Sky TV is dying like ITV Digital.

[Marlu-Nyu]

I genuinely believe that if Sky intends to remain a serious player in broadcasting, it urgently needs to invest in a substantial expansion of streaming channels, not just on Sky Glass and Sky Stream in the UK, but also across Sky Q and Sky’s entire UK & Ireland footprint.

After checking the figures, Sky currently carries 451 television and radio channels on its satellite EPG across the UK and Ireland (excluding regional and advertising variations). That total includes all HD, SD, and +1 versions where applicable. However, if you remove the SD duplicates where HD versions exist, the count drops to 384. 

With that in mind, Sky could quite feasibly reorganise its lineup by allocating channels 101–500 for satellite services and reserving 501–999 for streaming-only channels.

Such a move would not only tidy up the structure but also future-proof the platform, allowing streaming to expand naturally as satellite broadcasting inevitably declines.

With news of the MTV music channels closing, and recalling the iconic slogan “I want my MTV!” . One could easily adapt it for Sky: “I want my Sky!” , and hope that sentiment continues to resonate for many years to come.

Sky need to do something, and quickly, before they fizzle out like ITV Digital did. 

[DJCrimson]

I'm not interesting in this manner because Sky Tv is not leaving anytime soon

[GD1]

---

@Marlu-Nyu wrote:

I genuinely believe that if Sky intends to remain a serious player in broadcasting, it urgently needs to invest in a substantial expansion of streaming channels, not just on Sky Glass and Sky Stream in the UK, but also across Sky Q and Sky’s entire UK & Ireland footprint.

After checking the figures, Sky currently carries 451 television and radio channels on its satellite EPG across the UK and Ireland (excluding regional and advertising variations). That total includes all HD, SD, and +1 versions where applicable. However, if you remove the SD duplicates where HD versions exist, the count drops to 384. 

With that in mind, Sky could quite feasibly reorganise its lineup by allocating channels 101–500 for satellite services and reserving 501–999 for streaming-only channels.

Such a move would not only tidy up the structure but also future-proof the platform, allowing streaming to expand naturally as satellite broadcasting inevitably declines.

With news of the MTV music channels closing, and recalling the iconic slogan “I want my MTV!” . One could easily adapt it for Sky: “I want my Sky!” , and hope that sentiment continues to resonate for many years to come.

Sky need to do something, and quickly, before they fizzle out like ITV Digital did. 

---

You mean like plucking loss making channels with low viewership out of thin air that won't cost Sky money?

[BenJoBanjo]

@Marlu-Nyu 

Sadly your argument makes no sense. TV viewing is vastly different today than it was in the heyday of satellite TV. 

The fact of the matter is that live TV viewership is declining rapidly. More people now watch YouTube than watch ITV. 

Sky adding a thousand random channels to their streaming service is not going to make it more attractive or make them any more money.

There are already numerous free apps such as PlutoTV, RakutenTV, Plex, and SamsungTV+ to name a few which offer a myriad of FAST channels showing endless streams of every type of content imaginable from international news, to movies, to reruns of Baywatch. 

Sky's job now is to make their service, and more importantly, their hardware, more attractive to customers. They need to up their content curation game, add more apps and offer bundles on subscriptions to those apps. It's the only way they'll survive in what is a much more crowded market than the satellite game ever was. 

Only yesterday Comcast introduced a subscription bundle with the Apple TV and Peacock streaming services in the USA. This is where we are more likely headed in the UK too.

We already have the Netflix, Discovery+ and Paramount+ bundles with certain Sky packages, so if Sky can add discounted subs to more services such as Apple TV, Disney+, Prime Video and such like, their overall package becomes more attractive. People are watching less and live TV, other than sport and The Celebrity Traitors (obvs), so the live channel streams on Sky's service will become less and less important as time goes on. Adding more of them is pointless. 

[MarkGoldsmith]

---

@Marlu-Nyu wrote:

I genuinely believe that if Sky intends to remain a serious player in broadcasting, it urgently needs to invest in a substantial expansion of streaming channels, not just on Sky Glass and Sky Stream in the UK, but also across Sky Q and Sky’s entire UK & Ireland footprint.

After checking the figures, Sky currently carries 451 television and radio channels on its satellite EPG across the UK and Ireland (excluding regional and advertising variations). That total includes all HD, SD, and +1 versions where applicable. However, if you remove the SD duplicates where HD versions exist, the count drops to 384. 

With that in mind, Sky could quite feasibly reorganise its lineup by allocating channels 101–500 for satellite services and reserving 501–999 for streaming-only channels.

Such a move would not only tidy up the structure but also future-proof the platform, allowing streaming to expand naturally as satellite broadcasting inevitably declines.

With news of the MTV music channels closing, and recalling the iconic slogan “I want my MTV!” . One could easily adapt it for Sky: “I want my Sky!” , and hope that sentiment continues to resonate for many years to come.

Sky need to do something, and quickly, before they fizzle out like ITV Digital did. 

---

@Marlu-Nyu the actual thing that killed ITV Digital was the ridiculous money they spent at the time on the Football league  TV deal at the time.  ITV Digital were far too small to be able to afford such a TV deal, and were never going to be able to generate an intake of customers with their channel line-up and offering to cover the financial cost of the deal.

Sky are different, unlike ITV who had 1 big sports TV deal, Sky are able to currently afford their sports right because they are able to offer a multitude of different sports as a way of enticing viewership. Equally Sky are producing thier own TV and movie content exclusively for their platform ( which ITV Digital were not doing), and they have numerous deals with other third parties to bundle services together at a lower cost ( e.g Netflix, Paramount + ) etc.

[Yoghurt]

@BenJoBanjo  Yes I definitely agree with what you said about the sky service plus I like the idea of more being added with sky subs as part of packages eg sky signature and sky cinema package yes more freebies with more sky packages sounds a fab idea already love getting Netflix discovery and paramount for free 

[Mr+Ripley]

---

@Yoghurt wrote:

@BenJoBanjo  Yes I definitely agree with what you said about the sky service plus I like the idea of more being added with sky subs as part of packages eg sky signature and sky cinema package yes more freebies with more sky packages sounds a fab idea already love getting Netflix discovery and paramount for free 

---

  @Yoghurt  Unless you managed to get a really good deal, I don't think you're getting Netflix for free. Also, Paramount+ isn't technically free; you have to pay a subscription fee to Sky Cinema in order to get P+.

[Mr+Ripley]

---

@BenJoBanjo wrote:

@Marlu-Nyu 

Sadly your argument makes no sense. TV viewing is vastly different today than it was in the heyday of satellite TV. 

The fact of the matter is that live TV viewership is declining rapidly. More people now watch YouTube than watch ITV. 

Sky adding a thousand random channels to their streaming service is not going to make it more attractive or make them any more money.

There are already numerous free apps such as PlutoTV, RakutenTV, Plex, and SamsungTV+ to name a few which offer a myriad of FAST channels showing endless streams of every type of content imaginable from international news, to movies, to reruns of Baywatch. 

Sky's job now is to make their service, and more importantly, their hardware, more attractive to customers. They need to up their content curation game, add more apps and offer bundles on subscriptions to those apps. It's the only way they'll survive in what is a much more crowded market than the satellite game ever was. 

Only yesterday Comcast introduced a subscription bundle with the Apple TV and Peacock streaming services in the USA. This is where we are more likely headed in the UK too.

We already have the Netflix, Discovery+ and Paramount+ bundles with certain Sky packages, so if Sky can add discounted subs to more services such as Apple TV, Disney+, Prime Video and such like, their overall package becomes more attractive. People are watching less and live TV, other than sport and The Celebrity Traitors (obvs), so the live channel streams on Sky's service will become less and less important as time goes on. Adding more of them is pointless. 

---

  @BenJoBanjo  Re: Above in bold. @Marlu-Nyu did not say anything about adding " a thousand random channels... ". If you do the maths, 999-501= 498.

[BenJoBanjo]

---

@Mr+Ripley wrote:

---

@BenJoBanjo wrote:

@Marlu-Nyu 

Sadly your argument makes no sense. TV viewing is vastly different today than it was in the heyday of satellite TV. 

The fact of the matter is that live TV viewership is declining rapidly. More people now watch YouTube than watch ITV. 

Sky adding a thousand random channels to their streaming service is not going to make it more attractive or make them any more money.

There are already numerous free apps such as PlutoTV, RakutenTV, Plex, and SamsungTV+ to name a few which offer a myriad of FAST channels showing endless streams of every type of content imaginable from international news, to movies, to reruns of Baywatch. 

Sky's job now is to make their service, and more importantly, their hardware, more attractive to customers. They need to up their content curation game, add more apps and offer bundles on subscriptions to those apps. It's the only way they'll survive in what is a much more crowded market than the satellite game ever was. 

Only yesterday Comcast introduced a subscription bundle with the Apple TV and Peacock streaming services in the USA. This is where we are more likely headed in the UK too.

We already have the Netflix, Discovery+ and Paramount+ bundles with certain Sky packages, so if Sky can add discounted subs to more services such as Apple TV, Disney+, Prime Video and such like, their overall package becomes more attractive. People are watching less and live TV, other than sport and The Celebrity Traitors (obvs), so the live channel streams on Sky's service will become less and less important as time goes on. Adding more of them is pointless. 

---

  @BenJoBanjo  Re: Above in bold. @Marlu-Nyu did not say anything about adding " a thousand random channels... ". If you do the maths, 999-501= 498.

---

Thank you for the maths lesson. 

It doesn't matter if it's 57, 498 or 1000 channels. The quantity is becoming less and less relevant. 

[Yoghurt]

@Mr+Ripley Netflix is free with basic package on sky glass anyway 

[Timelord2018]

Not even Sky uses the word free

Sky says 'in one simple subscription' this link was updated on 9th September to mention HBO Max already  (it will be the ad version)

We bring you a brilliant lineup of the world’s most exciting entertainment companies, including Netflix, HBO Max, Discovery and Paramount+, in one simple subscription. We also bring your favourite entertainment apps into one place, including Disney+, Prime Video, Spotify and more. Plus local favourites like BBC iPlayer, ITVX and C4 in the UK

 https://www.skygroup.sky/what-we-do/unmissable-tv

[Yoghurt]

@Timelord2018  Looking forward to having HBO max for free next year with basic package 

[Allanbuzzy]

Speaking of, I'm surprised they haven't added Pluto TV to Sky Q, Glass and Stream yet, they have Paramount+ already which is a given, but seems like a weird oversight on their part.

I don't think Sky TV is necessarily dying, although it's name, "Sky", kind of feels a bit incorrect for where the broadcaster is going. The whole reason it was called Sky was because it was being beamed from the sky through satellites. I guess I'm being massively pedantic here, they're not going to rename it Xfinity as it's American counterpart, especially cause Sky has already established itself as an immovable juggernaut. But I certainly can see Sky starting to shift its focus on producing more original content, as we've been seeing with Sky Cinema and Sky Atlantic. Plus being owned by Comcast, having access to the NBC library is pretty substantial for them.

Comparing Sky to ITV Digital is like comparing oranges to berries. ITV Digital did not produce nor have its own funded output, most of it came from the two biggest ITV franchisees, Granada and Carlton, who the former had far more successful networks at the time (Granada Plus, Men & Motors) as opposed to Carlton (Carlton Food Network, Carlton Cinema, Carlton Kids, the precursor to the CITV channel). You're assuming that Sky is failing because they aren't futureproofing their brand, which ITV failed at doing. Even the OS still had their former name "ON" throughout, and when it went into administration, the company reverted back to its previous name.

[Timelord2018]

Sky Group public press releases have stopped referencing Sky Atlantic even for Original programming premiere dates now just say "Sky", so wonder if they are planning changes.

[DJCrimson]

@Timelord2018 there is no way that Sky TV is dead and gone, and I have the explanation that there is enough evidence that Sky TV is still alive