I think Sky Stream can at best be called a "work in progress"

[Robster2010]

I think Sky Stream can at best be called a "work in progress" or "early development" where we the paying users are beta testers.

Compared to other streaming services it is abysmal, you cannot continue watching on one Sky stream puck where you were on another Sky stream puck, appalling design.

poor user interface, inconsistent user interface, inconsistent use between other streaming apps on the platform (ITVX and iPlayer etc.).

Very poor implementation by Sky and when they had the likes of the Apple TV platform to learn from you would have thought they could do so much better!

unfortunatly I do not have any other choice where I live or I would have abandoned Sky.

Moderator note: subject of thread updated to better reflect the conversation

[Exiled-in-HH]

Why don't you have any other choice?

What can't you access that you can only access on Sky Stream?

[MarkGoldsmith]

Its new technology in its infancy, there will always be issues for any early adopters. There are plenty of examples out there of issues within the first few years/generations of new technology. 

New tech generally takes 3-5 years to get fully embedded with the kinks ironed out. Also there is no way for bugs to be discovered unless customers have the product, as different users will try to do things in different ways.

[Jones_The_Cat]

It would work much better if they'd invested a little bit more money in the hardware. The biggest problem is the lack of processing power in both the Glass TV and the Stream puck, coupled with the cloud/server based operating system. It just makes the whole system too unstable. I'd have been happy to pay more for a faster, more reliable puck. 

[MarkGoldsmith]

I'd rather they ditch the Glass experiment, as it seems to have been a flop and justg concentrate on the stream. A second generation puck is exactly what they need to be investing in, and not a 2nd generation Glass IMO, as unless they are willing to launch a new spec of TV every 18 months, it will quickly get outdated.

[TimmyBGood]

---

@Jones_The_Cat wrote:

It would work much better if they'd invested a little bit more money in the hardware. 

---

As I've observed elsewhere, the current Glass televisions and Stream pucks were publicly launched in October 2021, which means design, specification and manufacturing happened during the pandemic with whatever components were available at scale during the global silicon crunch.  

While Sky still wouldn't have used anything as good as, for example, Apple chips (which only Apple themselves have access to) this almost certainly didn't help when trying to build to a particular target budget.

[Robster2010]

I agree that it is still early days and frankly I don't mind too much being an early adopter BUT this service costs me more than Sky Q used to for less functionality  and some missing channels, which I did not watch! 😃

if they had been honest and declared it early access with a discount, I would not complain.

[Exiled-in-HH]

Perhaps the current cost is discounted🤔

What are the inconsistent issues between iPlayer and ITVX... other than they are very different independent apps😉

[Robster2010]

One last thought on the subject.

let us remember all the new streaming services had to learn from scratch how to get tv shows to customers with multiple devices in multiple rooms with different users.

Sky has been doing this for 20 plus years, they have the experience and knowledge, they just did not use it!

[TimmyBGood]

---

@Robster2010 wrote:

Sky has been doing this for 20 plus years, they have the experience and knowledge, they just did not use it!

---

Being developed after 2018, Glass/Stream is essentially a Comcast product, rather than one from Sky.  There's a Sky logo on the release in Europe, but the platform underneath is not Sky.

Why Comcast chose to pay 39 billion dollars for Sky Group and then not use that 'experience and knowledge' (which is even referred to in the BBC story linked above) is a different question, although it is perhaps worth noting that Comcast is at heart a cable television and internet access giant with no history of satellite broadcasting.

[Exiled-in-HH]

Sky have successfully implement that with NOWTV😉

They can't make apps from different services use the same UI🤔

[AdrianKirk]

I have to agree, we switched after Virgin Media were proposing a huge price rise, so we upgraded our ISP and signed up resulting in an equivalent price to the "old" Virgin package.

However, terrible stability, constant failures to play - I wouldn't recommend this service to anyone.

[Dazzasky]

For me personally, Sky Stream works quite well. Yes there are a couple of niggles with the continue tab but all in all, it's good and on the plus side, the picture quality seems better. 

[bydandie]

---

@Robster2010 wrote:

I think Sky Stream can at best be called a "work in progress" or "early development" where we the paying users are beta testers.

Compared to other streaming services it is abysmal, you cannot continue watching on one Sky stream puck where you were on another Sky stream puck, appalling design.

poor user interface, inconsistent user interface, inconsistent use between other streaming apps on the platform (ITVX and iPlayer etc.).

Very poor implementation by Sky and when they had the likes of the Apple TV platform to learn from you would have thought they could do so much better!

unfortunatly I do not have any other choice where I live or I would have abandoned Sky.

Moderator note: subject of thread updated to better reflect the conversation

---

The UX is the best part of Entertainment OS, and I have Virgin Stream, Sky Stream and Apple TV.

ATV is the best hardware, but doesn't support UHD or subtitles for iPlayer or any knowledge of what's being watched in Netflix - if it did, then I'd ditch Stream as it's good at upscaling NowTV. It doesn't so I need an alternative.

Virgin Stream is the best of the two pucks as it's snappier and support rate and source mapping (i.e. it'll present 24fps). That said, it's not using EntertainmentOS and the UI is clunky. Virgin Stream is great hardware with the worst UI (and also doesn't do multiroom at present).

This leaves Sky Stream, which is a much better aggregator of content across all the areas but being blunt is the worst hardware on the best UI. In an ideal world, I could leave the setting as 1080i for normal viewing and then it jump to UHD/24fps when required - but it doesn't.

I don't mind the slowness, but do mind the inability to match 24fps. We only use Stream for basic TV and films, using the apps on the LG OLED for the streaming (webOS has no knowledge of what's been watched so it's not a viable alternative).

The elephant in the room is ITVx which is terrible on both Stream platforms if you want to 'record' content as the feed from ITVx is corrupted. All other content providers are fine but if you want to view a series you have to go to the ITVx app and not rely on usual functionality in the UI.

For UI it's EntertainmentOS>tvOS>360
For software it's tvOS>360>EntertainmentOS
For hardware it's ATV>Virgin Stream>Sky Stream

[MarkGoldsmith]

---

@bydandie wrote:

---

@Robster2010 wrote:

I think Sky Stream can at best be called a "work in progress" or "early development" where we the paying users are beta testers.

Compared to other streaming services it is abysmal, you cannot continue watching on one Sky stream puck where you were on another Sky stream puck, appalling design.

poor user interface, inconsistent user interface, inconsistent use between other streaming apps on the platform (ITVX and iPlayer etc.).

Very poor implementation by Sky and when they had the likes of the Apple TV platform to learn from you would have thought they could do so much better!

unfortunatly I do not have any other choice where I live or I would have abandoned Sky.

Moderator note: subject of thread updated to better reflect the conversation

---

The UX is the best part of Entertainment OS, and I have Virgin Stream, Sky Stream and Apple TV.

ATV is the best hardware, but doesn't support UHD or subtitles for iPlayer or any knowledge of what's being watched in Netflix - if it did, then I'd ditch Stream as it's good at upscaling NowTV. It doesn't so I need an alternative.

Virgin Stream is the best of the two pucks as it's snappier and support rate and source mapping (i.e. it'll present 24fps). That said, it's not using EntertainmentOS and the UI is clunky. Virgin Stream is great hardware with the worst UI (and also doesn't do multiroom at present).

This leaves Sky Stream, which is a much better aggregator of content across all the areas but being blunt is the worst hardware on the best UI. In an ideal world, I could leave the setting as 1080i for normal viewing and then it jump to UHD/24fps when required - but it doesn't.

I don't mind the slowness, but do mind the inability to match 24fps. We only use Stream for basic TV and films, using the apps on the LG OLED for the streaming (webOS has no knowledge of what's been watched so it's not a viable alternative).

The elephant in the room is ITVx which is terrible on both Stream platforms if you want to 'record' content as the feed from ITVx is corrupted. All other content providers are fine but if you want to view a series you have to go to the ITVx app and not rely on usual functionality in the UI.

For UI it's EntertainmentOS>tvOS>360
For software it's tvOS>360>EntertainmentOS
For hardware it's ATV>Virgin Stream>Sky Stream

---

That's really useful to know the different between sky and virgin streaming platforms. I always though the Virgin hardware would be better and I'd be surprised if Sky weren't even interested in updating the Sky stream hardware as it is incredibly cheap and basic. Especially with more of their competitors now entering the streaming game.

Skys USP really was with the OS and essentially being the first mover in the market but it's no good being the first mover if you don't keep an eye on the competition and enhance your product based on what they are also doing.