Sky Q vs Sky Stream

[ovine]

I would actually only (well 99%) be using it for the live TV functionality, as I use Apple TVs for Netflix, Prime etc. In fact in an ideal World I'd be able to get Sky as an app on the Apple TV and not need an extra box at all. I know this exists in the form of Sky Now but my understanding is it's not going to be the top-tier picture and audio quality you get with Q or Stream.

[Fothergill1]

Too true @Chrisee. I discovered fairly early on that using the remote too vigorously confused the system. Since figuring that out I have had very few problems and can't even remember when I was last forced into a reboot due to a lockup.

I have also got into the habit of turning my Glass off at the socket every now and again when I go out and turn it back on when I get home. I have found this significantly reduced issues.

[Anonymous]

---

@Fothergill1 wrote:

I have also got into the habit of turning my Glass off at the socket every now and again when I go out and turn it back on when I get home. I have found this significantly reduced issues.

---

That's a reboot 😊

As I mentioned in an earlier post if you reboot periodically it clears any glitches, I do this it helps but Netflix did crash on me yesterday.

It's actually sensible to reboot, or so they say 🤔

Rebooting helps keep your software running efficiently and can often speed up performance if you've been having issues. The combination of things such as flushing the RAM and clearing up temporary files and processes helps keep “cobwebs” from forming and as a result your equipment can perform at peak speed.

Horses for courses. 😉

[Anonymous]

---

@ovine wrote:

I would actually only (well 99%) be using it for the live TV functionality, as I use Apple TVs for Netflix, Prime etc. In fact in an ideal World I'd be able to get Sky as an app on the Apple TV and not need an extra box at all. I know this exists in the form of Sky Now but my understanding is it's not going to be the top-tier picture and audio quality you get with Q or Stream

---

 If you only want live TV then I'd say Q is best, ok slightly reduced picture quality but you have the ease of recording.

TV Launcher app is now available on Apple that is a TV Guide and links to UK TV.

Sky Go is on Apple but the picture quality is dumbed down by Sky 540p to 720p, useless.

Netflix, Prime, Disney etc are far better on Apple even ITVX is very good compared to stream BBC iplayer is better on Stream.

[SlenderRobert]

---

@ovine wrote:

I would actually only (well 99%) be using it for the live TV functionality, as I use Apple TVs for Netflix, Prime etc. In fact in an ideal World I'd be able to get Sky as an app on the Apple TV and not need an extra box at all. I know this exists in the form of Sky Now but my understanding is it's not going to be the top-tier picture and audio quality you get with Q or Stream.

---

Watching live TV is one of the (few) things Stream does very well, for me at least. 

We too now use Apple TV for 90-95% of our viewing but have kept Stream (on a reduced subscription rate) for the odd Sky-exclusive show that we want to see. 

Anything streamed on demand from a Sky channel has always worked fine, picture and sound quality are generally excellent, certainly much better than via NOW. The standard free-to-air channels look great too, though no better than via Freeview HD on either of my Samsung or Panasonic TVs. 

One observation I have noticed is that if you leave the Stream puck on 2160P - it does upscale HD content very well, but not quite as well as my TVs built-in Freeview tuner. There's a subtle difference, slightly more sharpness and a hint less posterisation from Freeview HD upscaled to 4K on my OLED. If you set the Stream puck to output the native 1080i and let the TV do the upscaling then it's a tad sharper and comparable (maybe better?) than the Freeview HD broadcast. That's on my TV at least - this will vary dependent on how good an upscaler yours is. 

We found that in general Stream is just not stable enough to act as a one-stop shop for everything, particularly in a multi-person household who want to channel hop and switch between apps at speed. The Apple TV 4K boxes cope brilliantly with that kind of thing, but Stream feels like it's constantly lagging slightly, apps take longer to load and usually end up freezing or crashing if pushed too quickly. Put it this way - it runs like a £20 streaming device (which is what I paid for it) rather than a £150 streaming device.

If you want to just turn it on and watch some live TV then great - it'll probably work well if you've got a stable wired broadband connection, but I definitely don't recommend it for those who like to flick around between channels and apps quickly. Oh, and voice control is generally pretty woeful, again it feels budget compared to more expensive Siri or Alexa controlled devices and fails to understand probably 50% of what we ask it. Siri & Alexa seem (scarily) much more proficient in understanding our family's voices. 

[Fothergill1]

@Anonymous Yes, agreed it is a reboot but by doing this periodically on a voluntary basis I have not had any situations for ages where I am forced into a reboot due to the system freezing/crashing.

I suppose the crux of the matter is I am rebooting at my convenience and not in the middle of watching something when the system crashes 😀.  As you say it's not a bad thing to do with anything with electronics these days.

I recall a great advert a few years ago for the Royal Navy.  A guy is sitting at his computer that is not working so he switches it off and on again to fix it.  The view then pans out and he is on the nuclear submarine control computer. (I hope the pilot doesn't need to do it on my flight home on Sunday evening 🤣)

[Anonymous]

@Fothergill1 

Yes I 100% agree not intended as a dig 😊

You are right a periodic reboot at your convenience is the best way. It is good practice to reboot now and again to clear the dross. Think of it as a vacuum cleaner, picks up the dirt far better when empty 😉😂

[SKYLJM]

Forgive the upcoming silly questions guys:

- How do we compare quality between Streamed TV vs Satellite? By that, I mean is Bitrate measured the same way across two different formats?

-is it fair to say that bitrates across most TV formats over the years have been getting progressively lower? I think I read that the likes of BBC and Sky have both reduced Bitrates to accommodate more channels on one transponder? I hear that initial HD channel bitrates in the mid 2000s were much higher?

-What does Streamed TV source from? Does it simply send out whatever the satellite quality original feed is? OR can it stream in a higher Bitrate- and thus quality- than satellite? 

[ovine]

So a year later, and no I haven't yet tried Stream, but I'm curious to hear how things have evolved - have they been updating the software, do some people still need to reboot their box, etc? How polished is it now vs Sky Q?

[ovine]

These are really good questions.

Bitrate is certainly measured the same acorss Streamed TV vs Satellite, but there is also the codec to factor in, too. E.g. if a provider switched from AVC (h.264) to HEVC (h.265) then they'd require less bitrate for the same quality. I imagine the 4K channels use HEVC. In future, it may well be AV1, but that is going to require hardware capable of decoding AV1.

I would imagine (hope) that there is a higher quality original source which is then compressed for the different uses cases such as satellite, streaming (and don't forget there needs to be multiple sub-streams at different bitrates to suit different end-user bandwidths), but I should imagine it also varies somewhat according to who and from where the source is coming from.

[Jones_The_Cat]

---

@ovine wrote:

So a year later, and no I haven't yet tried Stream, but I'm curious to hear how things have evolved - have they been updating the software, do some people still need to reboot their box, etc? How polished is it now vs Sky Q?

---

Evolution of Stream is minimal. Reliability still the key issue. I gave it a year but cancelled last month as it just hadn't improved enough, despite near monthly software updates. The remotes in particular are woeful. 
Sky Q was a more polished experience for me, but I'm now happily living a Sky-free life. I'd only consider returning if the Stream puck hardware evolved considerably but I don't see that happening any time soon. 

[ovine]

I wish they'd just integrate Stream into Now to be honest, or make a new app.

Apple TV is, in my experience, the best hardware for the job and I wish Sky would just put their channels properly onto it in 4K etc.

But I know they see themselves as a platform as much/more than a channel provider, so I guess that's not going to happen.

[Jones_The_Cat]

---

@ovine wrote:

I wish they'd just integrate Stream into Now to be honest, or make a new app.

Apple TV is, in my experience, the best hardware for the job and I wish Sky would just put their channels properly onto it in 4K etc.

But I know they see themselves as a platform as much/more than a channel provider, so I guess that's not going to happen.

---

I agree. I'd happily pay Sky for 4K streams on the NOW app on Apple TV hardware. But instead I'm paying US services directly via their own excellent apps. It's cheaper, the quality of the 4K streams is superb, the frame rates are correct & it's much more reliable. No need for Sky at all. The cheap NOW sub I have gives me the few Sky-only series we watch too. 

[ovine]

Yep, there are plenty of other solutions.

I was doing that a while back with DirecTV NOW, worked pretty well.

[Jporch316]

@ovine 

The catchup delays seem to be getting less ..... for example a year ago I was waiting 24 hours for the nfl show to appear on itvx ..... I'm pretty sure it's there within an hour this year ....