maintain and update, it's Sky's EPG that makes the Sky+ and HD boxes so easy to use.

but that's exactly what i mean, i have the old Sky+ box in my room, and we have the HD box downstairs, but i can't record anything onto my Sky+ box in my room cos i don't have any subscription on it.

and even if it is the EPG, you get that for free anyway, so i still don't see why it should cost any extra for me to be able to record programs.

[shaithis]

The problem I have with SkyHD is I just couldn't go back to watching football in SD

Having Lost, 24, BSG etc in HD is also nice, but TBH, I wouldn't feel too bad about downloading them in HD if I was paying for SkyOne and didn't have the HD sub.

And in the great scheme of things (even in the current economic climate) £10 per month to get half my programming in HD (after spending £1500 on a HD plasma) seems well worthwhile to me.

[Speed]

It's tempting, but to be honest you if you have to take the HD service for 12 months at £117 for a couple of HD channels it's really not that good.

[shaithis]

It's tempting, but to be honest you if you have to take the HD service for 12 months at £117 for a couple of HD channels it's really not that good.

There are 3 pages of HD channels....a far cry from a couple

[Speed]

Really? I'd imagine you'd have to pay for them, I don't think you don't get many on the basic mixes.

[Brewster0101]

There are 3 pages of HD channels....a far cry from a couple

How many HD channels you get does depend on what mix or package you pay for. If you spend £55+ and then the £10 HD price per month, you get something around thirty HD channels....

But if you stick with the basic variety pack you get Sky one HD..... So £10 for one channel in HD????

Oh you get E4 HD and some other free view channels...

Still a rip of sky...

[eloquence]

I suspect that most of those considering a £10/month HD sub probably have one of the Sky World packages already, at which point it's not bad value. The alternative would be buying a BluRay disc every couple of months...
Given that an equivalent box would cost a lot more than £50, the sub is also subsidising the box. When you look at it on similar terms to a mobile phone contract and a half-decent phone, then it makes even more sense.

[Brewster0101]

I suspect that most of those considering a £10/month HD sub probably have one of the Sky World packages already, at which point it's not bad value. The alternative would be buying a BluRay disc every couple of months...
Given that an equivalent box would cost a lot more than £50, the sub is also subsidising the box. When you look at it on similar terms to a mobile phone contract and a half-decent phone, then it makes even more sense.

Comparing an over priced system with another over priced system is not much of an arguement. Bluray is over the price too....

Compare Sky to the likes of BT Vision or Virgin Media. Both are cheaper. Ok they might not offer all the glory of HD television, but is the premium worth it???

I am sure SKy HD is great quality and is better to normal digital reception, but its all about value... £50 for the box is good value, although BT and virgin boxes are free. £17 per month for the smallest package is not cheap... (£204 per year) + £120 per year to watch HD content... £324 on top of the TV license already....

Its what something like £55 for all channels inc sport and movies + £10 for HD. £65 x 12 = £780 per year just to watch TV... Really

Really

Sky do you really think people have this money to spare??

[Chris P]

I have just signed up to Sky HD and my thoughts are pretty brief - The quality is good but not really worth what Sky are charging for the privilege. You get plenty of channels but I doubt I'll ever actually watch some of the rubbish they show on these channels.

I'll keep Sky for 1 Year and then re-evaluate the available options....

Sky really need to reduce the monthly subscription NOT the box cost....