Sky catch-up is great for recording to watch later, or from the start on a fast connection, and if you want to skip through adverts.
Normal On-demand (e.g. Youview) is great for watching immediately all in one go (with tea breaks in the adverts like with live TV), or on BBC programmes for skipping rapidly towards the end if that's all you want to see. Sky downloads on my 73Mbps connection at 22-30Mbps which takes 5 minutes for an hour of BBC HD, so Youview is quicker for skipping towards the end.
I use both, depending on what I want to do and when.
I agree Dave both have their pros and cons , obviously Sky's system impacts your storage capacity especially with box sets not a huge problem if you have a 2TB but can be an issue for those with the standard Sky+HD box.
Techradar put out its feelers to get some more information, and our industry source suggested that internally Sky is "seeing this as the most significant product launch for many years," which sounds quite exciting.
"It's a product that will sit alongside Sky+ and Now TV rather than replace them. It's a whole new viewing experience," our source added.
So a service rather than a new box?! seems unlikely...
Normal On-demand (e.g. Youview) is great for watching immediately all in one go (with tea breaks in the adverts like with live TV), or on BBC programmes for skipping rapidly towards the end if that's all you want to see.
Which is fine if you have a fast connection, but many don't - we get endless complaints about iPlayer for example.
What IS impressive is Netflix, as they drop quality until it works - the picture might not be so good, but at least it's perfectly viewable - and works at stupidly poor connection speeds.
The point is that Sky's superior system works for EVERYONE, and gives better quality as well.
As far as VM and TiVo goes of course there's no need, if you have TiVo you already have a connection that's plenty fast enough.
As long as you have a fast internet connection, and/or no concerns about quality..
I've never had an issue on lower quality connections, including 3G. Does it lower the bitrate? Yes - but Sky's system can't make the impossible happen, so the Sky system just means you get to sit around until it thinks it has enough data to play the full-bitrate version - which could mean downloading the entire thing (not fun on a capped connection - and it might take a while on a slow one).
It does work work well for everyone, if it doesn't work for you then you have a problem somewhere? - on a fast connection it starts just as fast as streaming does, which doesn't start instantly either.
It doesn't work well for "everyone" (there's that Nigel Goodwin exaggeration again). As i've said before, it doesn't work well for me, I seem to have to wait forever to be allowed to watch something. It is not a problem with my network or internet connection.
I've never had an issue on lower quality connections, including 3G. Does it lower the bitrate? Yes -
Most systems (particularly iPlayer) don't drop quality, they just don't work well enough to use.
but Sky's system can't make the impossible happen, so the Sky system just means you get to sit around until it thinks it has enough data to play the full-bitrate version - which could mean downloading the entire thing (not fun on a capped connection - and it might take a while on a slow one).
It might take over night, but at least it works - streaming doesn't work at all under slow conditions.
It doesn't work well for "everyone" (there's that Nigel Goodwin exaggeration again). As i've said before, it doesn't work well for me, I seem to have to wait forever to be allowed to watch something. It is not a problem with my network or internet connection.
Funny how you're the only person who seems to have such a 'problem'
sky has been just been walking for a few years,but now the have some real competition they are trying to run to catch up, for me it is to stream and watch and not wait and record that's what I did in the 80s with VHS
Sky is putting the finishing touches to an advanced set-top box, dubbed SkyQ, that it hopes will be a powerful weapon in its defence of its domestic pay-TV business against BT and help it integrate its European operations.
The new hardware is due to be unveiled within weeks and will offer satellite households an “Apple and Netflix-style” experience, according to industry insiders.
SkyQ, developed at maximum speed under the codename “Project Ethan”, is understood to allow subscribers to watch and record at least four programmes simultaneously on multiple devices throughout the home. It will wirelessly beam content to smartphones and tablets around the home, and is ready to receive ultra-high definition broadcasts once Sky follows BT to offer sharper pictures for the latest televisions.
That's not 'on demand' though, it's more of an "Order by 10pm, we'll deliver it tomorrow morning and meanwile you can't use your Internet for much else" service!
You only need a couple of Mbps to watch iPlayer programmes and buffering should take care of variations. The average broadband speed in rural Britain is 13.6 Mbps (last year!), so what are these complainers on? Dial-up?
More likely that there is an issue with their wiring or equipment - and you can't run a service based on the lowest possible denominator - a tiny % of people who are having problems. Both types of catch-up have their place and it is for individual viewers to decide which is best for them, in many cases a mix of both.
PaulBrock- What Techradar have been told is technically correct the 4K service is a new product and service and will sit next to Sky + and Now tv it's another way of watching your favourite things in crystal clear quality.
Sit tight you will not be disappointed from what I have seen previously
It might take over night, but at least it works - streaming doesn't work at all under slow conditions.
Are you not able to comprehend how ridiculous that is? It's meant to be video ON DEMAND - not "video whenever we feel like it".
You can keep parroting "streaming doesn't work" but it absolutely does. I've used Netflix and Youtube on ropey connections, it handles things quite well
They can if they want to! They gave me a brand-new Amstrad box a few years ago to help get rid of the Thomsons they could no longer support.
Of course, but they haven't done it yet - you'd think they would, if they're subscribers. Won't cost Sky a huge sum of money but it might keep that person a customer and of course it means Sky can modernise
That's not 'on demand' though, it's more of an "Order by 10pm, we'll deliver it tomorrow morning and meanwile you can't use your Internet for much else" service!
But it means it WORKS - which is rather the point. You can also of course still use your Internet for other things as well, something that streaming struggles with.
If you have a fast enough speed for 'on demand' then that's what it gives you as well - with playback perhaps even earlier than with streaming?.
You only need a couple of Mbps to watch iPlayer programmes and buffering should take care of variations.
Presumably you've never tried iPlayer on a 'couple of Mbps'?, it's completely unusable. I would suggest you need at least 6 Mbps, and preferably more - and that's only for the SD service. The claims that the BBC make for iPlayer are ludicrous. Not to mention there's pretty well zero buffing in most streaming devices.
The average broadband speed in rural Britain is 13.6 Mbps (last year!), so what are these complainers on? Dial-up?
Perhaps you don't understand what 'average' means?
It means half the population get LESS than 13.6Mbps - with many getting considerably less.
Presumably you've never tried iPlayer on a 'couple of Mbps'?, it's completely unusable. I would suggest you need at least 6 Mbps, and preferably more - and that's only for the SD service. The claims that the BBC make for iPlayer are ludicrous. Not to mention there's pretty well zero buffing in most streaming devices.
That's completely untrue, for years I was stuck on a 2Mb ADSL connection and had no trouble streaming SD iPlayer. The HD iPlayer only streams at no more than 3500Kbps so even to claim you need 6Mb for that would be an exaggeration.
Every thread about Sky and new technology seems to be turned in to a debate about internet speeds by yourself.
But it means it WORKS - which is rather the point. You can also of course still use your Internet for other things as well, something that streaming struggles with.
Not if your Sky box is maxing out your internet connection.
If you have a fast enough speed for 'on demand' then that's what it gives you as well - with playback perhaps even earlier than with streaming?.
Do you ever use a service that actually streams? Netflix etc will start a few seconds after clicking on what you want to watch. My Sky box hasn't even started downloading by the time Netflix starts playing, let alone the aforementioned downloading issue on the Sky system.
Presumably you've never tried iPlayer on a 'couple of Mbps'?, it's completely unusable. I would suggest you need at least 6 Mbps, and preferably more - and that's only for the SD service. The claims that the BBC make for iPlayer are ludicrous. Not to mention there's pretty well zero buffing in most streaming devices.
I just tried an HD programme on iPlayer. 2908kbps apparently. For HD on a PC.
Perhaps you don't understand what 'average' means?
It means half the population get LESS than 13.6Mbps - with many getting considerably less.
Depends on how that average was calculated. I know you think that most of the UK is still using smoke signal for internet access but it just isn't true.
Not if your Sky box is maxing out your internet connection.
That's not how routers work
Do you ever use a service that actually streams? Netflix etc will start a few seconds after clicking on what you want to watch. My Sky box hasn't even started downloading by the time Netflix starts playing, let alone the aforementioned downloading issue on the Sky system.
Yes, I've done (and still do) both - as often as not it's faster starting playing on a Sky box.
Is yours connected via WiFi or CAT5?, perhaps poor WiFi is your problem?.
I just tried an HD programme on iPlayer. 2908kbps apparently. For HD on a PC.
IIRC Netflix suggest 3Mbps for HD too.
Try iPLayer on a TV on a slow link - it's crap on SD at 3Mbps, continually freezing and waiting.
Depends on how that average was calculated. I know you think that most of the UK is still using smoke signal for internet access but it just isn't true.
It's true for huge areas of the UK, even areas in major cities as well - for example areas of London even have crap ADSL.
Saturating your internet connection usually results in poor performance for other applications. You can probably load webpages more slowly than usual, but more sensitive applications like VoIP or video conferencing would not fare well. Buffers also fill up or overflow, leading to increased packet loss and latency.
Yes, I've done (and still do) both - as often as not it's faster starting playing on a Sky box.
Is yours connected via WiFi or CAT5?, perhaps poor WiFi is your problem?.
As I have said in previous threads, it's over cat5 (the switch is a couple of metres away), all very high quality network equipment - it's as perfect as you can make it.
It's true for huge areas of the UK, even areas in major cities as well - for example areas of London even have crap ADSL.
I wouldn't say "huge" in terms of population, especially as faster broadband (even the cheap bodge job that BT is doing) spreads around the country, even in areas Virgin won't touch
London is a bit of a special case because of the hassle of digging up roads and NIMBYism
Perhaps you don't understand what 'average' means?
It means half the population get LESS than 13.6Mbps - with many getting considerably less.
Let's narrow it down a bit then, shall we?
We know from last November's OFCOM analysis that about 70% of UK broadband subscribers are on ADSL2/+ and that is dropping by around 7% a year.
We also know from the same source that around 10% to 12% of ADSL2 subscribers surveyed (using SamKnows equipment) had a measured download speeds of 2Mbps or less, which is the level at which getting a decent catch-up stream becomes problematical as many SD streams are less than this.
So that 10-12% of ADSL2 users becomes around 8% of all broadband users and we know that it's decreasing every year. Yes it's still too high but you can't sensibly design a catch-up TV service for less than 10% of the population, which is decreasing each year! Standard catch-up services (e.g. Youview) should be fine with buffering for 90% of the population, and the rest can go to Sky if they wish. I completely disagree with your claim that 6 Mbps is needed for decent iPlayer performance, that's a ludicrous claim that you cannot support.
Many of us use both services, they are complementary!
I'd like SKY to announce it's going to stop bricking my HD box every time it deems it necessary to send some pointless overnight upgrade. It took 15 mins to get my box working the other week. It hadn't recorded anything I'd set it to record during the day while I was out.
Cloud based recording storage for watching on any connected device and Ultra HD
I'm going with that too. Guess whatever it is they'll sting people for an extra tenner per Month for the privilege!
In an age where people are watching on devices and with the likes of Disney launching catch-up/streaming services, Sky will want to integrate the whole user experience to online as well as linear, encompassed from the same subscription model.
We have two boxes in our house, One for us, and one for the Kids... if it's cloud based would there be no way of having two boxes with separate recordings on, will it all be merged into one list available on both boxes?
Comments
So a service rather than a new box?! seems unlikely...
Its about time that Sky UK did likewise!
Which is fine if you have a fast connection, but many don't - we get endless complaints about iPlayer for example.
What IS impressive is Netflix, as they drop quality until it works - the picture might not be so good, but at least it's perfectly viewable - and works at stupidly poor connection speeds.
The point is that Sky's superior system works for EVERYONE, and gives better quality as well.
As far as VM and TiVo goes of course there's no need, if you have TiVo you already have a connection that's plenty fast enough.
I've never had an issue on lower quality connections, including 3G. Does it lower the bitrate? Yes - but Sky's system can't make the impossible happen, so the Sky system just means you get to sit around until it thinks it has enough data to play the full-bitrate version - which could mean downloading the entire thing (not fun on a capped connection - and it might take a while on a slow one).
It doesn't work well for "everyone" (there's that Nigel Goodwin exaggeration again). As i've said before, it doesn't work well for me, I seem to have to wait forever to be allowed to watch something. It is not a problem with my network or internet connection.
That would mean finally having to tell people with their 1998 Pace boxes that they need to upgrade, which seems to be something Sky don't want to do
Most systems (particularly iPlayer) don't drop quality, they just don't work well enough to use.
It might take over night, but at least it works - streaming doesn't work at all under slow conditions.
Funny how you're the only person who seems to have such a 'problem'
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=2094965
either this or sorting out the disaster that is the EPG
You only need a couple of Mbps to watch iPlayer programmes and buffering should take care of variations. The average broadband speed in rural Britain is 13.6 Mbps (last year!), so what are these complainers on? Dial-up?
More likely that there is an issue with their wiring or equipment - and you can't run a service based on the lowest possible denominator - a tiny % of people who are having problems. Both types of catch-up have their place and it is for individual viewers to decide which is best for them, in many cases a mix of both.
Neither is 'superior', they are just different.
Sit tight you will not be disappointed from what I have seen previously
Are you sure? http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/04/bbc_iplayer_goes_hd_adds_highe.html suggests the BBC was playing with adaptive bitrates over 5 years ago.
Netflix certainly does adaptive bitrates. As does Youtube.
Are you not able to comprehend how ridiculous that is? It's meant to be video ON DEMAND - not "video whenever we feel like it".
You can keep parroting "streaming doesn't work" but it absolutely does. I've used Netflix and Youtube on ropey connections, it handles things quite well
I've seen reports of similar behaviour on here and elsewhere
Of course, but they haven't done it yet - you'd think they would, if they're subscribers. Won't cost Sky a huge sum of money but it might keep that person a customer and of course it means Sky can modernise
But it means it WORKS - which is rather the point. You can also of course still use your Internet for other things as well, something that streaming struggles with.
If you have a fast enough speed for 'on demand' then that's what it gives you as well - with playback perhaps even earlier than with streaming?.
Presumably you've never tried iPlayer on a 'couple of Mbps'?, it's completely unusable. I would suggest you need at least 6 Mbps, and preferably more - and that's only for the SD service. The claims that the BBC make for iPlayer are ludicrous. Not to mention there's pretty well zero buffing in most streaming devices.
Perhaps you don't understand what 'average' means?
It means half the population get LESS than 13.6Mbps - with many getting considerably less.
That's completely untrue, for years I was stuck on a 2Mb ADSL connection and had no trouble streaming SD iPlayer. The HD iPlayer only streams at no more than 3500Kbps so even to claim you need 6Mb for that would be an exaggeration.
Every thread about Sky and new technology seems to be turned in to a debate about internet speeds by yourself.
Not if your Sky box is maxing out your internet connection.
Do you ever use a service that actually streams? Netflix etc will start a few seconds after clicking on what you want to watch. My Sky box hasn't even started downloading by the time Netflix starts playing, let alone the aforementioned downloading issue on the Sky system.
I just tried an HD programme on iPlayer. 2908kbps apparently. For HD on a PC.
IIRC Netflix suggest 3Mbps for HD too.
Depends on how that average was calculated. I know you think that most of the UK is still using smoke signal for internet access but it just isn't true.
That's not how routers work
Yes, I've done (and still do) both - as often as not it's faster starting playing on a Sky box.
Is yours connected via WiFi or CAT5?, perhaps poor WiFi is your problem?.
Try iPLayer on a TV on a slow link - it's crap on SD at 3Mbps, continually freezing and waiting.
It's true for huge areas of the UK, even areas in major cities as well - for example areas of London even have crap ADSL.
... it is?
Saturating your internet connection usually results in poor performance for other applications. You can probably load webpages more slowly than usual, but more sensitive applications like VoIP or video conferencing would not fare well. Buffers also fill up or overflow, leading to increased packet loss and latency.
As I have said in previous threads, it's over cat5 (the switch is a couple of metres away), all very high quality network equipment - it's as perfect as you can make it.
I have done my share of iPlayer and Netflix over highly variable 3G while on a train. Works fine, except when the signal drops out
I wouldn't say "huge" in terms of population, especially as faster broadband (even the cheap bodge job that BT is doing) spreads around the country, even in areas Virgin won't touch
London is a bit of a special case because of the hassle of digging up roads and NIMBYism
Let's narrow it down a bit then, shall we?
We know from last November's OFCOM analysis that about 70% of UK broadband subscribers are on ADSL2/+ and that is dropping by around 7% a year.
We also know from the same source that around 10% to 12% of ADSL2 subscribers surveyed (using SamKnows equipment) had a measured download speeds of 2Mbps or less, which is the level at which getting a decent catch-up stream becomes problematical as many SD streams are less than this.
So that 10-12% of ADSL2 users becomes around 8% of all broadband users and we know that it's decreasing every year. Yes it's still too high but you can't sensibly design a catch-up TV service for less than 10% of the population, which is decreasing each year! Standard catch-up services (e.g. Youview) should be fine with buffering for 90% of the population, and the rest can go to Sky if they wish. I completely disagree with your claim that 6 Mbps is needed for decent iPlayer performance, that's a ludicrous claim that you cannot support.
Many of us use both services, they are complementary!
I'm going with that too. Guess whatever it is they'll sting people for an extra tenner per Month for the privilege!
In an age where people are watching on devices and with the likes of Disney launching catch-up/streaming services, Sky will want to integrate the whole user experience to online as well as linear, encompassed from the same subscription model.
We have two boxes in our house, One for us, and one for the Kids... if it's cloud based would there be no way of having two boxes with separate recordings on, will it all be merged into one list available on both boxes?
That wouldn't be a good fit for us!