Recording Programmes with Sky Stream

[RJCSkyQ]

I've just transferred from Sky Q to Sky Glass with one Sky Stream puck. I was advised that when you "record" programmes it simply adds them to your Playlist and then you watch them back via Sky's servers. However, if I add something from a BBC channel, for example, when I come to watch it, it just takes me to iPlayer. That means I have to have an account for every streaming service I might want to watch programmes on, and in some cases not all programmes are available via a streaming service or that service might not exist for smaller channels. Also, if I want to watch a programme that I missed, I could previously find it via the TV guide and download it to my Sky Q box. Now it just takes me to the streaming service. So, for example, in the past I could watch ITV programmes that were previously broadcast but now I need an ITV X account.

Am I missing something? Or is Sky Stream much less flexible than Sky Q in this respect?

[GD1]

@RJCSkyQ  You don't "record" anything with Glass, you add to a playlist.

So yes it is correct when you playlist a BBC programme you need to access it via the iP{layer.

This is how Glass works.

[RJCSkyQ]

Thanks @GD1 .

Sky definitely weren't clear about this when I ordered. I understood that there's no local recording capability but it was sold to me as effectively being a cloud type solution using Sky's servers. 

So ultimately I need an account with every streaming service I might want to use, (in fact potentially multiple accounts if several people are watching) and I can't "record" anything on a channel that doesn't have a streaming service.

This seems like a massive step back to me. Sky Glass might be going back....

[SlenderRobert]

---

@RJCSkyQ wrote:

I've just transferred from Sky Q to Sky Glass with one Sky Stream puck. I was advised that when you "record" programmes it simply adds them to your Playlist and then you watch them back via Sky's servers. However, if I add something from a BBC channel, for example, when I come to watch it, it just takes me to iPlayer. That means I have to have an account for every streaming service I might want to watch programmes on, and in some cases not all programmes are available via a streaming service or that service might not exist for smaller channels. Also, if I want to watch a programme that I missed, I could previously find it via the TV guide and download it to my Sky Q box. Now it just takes me to the streaming service. So, for example, in the past I could watch ITV programmes that were previously broadcast but now I need an ITV X account.

Am I missing something? Or is Sky Stream much less flexible than Sky Q in this respect?

---

Correct. All catch-up content on Sky Glass/Stream is streamed from the original broadcaster's on demand app, or in the case of Sky content and broadcasters without an app, direct from Sky's servers. 

A further downside of this approach is that you miss out on 5.1 surround sound mixes on certain drama series and movies which have such soundtracks on the live broadcast stream, but only stereo sound on the catch-up app. 

[RJCSkyQ]

Thanks @SlenderRobert , definitely seems like a backwards step to me then.

Good to know that channels without a streaming service will stream from Sky's servers but it still means I need to have an account with any that do.

Annoying also that the UHD option is now a separate package as well. They assured me I was getting the same as I previousy had but turns out I'm now paying extra for the UHD content.

[SlenderRobert]

---

@RJCSkyQ wrote:

Thanks @SlenderRobert , definitely seems like a backwards step to me then.

Good to know that channels without a streaming service will stream from Sky's servers but it still means I need to have an account with any that do.

Annoying also that the UHD option is now a separate package as well. They assured me I was getting the same as I previousy had but turns out I'm now paying extra for the UHD content.

---

I agree - aside from UHD on multiple devices it's really not a patch on Q and does tend to work out more expensive once you've added all the additional packs required for the best quality.

The slowness and instability of it all has actually made me realise we no longer need Sky in our house. We can get a much better, more flexible streaming experience from other sources for less money. 

[RJCSkyQ]

I haven't had chance to play with it much yet but you're right, it does seem slow! Even just accessing the TV guide is no longer a quick and easy single action.

[TimmyBGood]

---

@RJCSkyQ wrote:

I understood that there's no local recording capability but it was sold to me as effectively being a cloud type solution using Sky's servers. 

---

That's what all the pre-launch publicity suggested, and what the Sky promotional material strongly implied: unfortunately it's just not true...

[SlenderRobert]

@RJCSkyQ 

There are plenty of people who find it perfectly fine for their needs and there is a definite brand loyalty by many Sky customers, but for me Sky is no longer a market leader. 

The Sky+/Sky+HD/Sky Q user interface was unrivalled for many years, but Sky's streaming service just isn't cutting it for me. Sky Glass is woefully over-priced for what it is and the Stream puck experience feels clunky and slow. It's a shame really. Too much cost-cutting has gone on to mass-produce the hardware and it's distinctly mediocre as a result. 

[TimmyBGood]

@SlenderRobert 

I see the Stream web page has changed, and is now even more ambiguous

How can one 'forget to record' on a system which doesn't?

[SlenderRobert]

---

@TimmyBGood wrote:

@SlenderRobert 

I see the Stream web page has changed, and is now even more ambiguous

How can one 'forget to record' on a system which doesn't?

---

I despise this type of misleading advertising. 

[Exiled-in-HH]

Was the original intention that live channels would've recorded to the Cloud but the broadcasters said you must use our apps for catch-up?

There was never any chance that Streaming Services would use Sky Servers there is just too much content!

The broadcasters need to get their acts together and properly optimise their streaming content to match the standards of Netflix and Amazon Prime?

[TimmyBGood]

---

@Exiled-in-HH wrote:

Was the original intention that live channels would've recorded to the Cloud but the broadcasters said you must use our apps for catch-up?

That was the implication of the original '1000 hours of cloud recording' which was widely referred to in publicity material at launch.

There was never any chance that Streaming Services would use Sky Servers there is just too much content!

Certainly a lot, but less than most people think because it wouldn't be duplicated per-user space, just one instance of each item.  Personally I think it's a combination of space concern and rights complications.

The broadcasters need to get their acts together and properly optimise their streaming content to match the standards of Netflix and Amazon Prime?

Probably, but a longstanding broadcaster is likely to have fundamentally different business processes to a company which has only ever been streaming

---

[Exiled-in-HH]

Just one instance of Netflix and Amazon Prime would be a lot?

And would absolutely say no to having copies made of their content!

The biggest issue for me with regard to FTA broadcaster content is the amount of unskippable adverts. The fact that adverts are unskippable is OK .... the should be no more 1 minute like FreeVee?

[RJCSkyQ]

There was never any chance that Streaming Services would use Sky Servers there is just too much content!

I appreciate content is constantly growing but Sky Q worked OK that way - I could find historically broadcast programmes from most channels and download them to the box. Who knows, the Sky Q system could well have been communicating with other providers' servers in the background but ultimately I as the consumer didn't see this and didn't need a myriad of accounts.