Is Sky+ HD Really Worth Five Stars

[Wightknight]

Let me just say at the outset, I have been an HD subscriber for about 8 months, have Sky Sports and Movies and absolutely love the quality of the picture. Watching Chelsea vs Liverpool yesterday was an absolute joy (both the picture and the result!) and having so many movies in HD is extremely good. HD certainly enhances my enjoyment of the programmes I watch.

The reviews of the box in WHFSV properly portray the box and service's strengths, but I cannot help being annoyed by its limitations. For instance:

1) Sound: Dolby Digital is available, but not through HDMI. You have to connect an optical cable and then play (probably unsuccessfully) with the delay settings to try and get sound and vision synched. DD should be available through HDMI.

2) Storage: The size of the installed disks is pitifully small. Record half a dozen films and a couple of episodes of Heroes and see how much disk space you have left.

3) Unused features: The box comes with SATA and ethernet ports, neither of which are enabled. If the SATA port worked I could connect an external drive and add more hard disk space. If the ethernet port worked it could be connected to the internet and make even more use of Sky Anytime and other features. Therefore, we have an incomplete package.

4) Price: Like most other customers, I am still not happy that I have to pay an extra £10 per month for the service.

Conclusion: A good service, but we could - and should - have had so much more. Four stars.

What do you think?

 

[Anonymous]

I'm more concerned about the outrageous cost of the subscription. Roll on freesat.

 

[Clare Newsome]

Agreed re all of Sky+ HD's foibles, but remember that the ratings are comparative - it's by far the best HD service out there, in terms of choice, usability and quality.

 

[Wightknight]

Hi Clare,

Fair point, but one thing I have always respected is the objectivity of your magazine. A good example was during the early days of the Blu-ray vs HD DVD battle. The early players produced by both sides were OK, but needed to be improved and consequently were often only given 3 or 4 stars even though they were the best HD players available at the time.

By marking these products down, the magazine gave a clear signal to the manufacturers that they needed to try harder and to their potential customers that they may wish to delay purchase until the finished product is available.

I am just concerned that our friends at Sky must be sitting back enjoying the accolades they have received and not realising that their customers expect much, much more from them.

 

[bullitt]

I'm surprised you give sky hd 4 stars with those comments so you mean if it did all those things you want it only gains one star extra, strange ! I myself think sky is too expensive with not one thought for existing customers,im getting rid of sky soon and going for the new humax freesat pvr, although i will be waiting for the review first.