Sky moving to IP TV

Forums › Sky, Neon, Lightbox › Sky moving to IP TV

1 | ... | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | ... | 26

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2118380 2-Nov-2018 10:54

Maybe they want to do it right first time and not use their customers as alpha and beta testers like another noteable player in the market.

Benoire

2798 posts

Uber Geek

#2118396 2-Nov-2018 11:19

I don't want a dedicated box, I have an Android TV box for that, I just want an app that I can install on it that does the same functions as the official box but perhaps without the tuner.

afe66

3181 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2118464 2-Nov-2018 12:10

I filled out the survey months ago too.

Was hoping something new was going to happen but if it's true that it's been shelved, well that's pathetic to be honest.

JimmyH

2886 posts

Uber Geek

#2118509 2-Nov-2018 13:57

Tracer:

DjShadow:

Would Sky provide their own hardware for this or could we run an app on the likes of Apple TV? (or both?)

Sounds like they still don't get it and sadly their plan is a seperate device.

I hope not. I don't want a separate device:

I already have too many devices. The TV inputs, ethernet jacks and powerstrips are maxed out. Reducing the number of devices would presumably be both cheaper for them, and reduce my device clutter.
I already have chromecasts. Using the chromecast would mean that I could (presumably) log in and view Sky in the bedroom or family room, instead of being tethered to the decoder in the living room as at now.
Using existing devices would make it easier to stop, pause and resume subscriptions without having to pay hardware rentals or return the hardware when I'm not using it.
The family would find it easier to have one device through which all services (Sky, Lightbox, Netflix or whatever) were routed.
It's easier to update devices (for 4K or whatever) piecemeal, and rotate the deprecated devices to lower-use TVs.

It's almost a no brainer that a separate device is preferable. Which means, if Sky runs true to form, they will probably opt for a proprietary dedicated device.....

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2118732 2-Nov-2018 20:32

JimmyH:

Tracer:

DjShadow:

Would Sky provide their own hardware for this or could we run an app on the likes of Apple TV? (or both?)

Sounds like they still don't get it and sadly their plan is a seperate device.

I hope not. I don't want a separate device:

I already have too many devices. The TV inputs, ethernet jacks and powerstrips are maxed out. Reducing the number of devices would presumably be both cheaper for them, and reduce my device clutter.
I already have chromecasts. Using the chromecast would mean that I could (presumably) log in and view Sky in the bedroom or family room, instead of being tethered to the decoder in the living room as at now.
Using existing devices would make it easier to stop, pause and resume subscriptions without having to pay hardware rentals or return the hardware when I'm not using it.
The family would find it easier to have one device through which all services (Sky, Lightbox, Netflix or whatever) were routed.
It's easier to update devices (for 4K or whatever) piecemeal, and rotate the deprecated devices to lower-use TVs.

It's almost a no brainer that a separate device is preferable. Which means, if Sky runs true to form, they will probably opt for a proprietary dedicated device.....

I pretty much agree. From a Sky viewpoint, an app is cheaper than expensing a possible dish, circa $100, expensing a MySky, circa $200. And expensing a free install at $99. If you call in, and they check its fine, too bad, sort your internet out. So a benefit to Sky. At my end, if you have Multi room, cancel the $25. If you have My Sky, cancel the $20, assuming they keep content OD for a while, no need to record.

If I was Sky CEO, and given the tall poppy syndrome, I'd keep this quiet until its ready for release. Then a BIG announcement (Marketing 101) There is big added value for us consumers. Bit cheaper, Sky everywhere.

BUT, if this was announced the expected consumer response is where is the $80 reduction in price.....

EDIT re operate device. Im not sure its preferable. Sky want retention. IPTV is deviceless. Easier. For some though, a seperate device will overcome older customers if it was PnP

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2118734 2-Nov-2018 20:35

tdgeek:

BUT, if this was announced the expected consumer response is where is the $80 reduction in price.....

Heh, dude, it's NZ, they will expect Sky to pay them to use the box!

Best case they will expect it for damn near free.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2118748 2-Nov-2018 21:14

networkn:

tdgeek:

BUT, if this was announced the expected consumer response is where is the $80 reduction in price.....

Heh, dude, it's NZ, they will expect Sky to pay them to use the box!

Best case they will expect it for damn near free.

Hey mate, free thats silly. Real silly. At least 5 bucks... :-)

On a contract too. 18 minutes...

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

bigalow

566 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2118811 3-Nov-2018 00:10

Vodafone TV is short of sky iptv

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2118879 3-Nov-2018 10:04

I don't like Sky, but that is partly based on the way they were when I left them.

So what would make me like Sky?

1. Streaming.

2. Technical competence. Their devices and services always seemed so backward and half-arsed.

3. No obligatory packages, or at least a la carte choices.

4. Reasonable pricing. I don't have specific figures in mind, but as an example, maybe one stream for $8 or so a month, with progressive reduction for each additional stream. Kind of like building your own package. Each stream would correspond to an existing channel.

5. No promos on documentary channels. I think I hated those more than anything.

6. No ads interrupting programming. Blocks of ads between programs might be acceptable, though why should you have to put up with any ads at all if you are already paying for the service?

7. No surcharges for HD.

Instead of Sky spending more money on an inferior proprietary device or interface, why not use what is already out there? I am a big fan of Kodi. Surely it would not be an insurmountable challenge to create paid access add-ons? It also doesn't have to be an all or nothing proposition. Streaming for those who can do it, other technologies for those who can't.

I have no idea how practical this would be. Just my two cents.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2118880 3-Nov-2018 10:08

You want all that for $8 a month?

See @tdgeek told you.

/me smh

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2118883 3-Nov-2018 10:21

If you are going to attack me, at least be honest about it. I very clearly said I was just pulling a figure out of the air. My suggestion was $8 for the first stream, added charges at a reducing rate for each additional stream. So a half-dozen might cost around $30. Don't make things up that aren't there.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2118885 3-Nov-2018 10:24

Rikkitic:

If you are going to attack me, at least be honest about it. I very clearly said I was just pulling a figure out of the air. My suggestion was $8 for the first stream, added charges at a reducing rate for each additional stream. So a half-dozen might cost around $40. Don't make things up that aren't there.

A stream is different to a *channel* are you talking about a channel, or a stream? A channel would be like food TV, a stream is a single line of data to a single device which presumably would be like Netflix, a single device playing any available *channel*.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2118887 3-Nov-2018 10:29

I am talking about streams as channels in the case of Sky. Normally a Kodi add-on contains many channels in a stream but it doesn't have to. I was thinking in terms of how paid access could be easily done. I'm not sure how that would be managed if you had all channels in a single stream. Maybe it wouldn't be a problem. I don't know. That is beyond my technical understanding.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2118893 3-Nov-2018 10:58

So, we agree I didn't make up anything, correct? I commented on what you wrote.

For clarification, in case you are interested, a stream is just data in a continous line (or stream). It would usually contain one channel/episode or whatever. Applied to the current Sky system you would have packages which may contain multiple channels, like Sport, containing Sport 1, 2 3, Rugby Channel. If you were to stream something, it would be a single stream to a tablet or other device like a TV. In Netflix you buy how many devices you want to be able to stream to at the same time. There are no content packages, it's all one package) A single stream to a single device or 3 devices which would contain 3 streams. If you did this with Sky, potentially 3 people could watch 3 channels on 3 different devices.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2118898 3-Nov-2018 11:05

networkn:

If you did this with Sky, potentially 3 people could watch 3 channels on 3 different devices.

I would hope that they would allow say 3 devices watching 3different channels at the same time. They more or less have that now with Sky Go. I can watch a channel on Sky Go while the MySky is viewed by others on another channel. Free multiroom sort of, added value which they need. The huge issue is stopping Sky from being used by non subscribers as is probably common for Sky Go. If they can ensure only my residence is watching Sky on a few devices, and not loaning my login to others, multi devices would be an excellent added value. Two TV's, coupe of iPads, all watching different Sky content at the same time. IMHO that would be huge

1 | ... | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | ... | 26