Sky Q is no longer purchasable online

[GardenZen]

The question then becomes what differentiates Sky from competitors? I would be inclined to get to 2034 using a recorder box with digital terrestrial and supplement that with eg Now TV (or whatever stream service is the flavour of the month). Then, in about ten years hopefully Sky stream will have improved enough to be worth considering. I'd probably save myself a few thousand overall doing that so that's another reason. When do you plan to switch? 

[nigea99]

---

@GardenZen wrote:

The question then becomes what differentiates Sky from competitors? I would be inclined to get to 2034 using a recorder box with digital terrestrial and supplement that with eg Now TV (or whatever stream service is the flavour of the month). Then, in about ten years hopefully Sky stream will have improved enough to be worth considering. I'd probably save myself a few thousand overall doing that so that's another reason. When do you plan to switch? 

---

@GardenZen 

Some content, of course, will remain exclusive to SKY (but as you have noted available via Now TV - although slightly less options) 

SKY Stream (& Glass) is currently placing itslef as an aggregator of it's own products and other services including those that are forming  'Freely' and the other main streaming networks, sharing metadata to allow easier finding of and switching to & continuing to watch content

Personally I am unlikely to switch until Satellite TV in the UK does draw to a close, although I guess pricing may pay a factor.

Again personally, I am not a great lover of all the different apps in use for non SKY content - some are better than others.

Currently I have not yet signed up to All4, or My5 apps  

I am hoping that all different apps & the SKY Stream interface will have matured (at least a bit) further by the time I switch

[stereohaven]

---

@GardenZen wrote:

When do you plan to switch? 

---

When we have Full Fibre available here, which should be the first half of (checks notes), this year.

Right now, we have Sky Q for live TV/recording and use an Apple TV 4K for app viewing (well I do, no one else in the house is bothered by app UX and picture quality, so just use Q!).

Satellite is the best option currently, as it enables us to manage the available bandwidth when watching UHD Sports whilst using multiple devices and having 2 teenagers streaming 24/7.

The reality over the last 18 months is that while we record plenty, we watch hardly any of it. Live TV viewing is almost entirely sports only and the vast majority of everything else we consume is app based via Netflix, Disney+, AppleTV+, Prime Video and an occasional dip into Paramount+.

I could quite happily just use my Apple TV 4K and dip into NOW Sports as needed and have done so in the past, but I miss the Sky aggregation experience and often find it is cheaper to maintain a Sky relationship than subscribing to different apps directly.

Sky Cinema might not have anything like the same number of movies as the old days for example, but if you get a discount, it is great value for a decent movie library, access to Paramount+ and 2 free cinema tickets a month in my view.

So, we will do a deal and switch to streaming TV at some point in 2026, with Full Fibre being the trigger. What we watch and how we watch it has changed dramatically, so it will suit us better, once the infrastructure at our house is in place to support it.

[TimmyBGood]

---

@GardenZen wrote:

The question then becomes what differentiates Sky from competitors?  

---

Mostly its exclusive rights to PL, F1 and various other sports.

It's also still a live channel service, so the competition there is Virgin (only available in a Virgin network area), BT/EE TV (only available on their broadband) or Freeview / Freesat / Freely with an inherently limited channel lineup (or the same free channels through an aggregator on something like Apple TV)

[GardenZen]

Now TV offers all the same sports channels and download catalog. Why not combine that with digital terrestrial? Nice to have options. 

I wonder what percentage of Sky subscribers bother with sports add on/s?

It will be interesting to see how Sky Stream competes with eg YouTube TV if it becomes available in Europe. 

[TimmyBGood]

---

@GardenZen wrote:

Now TV offers all the same sports channels and download catalog. 

---

Well yes, because that's a Sky Group streaming service ; )

---

@GardenZen wrote:

I wonder what percentage of Sky subscribers bother with sports add on/s?

---

Apparently a considerable (and highly lucrative) percentage, hence the billions paid out to secure the content.

---

@GardenZen wrote:

It will be interesting to see how Sky Stream competes with eg YouTube TV if it becomes available in Europe. 

---

Because it has a live channel EPG, Stream can only be deployed with Sky branding in countries where Sky is a regulated broadcaster: now Germany, Austria & Switzerland isn't actually Sky any more, that's just Italy.

The much wider deployment is 'SkyShowtime'.

[GardenZen]

Define 'considerable'? 50% of subs? 25%? 

[TimmyBGood]

@GardenZen 

No idea: that would presumably be reasonably sensitive commercial information.

All we can guess from outside is 'enough to make it worthwhile'...

[GardenZen]

The percentage that don't sub sports don't care how 'worthwhile' it is. And if you want Sports, Now TV can be combined with digital Terrestrial.

[TimmyBGood]

---

@GardenZen wrote:

And if you want Sports, Now TV can be combined with digital Terrestrial.

---

Certainly, but that's a Sky-owned streaming service (and as we've previously discussed, digital terrestrial will almost certainly disappear sometime in the 2030s: demand for the first Freely puck has already been huge)

I suspect Comcast doesn't particularly care if revenue derives from Stream or Now: it's all Sky Group income.

[stereohaven]

---

@GardenZen wrote:

Now TV offers all the same sports channels and download catalog. Why not combine that with digital terrestrial? Nice to have options. 

---

That is why NOW exists, to provide options, but it is far from the same experience as a full Sky subscription and, if you negotiate hard, not always cheaper either.

We barely watch anything on channels 1 - 5 these days, can't rely on digital terrestrial in our house, it's stuffed with low quality twaddle mostly, would end up smashing the TV!

Mind you, Sky Originals are no better! 🤣

[GardenZen]

Digital terrestrial is all or nothing. Either it works or it doesn't. But IF it does, it's perfectly acceptable. 

[ash61268]

Hi,

I have Sky Q and was thinking about moving to Sky Stream/Glass, but the issue with Stream/Glass is that you cannot record and keep to watch at a later date, which could be months later even years.

This really is a step backward.

[stereohaven]

@ash61268 

Sadly the age of recording is coming to an end.

Turns on Thanos voiceover...

"We can love it or loathe it, but it is inevitable..." 

[GardenZen]

'They' (self proclaimed experts on everything) said ebook readers would wipe out the need for physical books. The 'latest thing' don't ya know.

A very long 30 years on from the release of the first ebook reader and physical books still make up 80% of the market. In other works physical books are still THRIVING.

Don't be too quick to count chickens before they hatch. Let's see what TV tech (satellite vs stream vs hybrid vs digital terrestrial) we are all using a decade from now.