Plex App?

[rzhou]

I have the same problem. Sell your sky glass and get a real "smart" TV.

[Jporch316]

---

@rzhou wrote:

I have the same problem. Sell your sky glass and get a real "smart" TV.

---

Or save a few pound notes and plug a firestick into your glass tv .......

[CliffyCliff]

Sky would be much better suited to make an app that worked on third party TV;s as Sky themselves are rubbish at building / supplying reliable equipment. I have heard all of the usual suspects excuses for why Sky do not do this but they are just excuses and not actual reasons. Sky Stream and Glas are DOA, 10 years ago teh tech may of been good but today it is not fit for purpose. There is zero reason ad 1 or 2 Tb NVME could not of been built into Glass and teh pucks. Don't even get me started on the lack of an app store where Sky could make 30% on each appinstalled or subscription taen out on services through apps Even my 76 year old dad uses plex on his LG TV and he barely knows how to use a flip phone thats years old

[Jporch316]

@CliffyCliff 

The problem with Plex is that in its original form it's a media server app. Original use was to rip and store dvd / Blu-ray disks and use as a home media server interface.

this as always led to mass file sharing over the internet as speeds got quicker. Can't see sky ever allowing an app with this property onto its hardware.

admittedly plex does now have free (ad supported) content available but its content that's mostly already available via the other streaming apps and sky epg. 

[CliffyCliff]

You can easily add disclaimers about its use but it being a media server should not affect a commany teh size of Sky just liek it doesnt bother Apple, people want to be able to steam there personal content to all devices, give the people what they want or lose their custo9m

[TimmyBGood]

---

@CliffyCliff wrote:

There is zero reason ad 1 or 2 Tb NVME could not of been built into Glass and teh pucks.

One very good reason is that content rights owners are trying to get back control of their product as the days of PVRs come to a close.

Don't even get me started on the lack of an app store where Sky could make 30% on each appinstalled or subscription taen out on services through apps 

Presumably they don't see sufficient profit margin in that compared to the substantial extra staffing and support required: because Sky runs on a subscription model (unlike Apple) they couldn't just refer all support requests back to the app owners.

---

[TimmyBGood]

---

@CliffyCliff wrote:

people want to be able to steam there personal content to all devices, give the people what they want or lose their custo9m

---

'People' may want to do so, but that's likely to be a very, very small percentage of the Sky customer base...

[CliffyCliff]

Sky are much bigger then Apple were  when they opened the App store.l I think also you are over estimating teh support required for third party apps (never needed it myself) Also moot point if Sky just ditched the pucks and built there own app instead

[TimmyBGood]

@CliffyCliff 

Sky is a tiny European (six country) television platform with a sideline as an ISP, when compared to Apple as one of the largest and most profitable global-scale corporations ever to exist.

Conversely, Sky has about ten million television households in the UK, a significant proportion of who for demographic reasons require technical support for very basic tasks.

Finally, Sky has always been a hardware company: moving to app-only would lead customers to expect typical app pricing (£10-15 pcm) and as a legacy media company Sky Group just can't afford that.

[CliffyCliff]

Comcast is not tiny

I said when Apple intriduced teh App store not now, pleasee may attention.  You like the support argument, if sky started providing an App look at how much they could save in hardware manuafacturing and hardware support (which needs a lot of support cause its rubbish). 

As for the price people will pay, people will pay teh price Sky charge already because with Apps you pay for content. Its just a case of Sky living in the past. They ne3ed to just hope they never lose teh Premier League else they will lose a lot of customers to theer archiac business pactises

[CliffyCliff]

There are enough Plex users that just about every other actual "smart TV" manufactureer and sset top box manufacturer include a plex app so clearly there is a market for it

[TimmyBGood]

@CliffyCliff 

The legacy of Sky is very naturally in the past: their arrival in the 1990s was inherently linked to the creation of the Premier League, the recent availability of cheap electronic hardware manufacturing and an absence of a 'better' transmission method.  Now they aren't even an independent company, their continuing existence is largely down to the tolerance of their American corporate owners.

[TimmyBGood]

---

@CliffyCliff wrote:

There are enough Plex users that just about every other actual "smart TV" manufactureer and sset top box manufacturer include a plex app so clearly there is a market for it

---

Including a Plex app on such hardware without offering telephone support has no cost to the manufacturer.  That's very different for Sky.

[CliffyCliff]

All you have done with your last 2 posts is prove the point that Sky need to change there business model. Move away from providing sub standard hardware and instead provide an excelleent app with excellent content.

As you pointed out there current business model has left them relying on Comcast so why carry on with the same rubbish. Successsful companies adapt and change with the times, its not teh 90's anymore most homes in teh Uk and Europe have more then fast enough internet to cope with UHD services as do peoples existing third party devices

[TimmyBGood]

@CliffyCliff 

Comcast is a cable company, and cable companies have always provided set top boxes.  Stream is their product with a Sky badge.