@mrtickle wrote:I will make my reply short, too :). Your post is strangely pro-Sky considering we are discussing a hostile business practice that stinks. This is the only reason I am replying, for balance.
@JAMES4578 wrote:Sky have chosen the route of using the Multiscreen subscription for UHD rather than a seperate charge
"Rather than?! Here you seem to have accepted without question the outrageous idea that there should be some extra charge, and it's just a matter of deciding which one?! That is bonkers and only plays into their hands. You might be happy to pull your trousers down and bend over for Sky, but please don't speak for the rest of who do not!
Any extra charge for 4K and/or HDR cannot be justified, any more than charging for Dolby Digital 5.1 sound cannot ever be justified. Both significantly improve the enjoyment of programmes, they are merely the progression of technology. Sadly, people have shown odd willingness to pay extra for HD over more than a decade - which also cannot be justified in the year 2018 yet they are still doing it for sport (funny that they aren't doing it for Movies, nothing to do with Netflix and Amazon is it? Eh? oh no!). So this means Sky are banking on the fact that enough of their genuflecting customerbase, those who think that Sky are actually innovating instead of following other providers, will just cough up the money.
@JAMES4578 wrote:suits larger households who had it already but not so convenient for others. Whilst no choice but to take Multiscreen for UHD you are not forced to take a Mini as such (charge also covers Tablets)
Suits some, but "not so convenient" for others? Oddly pro-sky way of putting it. No, it means Sky are openly stating to those customers, in a very hostile way, that they do not want their custom. That's not "inconvenient", it's telling potential customers to f**k off.
We should realise there are always different opinions, take the point but I won't be as blunt in reply. even if there was a bit of humour 
Really I was not claiming to be speaking for anyone else and am not particularly pro Sky though have been a customer for long time with no Cable alternative. I was basically stating the reality of the current situation , whether we like it or not Sky are focusing on a particular business model for their premium product. For the record I thought Skyq was too expensive not so long ago and negotaited a better deal for a new contract, I for one hope there would be no extra charges for HDR but take desireable products/services if I can justify it.
