Talk:Sky+
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Neutrality
- "people who had it, loved it."
Is this a neutral point of view? Philip Stevens 09:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
It's probably better to say "those who have used the system are generally positive". Evidence of this is that the churn rate for Sky+ is less than for regular Sky equipment. Colin99 22:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Amstrad
- "Amstrad are working on a software update but the anomoly remains and is indicitive of the build quality of these boxes."
Now what has slow firmware got to do with build quality? Nothing. So this is a POV remark, agreed? I think we should delete... Colin99 22:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Links
I don't think that there needs to be all these links to software such as Copy+ and links to places to buy sky boxes -completely irrelevant in my opinion. I'll remove these in the near future unless I get plausible arguments to the contrary. Wikipedia is not an advertisement vehicle, neither is it the location to find ways to tamper with the firmware of electronics. c-bro 17:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)c-bro
[edit] Various things
A few things I personally want to raise:
- The versions are a bit messy. There was the original Pace V1 box (the big thing) followed by the Pace V2 and the Amstrad, all of which were 40Gb. It was after those two that the 80Gb and 160gb boxes were released.
- There's no photos! I'll happily take one of the box and the remote if anybody wants.
- Mention could be made of the fact that the Sky+ box is expandable by an interface in the back, but it's yet to be used. Also, there's no mention of the Optical output, which was a major reason for getting a Sky+ box around its release.
- The Sky+ box will be superseded by the SkyHD boxes as they have much the same functionality, only with HD too.
Comments and suggestions? --KingDaveRa 22:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- If there are inaccuracies please correct them and please feel free to add photos.
- As for the third point, I think care has to be taken not to turn the article into a slightly misleading advert for Sky+. Whilst discussion of expansion ports might be useful in a list of technical specifications of the box (together with processors, etc), I think care needs to be taken to wave it as a selling point of the box when there is no indication if it will ever be used. AFAICT a lot of set top boxes are derived from pretty generic architectures leaving all sorts of bits and pieces that there was no intention of using. For example, I understand at least one very early Freeview box had interfaces that would enable the connection of a hard-drive, many are also evolved from pay boxes made for other markets and have the capability to add pay facilities. However, the presence of these features doesnt correlate with any apparent intention of the manufactuer to ever use these interfaces.
- Finally, if my understanding that those with Sky HD automatically get Sky+ is correct, I would assume Sky will at some point merge these services. It seems pretty pointless trying to sell Sky+ for the same price as Sky HD and Sky+. At which point it would make sense to merge the articles.
- Pit-yacker 00:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
