SkyGlass Awful

[CnPx]

The point I was trying to make was that there is no reason for Sky to make devices connected via HDMI use less then what the TV can do. If the TV can support higher quality then why not have other devices utilize it. HDMI supports all the extras so no reason Sky shouldnt allow it to use them. 

It was a major deterrent when I read all that. I would personally prefer to have a different TV. But not all products will please everyone 🙂

[TimmyBGood]

---

@CnPx wrote:

The point I was trying to make was that there is no reason for Sky to make devices connected via HDMI use less then what the TV can do. 🙂

---

Well, there might be: fitting HDMI 2.1 because there's simply a better financial deal on those components than 2.0 for example, even where the panel and other parts within the television gain no advantage from it.

[Unarmedberetta]

I personally feel they have fitted 2.1 ports as the chipset installed supports these features. 

However I also feel the TV was launched prior to to these features being activated. Very much like the local dimming. 

[CnPx]

Must be something to do with that. But still 60hz refresh rate for the price of the TV just seems a bit low. I also heard the HDR performance isnt amazing compared to other options on the market. If they bring out a new Sky glass and upgrade the negatives then I would consider it but have to wait and see I suppose. Apperantly the Dolby sound is really good.

[Fanovfloyd]

I've had Glass for last 2 months and honestly I've got no complaints whatsoever with it. Love the functionality of it. 

[stereohaven]

---

@Unarmedberetta wrote:

I personally feel they have fitted 2.1 ports as the chipset installed supports these features. 

---

The AV Forums review tested the HDMI ports on Sky Glass and they were clear that the only 2.1 port was HDMI 2 with the eARC support.

The rest are all HDMI 2.0, unless that was just the case on review models?

[video]

I had a proper look at Sky Glass yesterday at a Sky store within one of the demo rooms (not one of those pop up stands in a mall).

Whilst it is chunky, I actually quite liked the look up close and watching the demo movie content really showed off the sound which was fairly decent.

But you could see the problems even with the units in the demo rooms and around the shop with visible DSE, some blooming and on the Eurosport 4K tennis feed, a light area around the outside of the picture, a bit like it was an edge lit LED TV (which it isn't). 

Decent colours though and I can understand the appeal for people who can't have a dish, have never seen (or can't afford) an OLED (I couldn't but bought one anyway... 🤣), or just can't tell the difference between a good or bad picture (or don't care), and I do not underestimate the size of this last cohort.

When I told the advisor in the store I have an LG OLED pre-demo, he was fair and honest and said that Glass isn't a good replacement  as the picture isn't anywhere near as good. In that scenario they are recommending buying Glass for a second room like a bedroom or kitchen and then using a puck on the OLED, which is what many of you have done I think.

So, I like the interface, but the TV is cheap and nasty picture wise, there are much better TVs available for less money with all the same apps (if not the same channels). 

That coupled with the delay on broadcast channels (I'm only worried about sport, one of the reasons I won't use NOW, the lack of 4K the other), and the problems with apps, playlist etc. reported on this forum, I can't see myself ever buying into this system in it's current form, even when the puck is available as a standalone product. 

One last thing the staff in the Sky store said to me, they are amazed at how many people visit them AFTER they have already ordered Sky Glass. Do yourself a favour and go and see it, hear it, play with it and understand it first.

If it's the right choice for you, a visit will confirm it, if it isn't, it could save you a load of hassle. 

[fizzdisco]

Well said @stereohaven. 

This in particular makes absolute sense for anyone even remotely considering getting Glass:

"Do yourself a favour and go and see it, hear it, play with it and understand it first."

Too many people are just blindly buying it thinking it's the latest, greatest thing without ever actually knowing what it really does or how it functions. (Or rather, tries to function.)

[Mike01666]

I've had Sky Glass for three weeks and it's going back!

Single plug installation and sound are great, but...

Poor inplementation of iPlayer

No DLNA or casting support

No CNN and other news channels

No TV Guide button

Absurd number of button presses to navigate (try setting up  Favourites list and then count the nunber of button presses to access it)

No record facility (could the USB C port at the back support a portable drive with a software tweak?)

TV picture is average

No input selector without a crazy amount of button presses

Loss of WiFi mesh facility that Sky Q implements via mini boxes. (Pucks cannot do this)

No Alexa or Google home ("Hello Sky"... why?)

What happens when the remote batteries go?

All in all, a poor attempt from Sky. Software updates may fix all of the above but releasing it in this state is verging on criminal

Picked up a 65" OLED with Atmos for less than the price of Glass. With the reverting to Sky Q and the  addition of a  £50 4K Firestick it will do almost everything better.

[TimmyBGood]

@Mike01666 

I'd suggest most of those are deliberate design choices based on Glass being a bespoke Sky delivery platform (so not a standard smart television) rather than errors, omissions or faults to be 'fixed', but would certainly agree about image quality.

Incidentally batteries are replaceable as one would expect, but the removable cover on the remote is remarkably resistant to sliding off.

[Suskha]

---

@Mike01666 wrote:

I've had Sky Glass for three weeks and it's going back!

Single plug installation and sound are great, but...

Poor inplementation of iPlayer

No DLNA or casting support

No CNN and other news channels

No TV Guide button

Absurd number of button presses to navigate (try setting up  Favourites list and then count the nunber of button presses to access it)

No record facility (could the USB C port at the back support a portable drive with a software tweak?)

TV picture is average

No input selector without a crazy amount of button presses

Loss of WiFi mesh facility that Sky Q implements via mini boxes. (Pucks cannot do this)

No Alexa or Google home ("Hello Sky"... why?)

What happens when the remote batteries go?

All in all, a poor attempt from Sky. Software updates may fix all of the above but releasing it in this state is verging on criminal

Picked up a 65" OLED with Atmos for less than the price of Glass. With the reverting to Sky Q and the  addition of a  £50 4K Firestick it will do almost everything better.

---

Most of the above should not have been news to you. Sorry but I would suggest this was a poor buying decision on your part.

[CliffyCliff]

After checking this out in a store i can safely say that this is a trully awful offering. People would be much better off getting a proper TV from a high street store with finance then using this rubbish. GUI is flawed and clunky, paying for ATMOS is shockingly bad (other streaming services do not pull this con). Said it before and i will say it again, all sky had to do was make a functional app with cloud storage. Sky are very lucky they currently have no real competition in teh UK market, they loose Premier league football and it will be me off

[Chrisee]

@CliffyCliff one small point the extra payment is not just for Atmos it is mainly to get Sky's UHD programming most of which is also has Dolby Atmos sound. Apps that offer Atmos work without the payment to Sky.  

Sky make a similar charge on Q but there you also pay additional charge for access to HD programming which is included in the basic pack cost on Glass.

[stereohaven]

---

@Chrisee wrote:

Sky make a similar charge on Q but there you also pay additional charge for access to HD programming which is included in the basic pack cost on Glass.

---

They do, but you can negotiate discounts on a Q contract which more than compensates, something you are (apart from some minor discounts I've seen), unable to do with Glass.

I actually pay £8 for HD and UHD (including Atmos) on Q, so £3 more than the cost on Glass, but due to in contract discounts I only pay £11 for Sky Sports and £7.50 for Sky Signature. 

As it always has been with Sky it's about getting the content you want, in the format you want at the overall price you are happy with rather than focussing on the costs of individual components. 

[Mike01666]

Seriously?

I should have known that to restart a programme in iPlayer would take several (too many!) button presses?

I should have known about the limitations of  the remote without an input or guide button?

Anyway, the Glass dog's dinner is a thing of the past. Back to the welcome and user friendly functionality of Q and OLED picture quality.

[Suskha]

---

@Mike01666 wrote:

Seriously?

I should have known that to restart a programme in iPlayer would take several (too many!) button presses?

I should have known about the limitations of  the remote without an input or guide button?

Anyway, the Glass dog's dinner is a thing of the past. Back to the welcome and user friendly functionality of Q and OLED picture quality.

---

I said most - please re-read what I posted.

Also, I would never consider replacing an OLED set with Glass - its quite clearly a downgrade - again this is something that was obvious at the outset.