Why would anyone leave SkyQ for Sky Stream?

[TheRochdaleCowboy]

I can understand Sky's desire to drop the satellite Q service in favour of Sky Stream; they no longer have to pay for the satellite and they can sack most of their engineers.

However, unless forced to, why would any existing Q user wish to switch?

I already have a dish and Q box installed so a smaller box which I can self-install has no benefit to me. 

What I do have (and have no wish to lose) is a simple reliable interface to all channels (no switching to different apps). I can pause live TV for up to 60 minutes. I have the ability to record any programme or series that I wish. I can then keep and watch those recordings whenever I wish (not subject to any changes in rights or arbitrary removals by streaming providers).

Why would I want to lose all this?

Davesmills

[TheRochdaleCowboy]

Almost forgot! I can also fas forward through the adverts on most recordings.

[Raider999]

@TheRochdaleCowboy I totally agree.

I have sky for sports, I record a lot of football, rugby union, rugby league and cricket matches as I have a life and am usually out all day Saturdays, sometimes all day Sunday and days in the week. I watch when I can but want to watch the whole game.

Streaming would not work for anyone who watches sport and doesn't sit by the TV 24/7 as there are very few, if any, full matches available to watch on demand - thought this was the idea of streaming?

I will Ditch sky when skyQ ends, unless the streaming improves dramatically. 

[TimmyBGood]

@TheRochdaleCowboy 

Not requiring a satellite dish and associated cabling is an attraction for some users (particularly renters) as is having UHD available on multiple screens.

Realistically once the end of life of the  Astra 28.2E satellites is announced, there's no option but for Sky to start migration of remaining customers to streaming: reception through a dish isn't great when it's pointing at empty space.

[TheRochdaleCowboy]

@TimmyBGood 

I did not mean to imply that the streaming option wouldnt be more convenient for some. However, the post was specifically concerned with the idea of existing SkyQ users (who already have the dish, cabling, Q box etc) switching (voluntarily) to the Stream service with the loss of most of the features which have made Sky so ubiquitous over the past two decades!

Oh and did I mention the significant extra delay when streaming rather than watching via Q. The recent Euros would have been hell if using Stream and living next door to an avid footbal fan who cheered every goal loudly!

[Chodley]

Stream actually had a faster low latency protocol bring tested (not seen

how widely yet) which should be quicker than satellite latency for live sport.

but yeah, generally I think these features and the lack of them on Stream is what's keeping most of us on Q.

[TheRochdaleCowboy]

Sorry @Chodley, I got my information on delays from here so it could be misleading: Sky Stream vs Sky Q: Watch Sky On Your Existing TV Without A Dish (kenstechtips.com)

[stereohaven]

I see more people leaving Q when it stops being a class leading PVR, through whatever combination of factors that may be (channels closing, hardware issues and lack of updates, pricing etc.).

Eventually Full Fibre connections will be the norm for many and Entertainment OS will reach a level of maturity where people will feel much more comfortable about moving from satellite delivery and recording to streaming and on demand. 

At some point Sky will get the hardware right (for most), as well.

Finally, the demographics will reach a tipping point, because all the data shows that younger generations don't worry about recording or linear TV in the same ways as older ones do. 

[Chodley]

---

@TheRochdaleCowboy wrote:

Sorry @Chodley, I got my information on delays from here so it could be misleading: Sky Stream vs Sky Q: Watch Sky On Your Existing TV Without A Dish (kenstechtips.com)

---

Yeah generally it's been true but see here

https://helpforum.sky.com/t5/Sky-Stream/CH-921-and-CH-922-low-latency-test/td-p/4546625

[TheRochdaleCowboy]

@Chodley Thanks! So getting better then.

[TheRochdaleCowboy]

@stereohaven Thats what I mean by being forced off SkyQ; rather than making Stream better, they make Q worse until  people dump it and Sky can then say, well no-one wants it any more!

Re Unluckily for Sky, the 'younger generations' don't bother much with TV at all so why would they need a Stream subscription?

[stereohaven]

---

@TheRochdaleCowboy wrote:

@stereohaven Thats what I mean by being forced off SkyQ; rather than making Stream better, they make Q worse until  people dump it and Sky can then say, well no-one wants it any more!

---

Personally, I don't think deciding not to deliver updated hardware for a service you intend to retire is making it worse, they are just putting their eggs in a different basket.

Much like Sky+, if you didn't want to move to Q, you didn't have to and while it can support its core function still, it hasn't got the updates or new features that the hardware cannot support, but Q could.

We are at a similar crossroads but with changing viewing habits and satellites that are not being replaced, it's a bit of a triple whammy.

---

@TheRochdaleCowboy wrote:

Re Unluckily for Sky, the 'younger generations' don't bother much with TV at all so why would they need a Stream subscription?

---

That is a whole other business challenge, not just for Sky.

[apchelt]

When I first read about Stream I am sure I recall that cloud storage would be used. My expectation was that a limited amount of personal cloud storage would be available for me to use and control just like the Q hard disc. I remember thinking that this sounded excellent and looked forward to the change. Sadly, now I am in the position mentioned by the original poster, why would I want to move until there is no choice.

What would make the Q to Stream move more attractive to me is if a Stream box existed with storage (SSD?) in it so that, for example, live sport could be streamed to the storage and watched later. I would be prepared to pay an extra one-off cost for a box like this. I realise that there may be bandwidth limitations to this, possibly being restricted to users with enough bandwidth to be able to stream two things simultaneously, one live one recorded.

I was only thinking about this recently when I was recording test cricket whilst watching a F1 race live.

[PandJ2020]

---

@apchelt wrote:

...box existed with storage (SSD?)

---

The days of home storage are gone.

It keeps the control with the streamers.  (Allows them to control their broadcast rights far easier)

[Mister_Dalek]

I remember when Glass/Stream was first launched, Sky did very much give the impression that it was going to be a lot like a true cloud DVR experience. Every user would have (the now mythical) 1000 hours of cloud storage space, which would be like a big hard drive in the sky, onto which we could record, play and delete our favourite shows. 

This never materialised. 

Whilst certain shows on the platform do 'cloud record' - it is not recorded to an individual customer's private storage on Sky's servers. A cloud recording is just a bookmark to a saved portion of a broadcast stream which anyone who has playlisted that particular show has access to stream. 

A true cloud DVR would give each customer a clearly defined amount of storage, an amount of time during which any recordings made would be kept, the ability to fast forward and rewind through any part of those recordings (including ads) and the ability to delete those recordings. This is not what you get on Sky Glass/Stream. 

It's not beyond the realms of possibility that Sky/Comcast will introduce such a service, but it will most certainly cost a lot more. 

IMHO, Sky need to be providing a service like YouTubeTV in the USA, which is regularly noted as being one of, if not the, best streaming TV/Cloud DVR service. It has over 100 live streamed channels, unlimited cloud recording space, multiple profiles and the ability to add various premium streaming services to it. But it's not cheap. The basic service is $73pm - that's without any sport or movie packages. You pay extra for 4K, the ability to watch recordings offline, etc. so costs can very quickly add up.