MSE News: Sky Q prices revealed – is it worth it?

VisionMan

brewerdave wrote: »

......and how is this a Money Saving thread ???????????

In short, it isn't. Sky Q is aimed at the top 20% of Sky users who want and subscribe to everything. And they are charging through the nose for it.

brewerdave

VisionMan wrote: »

In short, it isn't. Sky Q is aimed at the top 20% of Sky users who want and subscribe to everything. And they are charging through the nose for it.

...exactly my point - and because the equipment remains their property, the price renewal "negotiations" at the end of the minimum time period, will be much harder if not nigh on impossible. -so no Money Savers here!! :eek:

bzd

prowla wrote: »

Is the answer to an "is it not" question yes or no?

yes, it is.

bzd

I think the new thing being offered here is the multiple streaming from the main box to other satellite boxes in the home.

It sounds like a combination of the existing multiroom (but using your wifi/home network instead of having to have extra feeds from the satellite dish -- which for multiple live channels are all being fed to the main dish anyway) and the RF2 output (but presumably the streaming will send an HD signal of some sort or another, and of course each room doesn't have to all watch the same image).

It's not entirely clear whether the streaming to the mini Q boxes is entirely on your home network from the main Q box to the mini Q boxes, or actually originating from an external Sky source over your home broadband to the Q mini boxes. The latter would probably kill the home connection if used in anger, so I suspect the former, which would be much more sensible (and mean the main Q box was actually doing something worthwhile!).

However, I don't think that alone is worth the extra fees and loss of ownership of the hardware, although it is a good technological step forward (assuming you have good enough WiFi signals where you want the boxes).

I wouldn't have been allowed to stick a 2TB disk into my Sky+HD (500GB) box if it wasn't "mine". I'm also streaming HD pictures using a (admittedly slightly flakey but cheap) RF transmitter/receiver [legal bands!] instead of WiFi, and piping the RF2 image around a pre-existing network of co-ax cables to different rooms as well (which transmits the IR remote signals too). An all in one Q package would be much less "fun"

I've always thought Sky's hardware and featureset are actually pretty well designed (not necessarily implemented in the case of earlier Pace or Amstrad dodgy-boxes!) but nothing new has really happened to the hardware for a good few years now (really since the Sky+HD box -- they've added WiFi connection, and they've re-written the planner interface, and added some online services, but the hardware has been basically the same). This might open up a whole load of new possibilities, but it remains to be seen if they take advantage of it quickly or wait for the user base to grow, so that might be when prices come down in a couple of years time.

I also wonder how long the batteries in the touch-screen style bluetooth remote will last before it needs to be plugged in!

In short, no, but let's wait and see in two years time.

The_Last_Username

bzd: in short, no, but let's wait and see in two years time.

In two years time things may well be very different.
I don't think there are enough of the "20% of Sky users who want and subscribe to everything" (quote from VisionMan) to ensure the continued survival of Sky in its current format.
Now I know that Sky are quoting record profits and record subscriber numbers BUT the world of home entertainment is changing rapidly - indeed it already has, with Netflix; Amazon Prime etc. etc.

As I said before, IMHO this is simply too expensive AND there is too much easily-available & cheap competition for it to be sustainable long-term in the format which Sky are currently proposing.

I for one will not pay (especially many hundreds of pounds) for extra hardware when ALREADY I can watch what I want to watch, when I want to watch it and on WHAT I want to watch it.
Without spending a single penny more.

Will large swathes of the public be persuaded to part with hundreds of pounds AND a large monthly wedge for the privilege of what basically amounts to RENTING a pretty and user-friendly TV guide?
I am not convinced they will.

prowla

Well, the big thing about Sky's system to date has been how easy and intuitive it is to use; the recording of programmes just works, the series link (which has evolved and improved) happens, and the integration of the on-demand content slots nicely into place.

I really do think that Sky have some great UI/UX designers there.

I think though, that the HD+ system is beginning to look a bit flat and dated, so they've come up with something way more comprehensive.

The new system, however, may be in danger of being a product which offers too much, and for me it costs more than double my current (£20) package. And that's without their BB & line rental.

parttimeskint

In the info about Sky Q it says it uses a new LNB but that LNB is not compatable with existing equipment like the Sky+HD box and so on. I assume this will mean it's also not compatible with the free sat tuner in my TV and the multitude of other free sat equipment out there. If so, it will make cancelling Sky Q and moving to free sat in the future more difficult as the LNB would have to be replaced

I guess the change in LNB will also stop all these Skybox, open box, and zgamma (or whatever) boxes from working too.

I was going to get it but on reflection, it's more limiting than the system I already have and will be a detriment to my current free sat equipment anyway.

[Deleted User]

It seems like a lot of faff and way too expensive.

[Deleted User]

bzd wrote: »

I

I also wonder how long the batteries in the touch-screen style bluetooth remote will last before it needs to be plugged in!

Plugged in? Is it supposed to be re-chargeable?

brewerdave

parttimeskint wrote: »

In the info about Sky Q it says it uses a new LNB but that LNB is not compatable with existing equipment like the Sky+HD box and so on. I assume this will mean it's also not compatible with the free sat tuner in my TV and the multitude of other free sat equipment out there. If so, it will make cancelling Sky Q and moving to free sat in the future more difficult as the LNB would have to be replaced

I guess the change in LNB will also stop all these Skybox, open box, and zgamma (or whatever) boxes from working too.

I was going to get it but on reflection, it's more limiting than the system I already have and will be a detriment to my current free sat equipment anyway.

...hadn't read that - will definitely be a deal breaker if you can't threaten to reinstall previous boxes for Freesat without another installer's bill -wonder how many of the new adopters will realise that ???