Sky stream is absolutely awful. I’m done

[-thekeegs-]

The latest issue I'm having is a recorded programme reverting back to the start after an ad break that I can't skip.

Its got to the stage where I can't be bothered watching anything on it.

[Dallybally]

Ask them for a new puck. I got 4 a couple of months ago and 2 of them sucked, got them swapped out and they're fine now. 

[Oz1970]

Question to you and the other super users out there, why do you infer the problem is with the user or device and not with sky?

I am quite amazed at how some people take on the role of fan boy and how some take on the role of rat boy.

There is always a middle ground.

I've been in tech since the 1980s. I've seen countless fan boys defending things like Microsoft, android, vms, esx, java, apple, cloud, Linux, little endian, CISC, s,-vhs, beta max, perl, tivo, etc. You name it, the fan boys defend defend defend. The rat boys attack attack.

attack.

Over time, it's easier to side with the rat boys, as these are the ones who actually have the issues.

Yes, products have issues. History tells us that the products were bad or the issues were resolved. Largest laptop manufacturer in the uk had lots of issues in docking stations and chipsets during the 2010s, these were resolved by ripping it all up and starting again (not much use to those stuck with the faulty hardware).

For sky stream, this isn't new. Streaming is a very old technology. Sky just haven't been able to hire people who know how to do this.

I remember when oracle moved from DAT to CDROM for installation media. It never worked as they didn't employ the correct people. Years later their installation scripts on Unix were riddled with powershell. Never worked. Again, wrong people. Microsoft office, early cd rom installer, would use all the c drive, no matter how big the drive.

I've seen decades of poor quality individuals in tech. The people currently doing sky stream are no better.

Will sky stream last and be fixed or will they replace with something akin to netflix or prime video?

So to all the fan boys (and girls and those who don't wish to be categorised thus), please remember that tech history is littered with poorly thought out and poorly implemented products. For new technologies, lets give them some time, for products that are really just old tech poorly put together, then lets assume that they really don't know what they are doing.   Assuming the worst of others, isn't the correct way forward. Instead, use your voice and try and help sky to take a passion in their product and not in their bank balance. 

Yours,

Someone who is constantly let down by tech over the last 20+ years.

[David0507]

What a wonderful post.  Sums up the situation perfectly. As a compatriot of many decades in the tech field I can verify this posters wisdom of years.   I do try to give technology a chance to mature and sometimes the pressure of marketing gets the better of developer implementation.  In the case of Skystream it seems that at least some of the pucks manage wifi poorly.  We have several, brilliant network speed and implementation but one puck consistently dropped WiFi and even when working it required a reboot daily.   That can be fixed but it should be acknowledged also by the supplier rather than wasting users time with lame support interventios.   Quite  another matter is the software implementation, which in this case s clearly badly executed.  It may be legal rights providing problems for implementation, it may be as the previous post pointed out, a matter of poor system design.  Either way a redesign of the system is badly needed.   

[MatChapman]

I think they just need to invest a bit more in the hardware. They should take apple TVs and repurpose them for sky. I'm seriously impressed with the quality of the apple TVs

[Hunter2660]

I've had Stream + Glass for 18 months, and I can honestly say the issues I've had could be engraved on the top of a pin head with a pnuematic drill. So why do some have so many issues, and others very little? Is it Sky's servers? Am I just lucky? Could it be local wi-fi issues? Is it poor quality routers that many isp's provide? Is it the isp's themselves? I don't know. But if it's the puck's design then surely everybody would have issues!!!!! I'm not a Sky "fan boy", just saying how it is.

[Mark39]

---

@Hunter2660 wrote:

But if it's the puck's design then surely everybody would have issues!!!!! I'm not a Sky "fan boy", just saying how it is.

---

Quite so.

[David0507]

I can't say for certain but I guess there may be different versions of the puck with slightly differing hardware and or software.  It does seem in my experience that at least one puck we had operated poorly when placed in the same conditions as the others we have.  It wasn't lab conditions and I no longer have the puck to confirm but it does suggest different design or revisions act differently.  This is what I suggested Sky take ownership of.  The issue with recording is very real and very much in the hands of Sky to resolve whether it is just software development issues or a combination of ldevelooment, legal issues with content providers, it needs sorting as so elegantly voiced by previous poster.

[Jporch316]

I find the pucks work just fine off a standard router WiFi or a mesh system. When you start complicating the network with switches , 3rd party routers with programming, routing rules, static IPs , VPNs is when the issues normally start 

not to say there's the occasional server side issue ..... or defective puck .....but they are occasional 

[MatChapman]

I recently cancelled all mine and returned the puck etc. However after a few months I realised I couldn't live without sky haha. Joined up again and I must say my experience has been better with the new puck. 

There's still the obvious usability issue and random network issues but it hasn't been as bad. As others have said we know our networks are good and have a great connection. But I have a feeling the sky connection could rely on ping speed which can differ depending on your isp. And this measurement could be how sky are checking the connection. 

[TimmyBGood]

---

@MatChapman wrote:

They should take apple TVs and repurpose them for sky.

---

No-one gets to 'take' Apple hardware unless Apple says so: the likelihood of the Comcast Corporation being willing to end up in a client relationship with Apple Inc is negligible at most.

[Dallybally]

---

@MatChapman wrote:

I think they just need to invest a bit more in the hardware. They should take apple TVs and repurpose them for sky. I'm seriously impressed with the quality of the apple TVs

---

I agree it would be good, but unlikely as others have pointed out. EE TV will work with apple, and yes the hardware is rock solid, which is what you get for the apple premium. The phones are no better than android but so much more reliable, and now everything is cloud based there's nothing you miss on apple. I guess Now TV on apple would be close, but obviously not as feature rich as Stream. 

[MatChapman]

Yeah I don't mean use apples hardware as such just compare quality of the devices. If we could get a sky puck to perform as well as apple TV it would be great 

[BenJoBanjo]

---

@MatChapman wrote:

Yeah I don't mean use apples hardware as such just compare quality of the devices. If we could get a sky puck to perform as well as apple TV it would be great 

---

That's highly unlikely to ever happen.

Sky/Comcast have invested an awful lot of money in creating their SkyOS and their entire streaming infrastructure. It's designed to operate on their own mass-produced, mass-market hardware to provide a full streaming TV service. 

Apple's hardware runs its own tvOS and is much more of a niche, high-end, streaming device. It does provide a similar service in terms of watchlists/playlists/continue watching but it doesn't provide a proprietary EPG and live streams of multiple channels from multiple broadcasters, so it's for a different market. 

Yes, you can get comparable image and sound quality using the NOW app for Sky content on Apple's device, and that's fine for those that want to dip in and out of that content, but if you want low latency sports, a full EPG and the ability to channel hop (which the mass market largely still do) then Sky Stream is the only real option. 

Comcast don't have the ability to invest more huge amounts of money into a higher spec streaming device - they simply couldn't afford to make them in the quantities required. Theirs is a 'Global Streaming Platform' in their words, not a high-end streaming device. 

[Dallybally]

---

@BenJoBanjo wrote:

---

@MatChapman wrote:

Yeah I don't mean use apples hardware as such just compare quality of the devices. If we could get a sky puck to perform as well as apple TV it would be great 

---

That's highly unlikely to ever happen.

Sky/Comcast have invested an awful lot of money in creating their SkyOS and their entire streaming infrastructure. It's designed to operate on their own mass-produced, mass-market hardware to provide a full streaming TV service. 

Apple's hardware runs its own tvOS and is much more of a niche, high-end, streaming device. It does provide a similar service in terms of watchlists/playlists/continue watching but it doesn't provide a proprietary EPG and live streams of multiple channels from multiple broadcasters, so it's for a different market. 

Yes, you can get comparable image and sound quality using the NOW app for Sky content on Apple's device, and that's fine for those that want to dip in and out of that content, but if you want low latency sports, a full EPG and the ability to channel hop (which the mass market largely still do) then Sky Stream is the only real option. 

Comcast don't have the ability to invest more huge amounts of money into a higher spec streaming device - they simply couldn't afford to make them in the quantities required. Theirs is a 'Global Streaming Platform' in their words, not a high-end streaming device. 

---

And as big as Comcast are they don't have the cash reserves of Apple, they've got more cash than the US government I think.