Why would anyone leave SkyQ for Sky Stream?

[TheRochdaleCowboy]

@MisterDalek I too remember the early promises and that would be a service I would consider, ie one that roughly emulates what I have now with SkyQ. Not sure about the pricing, but at least I wouldnt be losing functionality.

I understand all the reasons (mainly financial!) why Sky don't want to give it to me, but they cannot expect me to voluntarily give up the features I currently have to facilitate improving their bottom line at my expense (any more than I do already!). I do not care what the mechanism is that they use to provide an equivalent experience, but provide it they should!

Surely they understand that for change to be welcomed, everyone involved must benefit. At the present time, I do not see any benefit on the horizon for existing Sky Q users to switch to Stream.

[Chodley]

No product is going to be liked by everyone. There are always compromises.

Personally I would like a Stream with a USB socket so I could add my own storage. Expiry could be enforced like Netflix does with downloads.

It would make piracy easier though, it's never impossible, so I suspect it won't happen.

[TimmyBGood]

---

@TheRochdaleCowboy wrote:

Surely they understand that for change to be welcomed, everyone involved must benefit. 

---

Of course not: it just has to be accepted by enough people for the successor service to be financially viable.  Fundamental change is coming to the satellite television market in the UK whether users 'welcome' it or not: the key (from a business perspective) is for the current market monopoly holder not to go the way of Kodak.

[TheRochdaleCowboy]

I understand what you are saying and indeed mentioned at the start of the post that I can fully understand why Sky would want to get users off SkyQ and onto Stream; there are many advantages to them.

However, no-one has yet proffered any advantages to me in answer to my original question:

"..;unless forced to, why would any existing Q user wish to switch?"

[PandJ2020]

---

@TheRochdaleCowboy wrote:

However, no-one has yet proffered any advantages to me in answer to my original question:

"..;unless forced to, why would any existing Q user wish to switch?"

---

There are none.  Unless you want native UHD material on more than one screen.

[TimmyBGood]

---

@TheRochdaleCowboy wrote:

However, no-one has yet proffered any advantages to me in answer to my original question

---

Any individual 'me' is approximately one ten-millionth of the UK Sky television subscriber base, and can really only expect to receive commensurate consideration in corporate decision making.

Stream is undoubtedly less functional than Q for many users, particularly with regards to recording, but choices have already been made (quite possibly in Philadelphia rather than Isleworth)

[TheRochdaleCowboy]

@TimmyBGood Perhaps the 'me' in my statement was misleading. I should have again used the term 'any SkyQ user' rather than making it personal. I appreciate that there are over 20 million Sky customers worldwide of which I am only one!

However, my assertion that no-one has yet proffered any advantages to prompt any of the millions of SkyQ users to switch still stands.

[PandJ2020]

---

@TheRochdaleCowboy wrote:

However, my assertion that no-one has yet proffered any advantages to prompt any of the millions of SkyQ users to switch still stands.

---

Ahem ☝️

[TimmyBGood]

---

@TheRochdaleCowboy wrote:

However, my assertion that no-one has yet proffered any advantages to prompt any of the millions of SkyQ users to switch still stands.

---

OK: in our household we now have three television sets with native UHD Sky content on them rather than the one we had with Q, and don't need to worry that the trees on the hillside are increasingly impinging on what used to be the dish field of view.

With our viewing habits, loss of local recording is a very minor inconvenience: that will be much more impactful on others.

[TheRochdaleCowboy]

Sorry @PandJ2020 you have been the only person to give one:
"Unless you want native UHD material on more than one screen"

[TimmyBGood]

@TheRochdaleCowboy 

Q also had a distinct advantage when broadband round here was poor ADSL because on-demand content could be spoiled to disk overnight: that's not exactly relevant once FTTP arrived though.

[PandJ2020]

---

@TheRochdaleCowboy wrote:

Sorry @PandJ2020 you have been the only person to give one:
"Unless you want native UHD material on more than one screen"

---

It's probably quite niche though.

[TimmyBGood]

@TheRochdaleCowboy 

Also worth mentioning the main box plus any two of four Mini box in-use limit of Q, compared with up to six Stream pucks (and three Glass television sets) at an address, bandwidth permitting.

With Q, adult parents plus two children couldn't have a 'bedroom box' each without squabbles, and the shared recording space was potentially divisive.  Perhaps more of an issue back when young people actually watched television; )

[Stephen+Mourton]

@TheRochdaleCowboy I suspect the reason no one has given a reason why they wouldn't stay with Q is because like me, when I come on this forum I choose the Stream Discussion.  I only checked out this Q discussion to see what is going on.

For me one of the main reasons for switching was having personal Playlists for each family member rather than on Q where all in the household have just the one Recordings section which can get very cluttered with loads of stuff I am personally not bothered about.

[TheRochdaleCowboy]

Ignite TV seems to offer something similar:

"With Ignite TV’s Cloud PVR, you can record and store up to 200 hours of HD or 4K content for up to one year!

• All recordings are kept in your Cloud PVR for one year, or until you reach the 200-hour limit.
• All recordings can be easily downloaded to your smartphone using the Ignite TV app’s Download & Go feature."

So come on Sky - it can be done!