Sky decoders - what is the difference between a standard box and Mysky?

Forums › Sky, Neon, Lightbox › Sky decoders - what is the difference between a standard box and Mysky?

guyl

120 posts

Master Geek

ID Verified

#204714 14-Oct-2016 10:04

I have had Mysky for many years (And love it!). I am very frustrated with the new UI, and how slow it is...

My question is this - what are the differences between the Mysky box and a new "standard" box, as far as recording is concerned?

Sky seemed a bit vague when I asked them.

I know that the menu works a lot faster, but I am concerned about things like space for storage. Does anyone know the difference? Are there any other downsides (Like maybe a standard box can only record 1 program at a time??)

Apparently by enabling recording ($15) on 1 decoder, you can use on any other multi-room decoders for the same price....

trig42

5815 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#1650928 14-Oct-2016 11:13

Has the new standard box got a Hard Drive?

guyl

120 posts

Master Geek

ID Verified

#1650929 14-Oct-2016 11:16

Apparently they do... Sky Customer services have said it's an add on that they enable remotely....

tripp

3848 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1650943 14-Oct-2016 11:37

Yes the Sky Box does have a hard drive. PVR (recording) can now be turned on/off remotely and has a $15 charge if enabled.

So in short sky moved from a hardware retail (decoder) to a service (PVR) fee.

B1GGLZ

1961 posts

Uber Geek

#1651252 14-Oct-2016 18:46

guyl:

Apparently they do... Sky Customer services have said it's an add on that they enable remotely....

That would be right. Before I ditched Sky recently I had been upgraded to the new box. It had a HDD and when I tried the record function in the menu I just got a message saying I wasn't subscribed to that service. Buggered if I was going to fork out another $15/mth so ditched them. Can't say I miss them at all but sure is nice to watch Lightbox and others online without the interminable ads and promos.

JimmyH

2886 posts

Uber Geek

#1651264 14-Oct-2016 19:38

^^^ This! I agree completely.

I have already dropped most of my channel packages. Between the DRM that has been added to the new boxes and the incessant ad breaks on many channels, it's no longer value for money.

As soon as I can convince the GF that we don't need Sky's ad-ridden and overpriced service, then it's gone altogether,

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek

#1651272 14-Oct-2016 20:00

B1GGLZ:

guyl:

Apparently they do... Sky Customer services have said it's an add on that they enable remotely....

That would be right. Before I ditched Sky recently I had been upgraded to the new box. It had a HDD and when I tried the record function in the menu I just got a message saying I wasn't subscribed to that service. Buggered if I was going to fork out another $15/mth so ditched them. Can't say I miss them at all but sure is nice to watch Lightbox and others online without the interminable ads and promos.

I seem to recall that the new boxes allowed recording of the FTA channels without having to pay the extra $15/mth (ie the extra $15/mth was the ability to record Sky content). Can anyone confirm if thats the case?

Sixth Labour Government - "Vision without Execution is just Hallucination"

wingbat45

233 posts

Master Geek

#1651287 14-Oct-2016 20:37

ockel:

B1GGLZ:

guyl:

Apparently they do... Sky Customer services have said it's an add on that they enable remotely....

That would be right. Before I ditched Sky recently I had been upgraded to the new box. It had a HDD and when I tried the record function in the menu I just got a message saying I wasn't subscribed to that service. Buggered if I was going to fork out another $15/mth so ditched them. Can't say I miss them at all but sure is nice to watch Lightbox and others online without the interminable ads and promos.

I seem to recall that the new boxes allowed recording of the FTA channels without having to pay the extra $15/mth (ie the extra $15/mth was the ability to record Sky content). Can anyone confirm if thats the case?

Its not. (unless your on a par trial)

Ondemand works like pvr, except not for live tv

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

pinkydot

247 posts

Master Geek

#1651337 14-Oct-2016 22:20

The new skybox has a 500GB hard drive. Just had them upgrade the old digital box to the sky box a month ago, had the my sky service just for 3 months free after that I will cancel the my sky service.
If you're existing sky digital customer you can upgrade to MY SKY for the record function. Your first three months free after that $15/mth for the my sky record function.

They been promoting since last month for existing customers
https://skytv.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/1647

ilovemusic

1439 posts

Uber Geek

#1651912 16-Oct-2016 13:32

JimmyH:

^^^ This! I agree completely.

I have already dropped most of my channel packages. Between the DRM that has been added to the new boxes and the incessant ad breaks on many channels, it's no longer value for money.

As soon as I can convince the GF that we don't need Sky's ad-ridden and overpriced service, then it's gone altogether,

when was sky ever value for money ???

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek

#1651913 16-Oct-2016 13:46

ilovemusic:

JimmyH:

^^^ This! I agree completely.

I have already dropped most of my channel packages. Between the DRM that has been added to the new boxes and the incessant ad breaks on many channels, it's no longer value for money.

As soon as I can convince the GF that we don't need Sky's ad-ridden and overpriced service, then it's gone altogether,

when was sky ever value for money ???

At around 70 hours of viewing per month across Sport, Soho and Basic it works out at less than $2/hour for entertainment for me.

Contrast that to the amount it cost me to take my daughter to see a movie at the cinema (for a 90 minute movie), or the cost to go at an ITM Cup game (for 90 minutes).

Whats your definition of value for money? Mine seems pretty clear.

Sixth Labour Government - "Vision without Execution is just Hallucination"

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18664 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1651938 16-Oct-2016 15:40

Maybe it depends on your viewing tastes. For me it would not be value for money at all. Fortunately I don't have to pay for it.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

JimmyH

2886 posts

Uber Geek

#1651977 16-Oct-2016 17:09

ilovemusic:

when was sky ever value for money ???

Back in the mid-to-late 1990s, when I had it on a terrestrial UHF box. Then it was the only game in town (there were basically no competing services or streaming, except for a local video rental store). About $50/month got me:

the movies channel (which wasn't that far short of the content on all seven channels now - they just repeated stuff less, and which didn't have annoying giant Sky logos smeared across the screen);
the sport channel (OK, only one, but it had all the stuff I wanted, principally rugby); and
CNN;
one nostalgia and dreck channel (Orange) which was all I really needed; and
wasn't annoyingly DRM-encumbered like the new boxes - and integrated OK with my DVD recorder (which admittedly was only disc only, upgraded to an 80GB hard drive model around 2001), and home video distribution system.

Now, to get the movies and sport etc, you pay dramatically more even adjusting for inflation. In return, you get a lot more re-runs ancient stuff that you don't typically want, loads more repeats, saturation bombing of ads on many channels, annoying credit voiceovers, and truly obnoxious DRM. Plus, there are now many competing services (unless you are a sports fanatic), most of which cost far less.

So Sky was, at one point good value in my view. However, I don't regard it as such any more.

B1GGLZ

1961 posts

Uber Geek

#1652038 16-Oct-2016 19:19

JimmyH:

Back in the mid-to-late 1990s, when I had it on a terrestrial UHF box. Then it was the only game in town (there were basically no competing services or streaming, except for a local video rental store). About $50/month got me:

the movies channel (which wasn't that far short of the content on all seven channels now - they just repeated stuff less, and which didn't have annoying giant Sky logos smeared across the screen);
the sport channel (OK, only one, but it had all the stuff I wanted, principally rugby); and
CNN;
one nostalgia and dreck channel (Orange) which was all I really needed; and
wasn't annoyingly DRM-encumbered like the new boxes - and integrated OK with my DVD recorder (which admittedly was only disc only, upgraded to an 80GB hard drive model around 2001), and home video distribution system.
Now, to get the movies and sport etc, you pay dramatically more even adjusting for inflation. In return, you get a lot more re-runs ancient stuff that you don't typically want, loads more repeats, saturation bombing of ads on many channels, annoying credit voiceovers, and truly obnoxious DRM. Plus, there are now many competing services (unless you are a sports fanatic), most of which cost far less.

So Sky was, at one point good value in my view. However, I don't regard it as such any more.

Yes, I remember those days. Good value for money back then. Was analogue UHF and Stereo sound for movies only. I dumped the UHF service when they discontinued stereo sound on the Movie channel and went Mono. That was a real backward step. Only went to Satellite when I retired but have dumped them now for good due to the interminable ads and promos. Never used to be like that when I subscribed to Satellite. Online streaming is the way of the future and Sky have missed the boat. Lightbox is free (for Spark customers) and no ads or promos.

quickymart

13968 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#1652066 16-Oct-2016 23:06

JimmyH:

ilovemusic:

when was sky ever value for money ???

Back in the mid-to-late 1990s, when I had it on a terrestrial UHF box. Then it was the only game in town (there were basically no competing services or streaming, except for a local video rental store). About $50/month got me:

the movies channel (which wasn't that far short of the content on all seven channels now - they just repeated stuff less, and which didn't have annoying giant Sky logos smeared across the screen);
the sport channel (OK, only one, but it had all the stuff I wanted, principally rugby); and
CNN;
one nostalgia and dreck channel (Orange) which was all I really needed; and
wasn't annoyingly DRM-encumbered like the new boxes - and integrated OK with my DVD recorder (which admittedly was only disc only, upgraded to an 80GB hard drive model around 2001), and home video distribution system.
Now, to get the movies and sport etc, you pay dramatically more even adjusting for inflation. In return, you get a lot more re-runs ancient stuff that you don't typically want, loads more repeats, saturation bombing of ads on many channels, annoying credit voiceovers, and truly obnoxious DRM. Plus, there are now many competing services (unless you are a sports fanatic), most of which cost far less.

So Sky was, at one point good value in my view. However, I don't regard it as such any more.

Don't forget Discovery! All five channels for $54.17 (in 1995-1996 prices). I was selling it via telemarketing back then. Those were the good old days :)

Movies (aka HBO for a while) and Orange were really good back in those days, IMO.