Who's switching from Q to Stream?

[TimmyBGood]

---

@TechGuy007 wrote:

so if it's available to the user after the live broadcast has finished, then it probably is stored on the cloud. 

---

Absolutely, but there's zero technical need for any individual user storage space because there's zero user-created content involved here (unlike Microsoft/Apple/Google 'clouds').  If Glass user A and Stream user B 'record' (i.e. flag for later viewing) the same item or fragment of broadcast content then it's the identical digital entity for both of them (presumably already on a Sky server) with absolutely no need for replication.

What's been unclear from the start is if Sky has found it necessary to allocate per-user server storage space and then dumps individually created data representing each 'recording' into that for some other reason, such as to comply with the archaic limited exemption to copywrite law* which was created to legalise VHS storage in domestic use: for '1,000 hours' of HD content per user at a conservative 3GB per hour that's a not-inconsequential chunk of hardware real-estate to keep spinning in server farms once user numbers get into the millions.

* " A recording of a broadcast can be made in domestic premises for private and domestic use to enable it to be viewed or listened to at a more convenient time.

The making of a recording of a broadcast for purposes other than to time-shift a programme for you or your family is likely to be illegal. "

[John+lyon+flowers]

Well i had been looking forward to switching from Q to stream but after reading all this negativity i am not sure now. . The same happened to me with glass  if i could have had it on day one i woulda bit there hands off thankfully i got time to read about it and see all the bad reviews i stayed with Q . Surely in the future if they want out of the sattelite game then they will design a box that can record like on the bt pro that in ip mode you can at least record 2 programmes  . Would like to hear from people pleased with stream that have moved from glass

[John+lyon+flowers]

I mean moved from Q 

[TimmyBGood]

---

@John+lyon+flowers wrote:

 Would like to hear from people pleased with stream that have moved from glass

---

The only significant difference between Glass and Stream is that a television purchase is no longer required.  The physical pucks and the UI are exactly the same.

[Anonymous]

@John+lyon+flowers 

I moved just recently from Q to Glass, personally despite its "features" it has a sound base to develop on. If you record to keep then stick with Q, if you watch and delete then stream is the way forward.

It's all about the way we watch TV rather than the negativity of streaming. Sure the way you watch TV needs a rethink, if you're a catch up viewer stream is for you, if you're a live broadcast viewer then you can do this but Q is easier to catch up live if you are 5 minutes into a programme for example.

The future of TV like it or not is streaming and Sky appear to be pinning their colours to the mast with this one.

Negatives of course it's new to market but even now the positive out ways the negative.

[TechGuy007]

@TimmyBGood Interesting. I had also thought there would be no point in replicating the identical digital file/programme for each customer who wanted to "record" it. As you say, that's a lot of storage potentially. If it's the same file that each customer is accessing, it calls into question what Sky means by "1000 hours of cloud storage". 

[fizzdisco]

@John+lyon+flowers 

I think it's entirely dependent on how you watch TV.

If you have fast & stable broadband and want one simple box to watch live TV, play content from apps and catch up on a few things you may have missed then it can work perfectly well. 

If, however, you're used to recording lots of things to play back whenever you like and watch a lot of sport or programmes where you might want to start watching the beginning whilst the rest is still transmitting, then it might not be the best solution for you. 

My overall impression at the moment is that for £20 it's a decent enough streaming box. The value of the subscription costs are debatable though, particularly when you see what you can get for a lot less via the NOW TV app on another streaming device. 

I don't watch enough Sky-only shows to justify £26pm on a long term basis which is why I like the 31 day contract option. Going forward I'll cancel and re-start my subscription when necessary, or may just grab a cheaper NOW sub for a month, depending on the content. I definitely won't be using it as the main source of TV - we get everything we want from Freeview HD, Apple TV 4K and a Firestick, all of which can be controlled from the one Harmony remote. 

[TimmyBGood]

---

@TechGuy007 wrote:

If it's the same file that each customer is accessing, it calls into question what Sky means by "1000 hours of cloud storage". 

---

It certainly does: I doubt Apple keeps 27 million individual copies of 'I Gotta Feeling' in its own cloud ; )

However, because all current copywrite law is woefully out-of-date in this context, I'd suggest it's quite conceivable the Sky lawyers have advised that each subscriber must have their own 'recording' of a broadcast (as they would if this were to local disk on a previous Sky television system) unless it's being served from a channel-specific service.

[d2h]

---

@TechGuy007 wrote:

@TimmyBGood Interesting. I had also thought there would be no point in replicating the identical digital file/programme for each customer who wanted to "record" it. As you say, that's a lot of storage potentially. If it's the same file that each customer is accessing, it calls into question what Sky means by "1000 hours of cloud storage". 

---

The whole thing has been misleading from the start. 

Sky is a multi-billion-pound company and customers pay a premium each month. For people to make comments regarding storage space on their servers is negligible to the end-user who pays for such things. 

Comcast themselves offer actual cloud storage in the US where you can record, and even download recordings to view on mobile, so they can do it... but Sky just continues to be a half-baked service these days. 

To use the '1000 hours' as a USP at the initial launch and then have it transpire that wasn't really true is awful really. 

[TechGuy007]

@fizzdisco I'll put my cards on the table. I've been a Sky satellite customer for longer than I can remember, and am very satisfied with the service and the system. However, I'm in the process of buying a property that has FTTP but where installation of a dish is going to be very difficult if not impossible. Hence my interest in Stream. Glass looked a really poor option due to the relatively low quality panel in the TV. I'm hoping Stream will get as close as possible to the usability of Sky HD plus of course offering the UHD option. For me, the ability to time shift sport events is critical, as I like to skip all the half time chit chat... 

[Ed.B.]

If there's no hard drive, why even have a box? Why not just have a sky app that goes on my TV like Apple?

[TimmyBGood]

---

@d2h wrote:

---

To use the '1000 hours' as a USP at the initial launch and then have it transpire that wasn't really true is awful really. 

---

My own suspicion, for what it's worth, is that this was never meant to be a 'USP': it's not mentioned at all, for example, in the Glass press reviewers pack which went out at launch and where you'd think it would be conspicuous as a feature.  Somewhere along the line it gained undue prominence, however, and we are where we are now.

[TimmyBGood]

---

@Ed.B. wrote:

If there's no hard drive, why even have a box?

---

Probably because Sky is a relatively old tech company and has a longstanding attachment to actual hardware: that kind of thing tends to create considerable corporate inertia.

[Jporch316]

There's no evidence to suggest it's true or not 

[Ed.B.]

I'm in precisely the same boat. I've happily subscribed to Sky for nearly 30 years with various dishes and boxes but currently cannot get a dish. I consider £40 a month reasonable value given that I couldn't get into a single EPL game for that, but given I can get Sky Sports via now for £25 a month, Sky needs to provide enhanced functionality to charge me a premium price for the streaming service. 

I think that's why many, myself included, are hung up on the 'recording' functionality, or lack thereof.