Is sky HD good Value or Not

is Sky HD good Value or Not

  • Good Value

    Votes: 86 42.4%
  • Not Good Value

    Votes: 117 57.6%

  • Total voters
    203
  • Poll closed .
I'd happily pay £10pm just to watch 24 in HD. With football and movies, it's certainly good value to me. And £300 for the box I think is reasonable, considering how new the technology is in it. Telewest might be offering a free box but Sky's is undoubtedly more advanced and far more futureproof. I don't think they'll be making a profit on selling the boxes.
 
What's with all the Sky bashing? Why are people happy to pay £2000 for a Panasonic 42PV500 but upset at paying for the HD to watch on it!

If you have Telewest HD is it £10/mth for the box and then £10 for Sky HD. If it is then the box is not free, you are paying £10 a month for it. But I do not know how they are pricing HD so I may be wrong.
 
sweezely said:
I'd happily pay £10pm just to watch 24 in HD. With football and movies, it's certainly good value to me. And £300 for the box I think is reasonable, considering how new the technology is in it. Telewest might be offering a free box but Sky's is undoubtedly more advanced and far more futureproof. I don't think they'll be making a profit on selling the boxes.

Sorry, maybe I didn't make myself clear. I accept that if you ar watching 24 in spanking quality HD then you'll think it's good value. My point is that no-one knows what it's going to be like yet.

I'm not a Sky basher, having been a subscriber for many years, but I do know that they have a track record for less than perfect performance of new technology.
 
I think the material value for money of the box is very high, bearing in mind that early adopters always end up paying innovators' development costs, and arguably it should cost more than £299, hence the option to buy it at £399 with no sub.

BTW I don't think we will see HD subs disappear any time soon, or how else does sky differentiate between Sky HD and Sky +? The box will get cheaper once the development costs have been clawed back, or the subs will reduce, but not both, not until HD becomes the standard product anyway.
 
I don't think that long term the plan is to differentiate between Sky HD and Sky+, but to make everything HD. That'll take a while - and you can bet Sky milk it for all its worth in the meantime.
 
I currently have sky+ with multiroom on the top level package all costing £52 a month (over £600 pa) and I've pre-registered for HD which add another £10 a month very soon. I'm seriously begining to question if this represents value for money as I think my threshold for blind loyalty has been exceeded. Of course I can afford to pay the extra £10, but the total amount bothers me, and how far will I continue paying that extra bit for additional services.

On this basis and at this moment of sanity, I will cancel my Sky HD order. furthermore, I really do wonder how much more HD will be an improvement over what we have now? If people have based their expectations on the pastel coloured demo's running off hard disks in-store, and the 360, then a few might just be in for a real surprise.

Some SD programmes especially films are so clear and breathtaking (on my 50" TV) that I wonder if HD will add much to the wow factor. I also notice that some of the best channels picture wise are the ones currently with HD equivalents, so will there be a significant improvement to warrant the additional layout?


Rizza
 
Needs more material and channels. :)
 
I think it depends on what you will watch. For me the World Cup and sports in HD is the main reason for wanting it. I also like the idea of Sky One and Sky Movies in HD.

But I won't be watching the likes of Artsworld.

The price of the box and installation seems OK. But £10 for the HD service seems very steep for me seeing as there are currently 2 channels I won't really watch. Plus not all programs will be recorded in HD as some will be upscalled.

Hopefully as the year goes on more channels will go HD.
 
I've got Sky+ and Multiroom. Now with the HD sub it's gonna cost me £740 a year and with the TV license that £860... What with all the other household bills I'm gonna have to get a second job... But wait a minute, if I get a second job I won't have time to watch TV. No need to get HD then. If I don't get HD I won't have to get a second job. But that means more time to watch TV. Then I'll want to get HD... It's a never ending spiral....:rolleyes:
 
I'm amazed at the number of people who baulk at the idea of spending £10 a month for Sky+, but will happily hand over £10 a month for half-a-dozen part-time HD channels.
 
So who would moan about having to buy 1 HD-DVD a month after they've bought a HD-DVD player? What's the difference? Either buy 1 HD-DVD or pay £10 for hours of hidef material on SkyHD (including movies). When looked at like that I really don't see what the problem is!
 
I just called Sky to see how I could reduce my monthly subs, and found out how cornered I was. Basically to have sky sports which is all I care for, I must have 2 bundled channels :mad: , so minimum subs based on that with multiroom is almost £50. So I seriously decided to cancel and they offered me a 50% discount over 3 months which I accepted.

I've since found out from a colleague that it is possible to get sky, several UK channels and lots of foreign ones that show premiership games using a motorised satellite dish costing about £300, he doesn't pay any subs and gets all the channels and games I want. I'm now looking into this, and if legal will give some feedback.

Rizza
 
I too only "care" for the sky sports channels and to ask for an extra £10 a month is a bit of a P*** take (i'm up to £52 pm). I may try it for a month and send it back stating the reason that the £10 pm subs is excessive. I would go for it no problems if it were not for the monthly charge. Any news on the motorised dish system would be great.
 

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom