Sky Q replacement update as new £6 a month TV service is launched to lure satellite viewers
IT'S taking Sky "much longer" than the company originally expected to shift satellite fans to streaming, a TV expert has revealed.
Sky has been pushing ahead with TV that relies on the internet instead of a satellite dish since 2021.
1
Next week, yet another Sky Glass model goes on sale, while the beloved Sky Q satellite box hasn't seen a hardware update since 2016.
Sky Glass Air is a thinner model without the built in soundbar that's cheaper than the previous models, in a bid to win people over.
The firm says 90 per cent of new customers opt for Sky Glass or Sky Stream - but winning over Sky Q loyalists seems to be tricky.
Paolo Pescatore, an expert for PP Foresight, previously told The Sun it is "highly unlikely" Sky will ever release a new satellite box.
In an update, he says the arrival of a more affordable slimmer model "should strongly resonate with customers" but it "does show a clear razor sharp focus on new sales".
"The majority of its existing subscribers are still on the tried and trusted Sky Q platform which relies on a satellite dish," he explained.
"Converting this base is taking the company much longer than it originally expected.
"On this basis Sky Glass has not been as successful as the company had anticipated.
"Despite this, the move in general made sense given the direction of travel with what I'm calling the big TV switch off; likely to happen now in the 2030s and to defend against the rise and threat of streamers by allowing Sky to control the experience and manage customer relationships which it has successfully been able to do.
"Also and more importantly, it has allowed Sky to secure retail distribution agreements for products like Sky Stream with others."
Discover new features on Sky TV that make it even easier to find favourite shows
He warned Sky is still "hugely reliant" on its core and lucrative Sky Q base which it "must avoid upsetting as there are a slew of cheaper alternative TV platforms and services in the market".
Last year, Sky signed a contract extension with satellite operator SES that takes the service up to 2029.
Sky Q's biggest difference is its ability to record on a box, whereas on Sky Glass it's recorded to the cloud.
This means on Sky Q you will always have something to watch if there's ever an outage.
And a limited number of programmes and movies can't be recorded to the cloud because of rights issues - whereas on Sky Q you can record what you want.
The upside of Sky Glass and Sky Stream recording is that there is no storage limit unlike Sky Q.
MY THOUGHTS ON SKY GLASS GEN 2
By Jamie Harris, Assistant Technology and Science Editor at The Sun
Sky Glass Gen 2 successfully improves from the previous model in three key areas: visuals, audio and set-up (I can't tell you enough how much easier it is to assemble that stand plate).
The same wonderfully easy user interface continues to get better and better - not to mention Sky's unmatched content.
But it's really not necessary or enough for users of the first Sky Glass to upgrade to this new model.
Instead, this is very much aimed at those new to Sky Glass.
I can't see many Sky Q subscribers being swayed due to the recording storage differences, among other things.
Make no mistake - while Sky has assured that it is still committed to Sky Q, streaming is very much the future and will get the lion's share of new features in the years to come.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
27 minutes ago
- Times
Leprechaun economics? Ireland's pot of gold could vanish any time
T wo headlines from recent weeks offered conflicting pointers. On June 6, David Murphy, RTE's economics and public affairs editor, posted a report headlined: 'Latest GDP figures hint at return of Leprechaun Economics'. A day later, Michael Murphy wrote a piece for The Daily Telegraph headed 'No more leprechaun economics: Ireland's tax swindle is finally ending'. You pays your money, you takes your choice. In fairness, David Murphy's piece for RTE was tentative in its conclusion and built heavily on the remarkable news from the Central Statistics Office that the Irish economy had grown by a staggering 9.7 per cent in the first three months this year. This was an example of leprechaun economics at its best: showing the vulnerability of Irish economic data to American multinational decisions that have little to do with domestic developments.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Marriage Diaries: Should I get a prenup for my second wedding or trust my husband-to-be?
Should you be planning the end of your marriage before you've even tied the knot? This is the question that's been plaguing me for the past few weeks. I'm 58 years old, and next March will be marrying Steve, 60. It will be a second wedding for both of us: I have three young adult daughters and he has a son. Steve and I are taking great pleasure in planning the next stage of our lives together. But – in between conversations about which location would suit our intimate ceremony, and what dress I should wear as a 50-something bride – I can't help but wonder whether we should get a prenuptial agreement. I'm so preoccupied about this decision that it's been keeping me awake at night. I've been fully open with Steve about my dilemma. He's quite relaxed about the subject, and isn't offended (at least, that's what he tells me) but doesn't think a prenup is necessary. I think this comes down to how we both experienced the end of our last marriages. My divorce from my ex-husband came through six years ago. It was nasty and protracted and expensive, mostly because my ex tried to hide money abroad and attempted to bully me into submission when I was hoping to appeal to his – ultimately absent – better nature. In the end, I had to hire a top family law firm. After a draining process – which ended up in court with a finance dispute resolution – I received a fair settlement. But it cost me the best part of £50,000 and a whole lot of tears. On the other hand, Steve's experience of divorce was far more pleasant. He and his wife had an amicable 'no fault' settlement, which barely involved lawyers. His son was also grown up, so it was less traumatic for everyone. After the sale of the London marital home, my children and I moved into a small cottage in West Sussex which I decorated with great care: I feel happy and settled here. I love my current home so much that Steve has agreed to move in with me while he rents out his Yorkshire house. When it comes to our respective finances, Steve and I are comfortable, but neither of us are rich: I'd say that financially, we are in a similar situation. We are both self-employed in the arts world and our properties are worth about the same. Prenuptial agreements didn't used to be binding in the UK, but I've consulted a lawyer who has told me that – done the right way – they can be. The problem is, setting up a legally watertight agreement could cost up to £4,000. My best friend is telling me that I'm being cynical and defeatist. Having known me for most of my life, she agrees that Steve is a far nicer man than my ex. I should embrace this happy new path with joy, she says, and not throw shade on the occasion by being negative. But she hasn't been through the pain of divorce: she hasn't seen how a white-wedding day can turn into a miasma of bitterness and hatred. I'm just not sure I could go through all that again. All I really care about is keeping this well-loved roof over my head, should we separate – this basic security is everything to me. 'We're both nice people,' says Steve. 'In the worst-case scenario we would sort it out, and I would never take your home from you.' But is it naive to believe this statement, uttered when things are at their rosiest? Surely one of the gifts of reaching midlife is learning from experience, and not making the same mistakes again. Should I listen to my gut and instruct a lawyer? Or am I being negative and doomy – and would my time (and money) be better spent on booking a super-luxurious honeymoon?
The Sun
2 hours ago
- The Sun
Parliament serves food off German-made plates – sparking huge patriotism row and calls for Palace to 'buy British'
THE UK Parliament is serving food off German plates - sparking a huge patriotism row. Furious MPs slammed the "outrageous" practice and called on the Palace of Westminster to put country first and 'buy British". The members dining room in the House of Commons is used by MPs and is one of the grandest restaurants in the building. Its elaborate menu boasts that "wherever possible we use British produce'. But it serves its grub on plain white plates and saucers which are made by Villeroy and Boch - a German firm founded in 1748. Gareth Snell, Labour MP for Stoke-on-Trent Central - known as 'The Potteries because of its proud ceramics industry - slammed the practice. He told The Sun on Sunday: "Britain has the best ceramics in the world - but our own parliament is serving food off German plates. 'This is outrageous and it is unpatriotic. 'Parliament should support businesses in areas like mine and buy British crockery.' 2 Britain's once booming potteries industry has been hammered by sky high energy costs. Many firms have shed jobs and some have closed. Mr Snell is launching a Buy British potteries campaign - and is urging the parliamentary authorities to lead by example and only use UK-made plates. Robert Flello, CEO of Ceramics UK, said: 'Why is the UK House of Commons using German cups and saucers and plates in the dining room used by MPs? 'It is outrageous. They need to be told to buy British. There is no excuse. 'Our potteries produce the best quality crockery. 'Buying British goods is a matter of national pride and will also help an industry struggling because our energy costs are going through the roof. 'If you go to any other country - France or Italy say - I bet their state institutions are using crockery made in their own country.' Parliament has lots of different restaurants and cafes serving food off a wide range of crockery bought from suppliers from around the world. While it uses some crockery made in the UK, it does not have a policy to only buy British. A House of Commons spokesman said:'We source a wide range of crockery from firms within the UK, as well as from those based elsewhere. All purchasing is in line with relevant legislation for public bodies, which prioritises value for money."
