Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


672 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 53


Topic # 126864 22-Jul-2013 15:34
Send private message

As the topic says apparently there is no outright price in which you can pay for the mysky anymore which is annoying because if you have it for around 3 years you have made your money back, rang up after having it for a year and finally deciding to sump up the cash. I missed out by 22 days apparently.

View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
 1 | 2
3720 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1209


  Reply # 863701 22-Jul-2013 16:07
Send private message

I paid $600 for the original SD mysky box back in 2005'ish.   Then upgraded to mysky hdi for a small fee 5 years ago. 

Now , I want the bigger harddrive but sky say i must pay $600 to upgrade to the slightly larger harddrive. 

But, in the overall scheme of things sky is losing importance in my household and unless it were for the rugby sky would be gone ski. 



14262 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1847


  Reply # 863708 22-Jul-2013 16:15
Send private message

It was stupid you had to pay it in the first place, because it was only a rented box. For $600 you would expect to keep the PVR, which is why I wouldn't have paid it.

Awesome
4810 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1062

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 863711 22-Jul-2013 16:17
Send private message

surfisup1000: But, in the overall scheme of things sky is losing importance in my household and unless it were for the rugby sky would be gone ski.


I suspect that is the exact reason you can't pay for it outright any more. Sky are worried about the future, and so locking their customers into term contacts gives them some degree of certainty.




Twitter: ajobbins




672 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 53


  Reply # 863714 22-Jul-2013 16:23
Send private message

ajobbins:
surfisup1000: But, in the overall scheme of things sky is losing importance in my household and unless it were for the rugby sky would be gone ski.


I suspect that is the exact reason you can't pay for it outright any more. Sky are worried about the future, and so locking their customers into term contacts gives them some degree of certainty.


Well this hasnt really got anything to do with locking people in, hower I would be more likly to get rid of sky now than if I had just forked out $600 for a mysky

270 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 37

Trusted

  Reply # 863721 22-Jul-2013 16:26
Send private message

ajobbins:
surfisup1000: But, in the overall scheme of things sky is losing importance in my household and unless it were for the rugby sky would be gone ski.


I suspect that is the exact reason you can't pay for it outright any more. Sky are worried about the future, and so locking their customers into term contacts gives them some degree of certainty.


You would think they would see where locking people in to contracts got the mobile phone providers..... It enticed competition...

Selling the hardware and allowing subscription to individual channels is the way for them to go.... Pay as you go Sky.... Sky Skinny.....?




Michael Skyrme - Instrumentation & Controls

14262 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1847


  Reply # 863722 22-Jul-2013 16:27
Send private message

Haven't they always locked people into a contract. eg a free install and you are then locked in for 12 months.
I think it is more to do with people getting their content online, and buying boxes and using VPNs to get tehir content through overseas providers. That is where the threat is for them.

6434 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1571


  Reply # 863730 22-Jul-2013 16:43
Send private message

taking a positive spin on things, maybe this means Sky are abotu to launch a new box and so dont want to get stung by the bad PR of 'selling' a $600 box to someone only to retire it a few weeks later



672 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 53


  Reply # 863736 22-Jul-2013 17:05
Send private message

NonprayingMantis: taking a positive spin on things, maybe this means Sky are abotu to launch a new box and so dont want to get stung by the bad PR of 'selling' a $600 box to someone only to retire it a few weeks later


that's a good point maybe

2078 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 230

Subscriber

  Reply # 863739 22-Jul-2013 17:13
Send private message

I wonder how many people bought the box? Perhaps it just wasn't worth it for them to offer the $600 option.

3383 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 463


  Reply # 863761 22-Jul-2013 18:05
Send private message

A network capable box would be an interesting proposition, but the implementation would be everything...

3720 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1209


  Reply # 863765 22-Jul-2013 18:17
2 people support this post
Send private message

mattwnz: It was stupid you had to pay it in the first place, because it was only a rented box. For $600 you would expect to keep the PVR, which is why I wouldn't have paid it.


Over the 8 or so years I've had the box, it has cost me $6 a month if yo spread the purchase price across the years.  So, I think it has been a good deal, especially since there have been 2 failures over the years and sky fixed them at no cost. 

1350 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 211


  Reply # 863901 22-Jul-2013 21:25
Send private message

I paid $600.

If i was payinging a monthly rental, sky would be gone burger, rather own my own recorder, then have to pay rent for it and then pay quite high cost for additional channels on top.

By own, i mean not pay monthly fee just to have box in house, so i'm able to purchase services from them.

Paid $600 and have two mysky hdi decoders. At $20 a month each for roughly 8 years each would be $3840, hmmm think paying $600 one off way better.

Be a bit more because one is the plus.

Then there's the hd ticket if don't have multiroom, ouch.

And the box is network cabable. Just sky seems real slow in implementing it, all it needs is a software update.

6434 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1571


  Reply # 863988 23-Jul-2013 00:31
Send private message

rugrat: I paid $600.

If i was payinging a monthly rental, sky would be gone burger, rather own my own recorder, then have to pay rent for it and then pay quite high cost for additional channels on top.

By own, i mean not pay monthly fee just to have box in house, so i'm able to purchase services from them.

Paid $600 and have two mysky hdi decoders. At $20 a month each for roughly 8 years each would be $3840, hmmm think paying $600 one off way better.

Be a bit more because one is the plus.

Then there's the hd ticket if don't have multiroom, ouch.

And the box is network cabable. Just sky seems real slow in implementing it, all it needs is a software update.


it is $15 per month.  and MySkyHDi was launched in 2008, which is 5 years ago, not 8. 

the MySky+ was launched in June 2011, slightly over 2 years ago.

if you had 2 x MySky HDi boxes purchased at launch, then upgrade one to the MySky+ when it launched, you would have paid just under $2000 total for the rentals,  not $3840 vs the $1350 (not $600) you actually paid upfront ($600 for each box, and a one-off $149 to upgrade one to a MySky+)

So yes, you were better off by buying the box but your maths is terrible




1054 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 71


  Reply # 864007 23-Jul-2013 07:13
Send private message

Never bothered with Mysky (and haven't had sky in a very long time) Who would spend $600 for a box yet not actually own it and have to return it back if you stop Sky? Crazy.

You would be better off buying a MagicTV/Tivo or HTPC.

https://skytv.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/142/kw/own%20mysky/session/L3RpbWUvMTM3NDUyMDIwOC9zaWQvS3UzQjRUdmw%3D


887 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 124


  Reply # 864021 23-Jul-2013 07:35
Send private message

NonprayingMantis:
rugrat: I paid $600.

If i was payinging a monthly rental, sky would be gone burger, rather own my own recorder, then have to pay rent for it and then pay quite high cost for additional channels on top.

By own, i mean not pay monthly fee just to have box in house, so i'm able to purchase services from them.

Paid $600 and have two mysky hdi decoders. At $20 a month each for roughly 8 years each would be $3840, hmmm think paying $600 one off way better.

Be a bit more because one is the plus.

Then there's the hd ticket if don't have multiroom, ouch.

And the box is network cabable. Just sky seems real slow in implementing it, all it needs is a software update.


it is $15 per month.  and MySkyHDi was launched in 2008, which is 5 years ago, not 8. 

the MySky+ was launched in June 2011, slightly over 2 years ago.

if you had 2 x MySky HDi boxes purchased at launch, then upgrade one to the MySky+ when it launched, you would have paid just under $2000 total for the rentals,  not $3840 vs the $1350 (not $600) you actually paid upfront ($600 for each box, and a one-off $149 to upgrade one to a MySky+)

So yes, you were better off by buying the box but your maths is terrible


I think he meant he paid $600 upfront for the original MySky SD boxes back 8 years ago (as we did to) and upgraded to the HDi when they came out so he's not that far out on his numbers.

 1 | 2
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic

Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.