SkyGlass Awful

[lfcg]

What has different broadband conditions got to do with a poor product released into a market where there are numerous examples of great if not brilliant hardware and content providers.

As far as I can see sky have absolutely gone with the cheapest tv technology available, sure dress it up so it looks cool, but what is on the inside is just as important.

The ui needs a complete revamp as far as I am concerned, it's all a muddle, why do I have to scroll all the way down to the bottom of the home page to search for content, if I was a member of the test team or whatever these companies use to pass off products my first reaction would've been I'm sorry but I don't like that!

Why can't I add specific episodes to my playlist instead of every episode available, why can't I remove a single episode that I have watched.
Like I said all very clumsy and not thought out properly at all.

Why have they chose to embed content into the providers apps.

Sky Q is a million miles ahead and has been since it's release in 2016, this is just very lazy from sky, they could've had a real ground breaking amazing product here but unfortunately they have dropped the ball with sky glass!

[dbader]

@lfcg  I guess you can't please everyone as to the layout and positioning of functions on the Sky Glass ui. Of course, the speed of the broadband is going to initially affect the performance of the on line product, and will be affected by all the conditions I outlined previously. But none of these issues will kill the product in the long term - they are teething problems. Sky Glass is in its infancy.

As regards the build of the TV - i think it is fine for a £643 tv, but that is my opinion - you pay your money and you take your chances. I have a 55 inch Sony 4K as my main TV. The picture is slightly sharper than the Glass, I still see pictures on the Glass which are as good as the Sony - its a case of what is being transmitted to the set, not the set itself.  Poor SD content will at sometime have to be upgraded.

But its not really something that should put off anyone going with Sky Glass.

Sky have to attract more customers to get a return on its development investment. Considering the competition, i feel they will respond to all these complaints, given time

[lfcg]

You're right, I too believe sky will sort it all out but I do think they need to reconsider the hardware, as you said if the broadcast quality of content is poor then having a sub standard tv is a double whammy.

The puck produces an outstanding picture, however that is plugged into my 2019 Samsung QLED so the hardware isn't letting the broadcast down.

I have about another 25 days in which to make my mind up and hopefully some updates might come along in that time, but if there is no significant improvements then I will be returning sky glass & reverting back to Sky Q, I believe a lot of customers will do the same.

[SimonW]

---

@sceptic101 wrote:

A few thoughts come to mind about this thread.

Just because you think you are right about something does not mean another person is wrong to think something else, and that works both ways.. !

It's actually good to have differing views, if we all thought the same life would be so boring!

When you think you are right about something any try to convince someone else who disagrees, you are very unlikely to succeed and both parties normally just end up believing more firmly in their position!

Sometimes you have to just agree to disagree and move on!

---

If we were discussing something subjective like the interface design then having a different opinion is fine. The problem here is we have someone who has been told multiple times directly and has almost certainly read the various other posts it doesn't work like Sky Q like he is implying. Even if he is fine with being sent to lower quality apps and has been lucky and the things he 'recorded' have been there when he has wanted them it's not actually the case across the board. I wasnt the first person who corrected him and he decided to argue with.

And the thing that winds me up is that while he has seen t people saying his situation isn't necessarily the norm he is going around telling people asking questions that it's definitely works the same as Q where if you add something it's there as soon as you want to watch it which is incorrect. It's potentially putting people through the hurt of switching, finding it's not what they wanted or expected and having to switch back. It's important people have the right information when making the choice as Sky themselves are giving out way too much misleading data so we don't need others who for some unknown reason want to also put incorrect info out there. All I want is people who decide to get it do so because it fits their exact use case so they are happy with the service

[sceptic101]

@SimonW Yes I can see where you are coming from. TBH I think in this thread and many others on this forum readers can see whats good, bad and downright ugly about Glass, and can draw their own conclusions. At the end of the day it's just telly and really not worth getting wound up about!

[SimonW]

---

@dbader wrote:

I have issues with Sky Glass, like not being able to remove some items from playlist. However I think it is not right to call the product 'awful'. It has only been in action for about 1-2 weeks, and involves a massive change of re-routing a lot of program content from satellite to internet. Add to this what must involve a load of new Software and Hardware, it is to be commended that I can sit here and watch TV on a TV set which is of good quality, and combines lots of features that usually require set top boxes from other vendors.

One thing I have to say about Sky, as a result of many years as a customer, is that they always get things right in the end. And usually things stay working on an every day basis.

This product is in its infancy. Give it time.

---

The problem is the TV isn't actually good quality. That's perhaps the biggest disappointment with the whole thing because interface issues they can fix, they might even be able to sort the quality of the content if they can renegoiate deals with the channels but the hardware isn't something they can sort with their generation of the TV's. For example the viewing angles are pretty poor and  actually the panel doesn't have enough nits to display the HDR content well as it means the white point is only just at the bottom end of then HLG a standard and when TV's don't have enough nits to show the full range they either clip hdr at the TV's max so you only get a partial hdr range or they move the average down so you get the full range but it makes everything darker. Which is what you are seeing on the TV itself as the HDR picture is really dark even if you turn off auto brightness, crank it all the way up and then use a custom colour profile, it's why the puck on a cheaper TV provides a better HDR experience than Glass does as most just clip HDR rather than move the average down. And when you consider you can get a pretty good 55inch Hisense QLED tv and a Sonos Beam gen 2 for around the same price as the Sky Glass it's just not as great deal as they make out. With the fact Sky have locked into a TV subscription its disappointing because they should have been able to take a much lower markup on the hardware knowing that as the TV isn't massivily functional without a sky sub you are almost locked in to keeping your Sky sub going. 

It just took what was a great idea and by rushing it and cutting corners on the hardware it's taken something that had promise to being as the thread title says awful. A TV/Speaker combo atleast upto a midrange Hisense QLED and an entry level Atmos sound bar and better testing from a bunch of people who will actually do testing and provide actual feedback as it almost seems like they were all too scared to give an honest opinion and they would have had a system that people would have been happier living though the niggles and people would have been flocking to signup to and thats a shame 

[lfcg]

Get your facts right, not once have I said sky glass works exactly like Sky Q.

As for correcting me, well you didn't really because like I said stuff on my playlist was their and I watched it, sorry if that doesn't conform to your narrative.

I don't for one minute think others have not had problems with glass, nor do I presume to know that what they are saying is untrue. I am just saying that I haven't experienced that particular problem with glass.

Why is that so difficult for you to accept?

[tarbat]

---

@lfcg wrote:

Get your facts right, not once have I said sky glass works exactly like Sky Q.

.

.

.

Why is that so difficult for you to accept?

---

@lfcg It would help if you said who you're replying to? Simply tag them with @ like this @lfcg 

[lfcg]

I replied directly to the post.

That post was not yours by the way.

[SimonW]

---

@lfcg wrote:

Get your facts right, not once have I said sky glass works exactly like Sky Q.

As for correcting me, well you didn't really because like I said stuff on my playlist was their and I watched it, sorry if that doesn't conform to your narrative.

I don't for one minute think others have not had problems with glass, nor do I presume to know that what they are saying is untrue. I am just saying that I haven't experienced that particular problem with glass.

Why is that so difficult for you to accept?

---

I have already pointed put to you the two occasions when people have asked about it where you HAVE told them that 1) It appears as soon as it's broadcast 2) everything you add to the playlist is available to view

It doesn't matter if you have been lucky and when you come to watch what you have set it's there, you have read plenty of people with examples where it isn't. As such when you then reply to people asking questions and in a definitive  manner tell them it works in such a way when you know it's not working that way for many people on many pieces of content it makes you dishonest. 

And at no point have I not accepted it's worked that way on the content you are watching. I have a problem with the way you are answering people asking specific questions where you choose to discount the problems they have had getting the content they wanted to watch. Having read the issues if your answers had been 'it's working that way for me but people with other content are having issues' then I wouldn't have a problem with your replies but when they are as dismissive of others issues and answer so definitivly I have a problem with that as I know full well many users of forums wil post a question and wont read a whole thread so one poor incomplete reply like yours can push them into buying something they wouldn't with all the info.

Now perhaps as you think acceptance is such an important thing you will accept you actually did say those things and you didn't provide the full story to those who asked the question as you knew others were having issues 

[lfcg]

I said them because they are true.

[SimonW]

---

@lfcg wrote:

I said them because they are true.

---

No they aren't true as has been pointed out by multiple people. A lot of on demand content doesn't go up right away, especially live content (some live content which you can't even add to your playlist either). It can take hours, days or even weeks for some stuff to land on demand. And some of it will ever be available to watch as it won't land ondemand at all and the cloud recorder also wont record it.

Again considering you keep asking people to accept your experience the fact you keep ignoring proven facts that multiple people have discovered is hypocritical. Again no-one is doubting that with your usecase the system works fine for you but it's about people being honest with the limitations so people can make an informed decision about if it fits theirs, not being lead down the wrong path by someone being an Ostrich 

[Anonymous]

@SimonW I think you're beating your head against a brick wall there TBH.

[lfcg]

And another one 🎣

[Robgw]

@SimonW 

You're not locked into a Sky contract, it's a monthly rolling contract for Sky.