SkyGlass Awful

[Satele]

@Kevin+j+v Works beautifully pal, but thanks for your concern. If I didn't like it, I'd return it. Sky have made that easy (and free) too. 

But carry on with your pointless hating.

[Chrisee]

@CliffyCliff hardly Apples with Apples comparison as to get similar sound quality you would need to fork out around £2k once you have added a sound bar double the £1K for a 65 inch Glass.

The Neo  is much brighter of course and the extra cost does buy a pretty full set of specs especially if you want to game. Not a bad package overall as r.tings give it 8.2 which is reasonable. Personally I am sticking to a LG OLED as my main screen as no LCD gets close with true blacks. The Glass will be a secondary screen but I am fortunate and have plenty of room. 

[Godfrey]

---

@Chrisee wrote:..................The peak brightness is 620 nits which is equivelant to most TVs in its price range. There is a huge debate on HDR but people who run SDR content at near maximum brightness will find HDR lacks punch. 

---

To illustrate the likely performance of a 620 nits peak luminance display when viewing HLG HDR;

Godfrey.

[foxem2001]

@Chrisee didny you get your tv free as part of the oracle programe?

[Satele]

---

@S44TUH wrote:

@Satele I don't think you are being completely balanced although I fully accept that your opinion on Glass is as valid as anybody elses.  My initial opinions were good.  I love the TV and sound.  I made the mistake (which was down to Sky's promotion) of thinking that it would be an upgrade to Q.  Take away the experience with the TV (I'll say again - it's great) the exprience of watching TV at your leisure (which is why we subscribe to Sky) is, at the moment, vastly inferior to Q.  I can't see how anybody could refute this?

If Sky can turn around the UI and the playlist/recording function (I'm doubtful) - then I'll stay with it.  If not - I'm sending it back (with a heavy heart).

---

@S44TUH I don't think you're being balanced either so I guess that makes two of us.

You did indeed make the mistake - there was nothing in Sky's materials to suggest this was an upgrade to Q - it was pitched as a new product and I understood that right away. I knew the differences and was also prepared for teething problems because I'm a reasonable person. I've not been seriously miffed by any of the valid teething problems folk have described so far.

I don't at all agree that it's a vastly inferior experience to Q either. The main gripe folk have appears to be around the playlist. I wouldn't describe that as vastly inferior nor would I agree that's the main way we all watch TV. Many of us simply go to the channel or the on demand sections (on Q) for content when we are ready and in this sense, the further integration provided by Glass is improved for me over what Q offered. For those looking to use more traditional 'record and playback' functionality, they might have a different view. I don't see that as Sky's fault. 

The UI is perfect for me and no issues whatsoever.

[Chrisee]

@foxem2001 not yet I haven't - its bit of a sore point. 😡

[CliffyCliff]

@Satele - wow you are super aggressive. "It supports Dolby Atmos"  means it actually outputs Dolby Atmos. You seem a little obsessed with the sound. Primary for me when picking up a TV is the Picture quality, call me old fashioned but i do like a TV to have a good picture.

You are complaining because i am comparing your Sky Glass to a mid Range Hisense, which is abusing that you call it mid range when it actually out performs your Sky Glass in every metric that actually matters.

I was interested in SKy Glass until i discovered the TV was excessively thick, heavy and lacking in picture quality. I still would be if i could buy the service and install an app on a much better TV or even use a PUCk with out the need for a Glass TV but i cant. 

Bsed on your comments to me and other it is obvious you cannot be objective as you are to busy justifying your new toy. At least you can close your eyes and listen to teh sound while imagining a better picture i guess

[Satele]

@Tom+Adamson It doesn't have limited channel function - you can watch all terrestrial channels as you can on freeview. We are talkin about record and playback functionality which some folk have a gripe with because they've failed to understand the product.

The channel list was available before ordering so folk have no excuses for going in blind.

[wakeybob]

Thznks, glad now I was excluded from ordering the first batch  and will stick with my Samsung and sonos system 

[bob1234]

---

@Satele wrote:

@Tom+Adamson It doesn't have limited channel function - you can watch all terrestrial channels as you can on freeview. We are talkin about record and playback functionality which some folk have a gripe with because they've failed to understand the product.

The channel list was available before ordering so folk have no excuses for going in blind.

---

The channel list was available but not easy to find and only for a short time, Sky removed it and it only appeared again just before people started to order.

[foxem2001]

@Chrisee so do you have yours yet?

i just had a call to say that it will now be comming in the morning, was meant to be today but sky didnt send the tv to the delivery partner

[CliffyCliff]

@Satele  - As for your comments to @S44TUH this is an expensive product (including subscriptions) new or not there should not be this level of teething problems, especially with mbasic functionality. Its like buying a brand new model car and the brakes not working, "oh well brakes don't work, teething problems". As someone with experience of QA testing i can tell you for a fact the product should not yet of made it out the door with these "teething" problems

[sammyh98]

---

@Satele wrote:

@Tom+Adamson It doesn't have limited channel function - you can watch all terrestrial channels as you can on freeview. We are talkin about record and playback functionality which some folk have a gripe with because they've failed to understand the product.

The channel list was available before ordering so folk have no excuses for going in blind.

---

🙄

[Satele]

@CliffyCliff Time for you to take a break pal. Nothing aggressive about pointing out facts, although I understand why some might object to that reflective challenge. I'm not complaining about anything - simply highlighting the lack of cohesion to your comments.

I can't make this any simpler for you. Your Hisense has a 40W output through inbuilt tiny speakers (Glass has 215W). The reviews are all in agreement that the audio in the Hisense is poor - or in your language, exactly as one would expect from any TV with tiny speakers.

To help further, my iPhone 13 Pro can also playback Atmos content through it's inbuilt speaker, but it sounds terrible compared to an actual external speaker or headphone set. You are not comparing like with like.

I don't need to justify anything - I have 3 other 65" TVs in the house and could easily return this for free if I wanted to. I am very happy with the product. 

[Jon+Reeve]

---

@Satele wrote:

---

@S44TUH wrote:

@Satele I don't think you are being completely balanced although I fully accept that your opinion on Glass is as valid as anybody elses.  My initial opinions were good.  I love the TV and sound.  I made the mistake (which was down to Sky's promotion) of thinking that it would be an upgrade to Q.  Take away the experience with the TV (I'll say again - it's great) the exprience of watching TV at your leisure (which is why we subscribe to Sky) is, at the moment, vastly inferior to Q.  I can't see how anybody could refute this?

If Sky can turn around the UI and the playlist/recording function (I'm doubtful) - then I'll stay with it.  If not - I'm sending it back (with a heavy heart).

---

@S44TUH I don't think you're being balanced either so I guess that makes two of us.

You did indeed make the mistake - there was nothing in Sky's materials to suggest this was an upgrade to Q - it was pitched as a new product and I understood that right away. I knew the differences and was also prepared for teething problems because I'm a reasonable person. I've not been seriously miffed by any of the valid teething problems folk have described so far.

I don't at all agree that it's a vastly inferior experience to Q either. The main gripe folk have appears to be around the playlist. I wouldn't describe that as vastly inferior nor would I agree that's the main way we all watch TV. Many of us simply go to the channel or the on demand sections (on Q) for content when we are ready and in this sense, the further integration provided by Glass is improved for me over what Q offered. For those looking to use more traditional 'record and playback' functionality, they might have a different view. I don't see that as Sky's fault. 

The UI is perfect for me and no issues whatsoever.

---

This is exactly where I am. I don't run my TV viewing by recording things off TV guides and then watching them at my leisure. Similarly if I planned to watch a programme as it is broadcast one evening and my plans change and I can no longer watch it, I'll accept that and make a note to watch it in the respective catch up app at a later date.

I watch live sport and if I want to watch something else I'll go into the relevant app and look in there at things I'll have bookmarked from before or look for new stuff.

The Playlist operates exactly as I expected it to and as I would want. It allows me to add things Sky recommend if I haven't seen them for myself in the relevant apps.

It is Sky Q owners who seem to have bugbears with it and I can't say I blame them if they came from an environment when recording things was what they're used to. Then and again I don't know why they would have left Q for Glass anyway. I wouldn't have.