Q to stream

[penfold72]

What are the potential positives and negatives of moving to sky stream from q. I'm trying to get the costs down, but cannot on q. If I moved to stream the costs would come down over £20 per month. I can't just leave, as much as I would want to, as I'm on contract on q.

[stereohaven]

---

@penfold72 wrote:

What are the potential positives and negatives of moving to sky stream from q. I'm trying to get the costs down, but cannot on q. If I moved to stream the costs would come down over £20 per month. I can't just leave, as much as I would want to, as I'm on contract on q.

---

There are a number of threads in the Sky Stream section that talk through the differences.

Very simply, Stream has less channels than Q, a reliance on content being available on demand rather than recorded and with a longer broadcast delay for live content than you are used to. Performance very much depends on the quality of your broadband network indoors.

On the flip side, Stream delivers up to 4K UHD in every room, has comprehensive aggregation across apps and personal playlists, a more modern UI and is regularly updated whereas Sky Q is now a legacy product and wont get new features, just maintained until satellite service eventually stops.

[SKY1992bf]

---

@stereohaven wrote:

---

@penfold72 wrote:

What are the potential positives and negatives of moving to sky stream from q. I'm trying to get the costs down, but cannot on q. If I moved to stream the costs would come down over £20 per month. I can't just leave, as much as I would want to, as I'm on contract on q.

---

There are a number of threads in the Sky Stream section that talk through the differences.

Very simply, Stream has less channels than Q, a reliance on content being available on demand rather than recorded and with a longer broadcast delay for live content than you are used to. Performance very much depends on the quality of your broadband network indoors.

On the flip side, Stream delivers up to 4K UHD in every room, has comprehensive aggregation across apps and personal playlists, a more modern UI and is regularly updated whereas Sky Q is now a legacy product and wont get new features, just maintained until satellite service eventually stops.

---

@stereohaven  I don't think sky has ever described Q has a legacy product (it's still on sale) unlike sky plus which sky no longer markets or sells and is a legacy product 

[stereohaven]

---

@SKY1992bf wrote:

---

@stereohaven wrote:

---

@penfold72 wrote:

What are the potential positives and negatives of moving to sky stream from q. I'm trying to get the costs down, but cannot on q. If I moved to stream the costs would come down over £20 per month. I can't just leave, as much as I would want to, as I'm on contract on q.

---

There are a number of threads in the Sky Stream section that talk through the differences.

Very simply, Stream has less channels than Q, a reliance on content being available on demand rather than recorded and with a longer broadcast delay for live content than you are used to. Performance very much depends on the quality of your broadband network indoors.

On the flip side, Stream delivers up to 4K UHD in every room, has comprehensive aggregation across apps and personal playlists, a more modern UI and is regularly updated whereas Sky Q is now a legacy product and wont get new features, just maintained until satellite service eventually stops.

---

@stereohaven  I don't think sky has ever described Q has a legacy product (it's still on sale) unlike sky plus which sky no longer markets or sells and is a legacy product 

---

Sure, but I do as that's how I see it.

Edited to add:

That reply needs more context as it sounds a bit "short" in hindsight!

In my world, the legacy product (like Q), is still available, it is just the older version with Glass and Stream the current products.

Sky+ has been sunset and is no longer available, so I would never refer to it as legacy in my language. Sky of course, may have a different view.