What we're expecting from Sky isn't anything revolutionary. A new box with increased storage and 4K decoding/output, plus the same on demand service. That's it!
Then Sky gives people 4K as well as everything else it has. Someone might then buy one even if they haven't got a 4K TV yet just to be ready.
Roku (or someone else) can come out with a streaming box for Now TV that does 4K too, which of course will be more limited than Sky's offering - but potentially a lot cheaper.
What we're expecting from Sky isn't anything revolutionary. A new box with increased storage and 4K decoding/output, plus the same on demand service. That's it!
Then Sky gives people 4K as well as everything else it has. Someone might then buy one even if they haven't got a 4K TV yet just to be ready.
Roku (or someone else) can come out with a streaming box for Now TV that does 4K too, which of course will be more limited than Sky's offering - but potentially a lot cheaper.
From what I have read the new box will be 4k compatible and recordings will be a accessed from the Cloud (no hdd), content will then be available from any web connected device, ie. Smart phone, tablet or smart tv. How 4k content is delivered is anyone's guess, could be satellite and/or internet. I think the new box/platform revamp is going to be a little more than more than you suggest - Sky's aim is to fend of threats from rivals like Netflix, Amazon Chromecast, and Apple, so it has to be more than a simple box upgrade.
From what I have read the new box will be 4k compatible and recordings will be a accessed from the Cloud (no hdd), content will then be available from any web connected device, ie. Smart phone, tablet or smart tv. How 4k content is delivered is anyone's guess, could be satellite and/or internet. I think the new box/platform revamp is going to be a little more than more than you suggest - Sky's aim is to fend of threats from rivals like Netflix, Amazon Chromecast, and Apple, so it has to be more than a simple box upgrade.
Not sure how that is going to operate, especially with no hard drive, as their current system of On Demand uses the HDD for a progressive download, so can't see how a new Sky Box will operate any different?
If i wanted to record something, say Benidorm in HD tonight on ITV, as i was going out, when i get home, i like to watch it straight away, how would this be possible if it is stored in the Cloud, if i say lived where the broadband speed is about 4mb, and i had no HDD in my box?
I would expect the box to still have a HDD for recordings, but you might be able to access them elsewhere through a Cloud based system, but for the local machine, i cannot see everyone having instant access to their recordings without having them stored locally.
Not sure how that is going to operate, especially with no hard drive, as their current system of On Demand uses the HDD for a progressive download, so can't see how a new Sky Box will operate any different?
If i wanted to record something, say Benidorm in HD tonight on ITV, as i was going out, when i get home, i like to watch it straight away, how would this be possible if it is stored in the Cloud, if i say lived where the broadband speed is about 4mb, and i had no HDD in my box?
I would expect the box to still have a HDD for recordings, but you might be able to access them elsewhere through a Cloud based system, but for the local machine, i cannot see everyone having instant access to their recordings without having them stored locally.
Just going by the various press releases on what limited info is about....
Sky+ recordings will be stored in the cloud rather than on a local set-top box hard drive, which means that for both recorded and on-demand, Project Ethan will allow viewers to begin watching a show on one device, pause it, then resume it on another device.
Only rumours though, and as I said above, what if you don't have a fast broadband, do you have to wait to watch the show you have supposedly recorded, say a film on BBC1HD, on a 4mb connection, because it won't be instant, and it won't be HD quality if streamed (as you have no HDD for progressive download - although I suppose it could have a 32GB onboard chip for this, and instant rewind - but it still won't be instant), and what if someone else in the house wants to use the internet for something else, I for one really can't see it working that way, not if it's supposed to for everyone.
Only rumours though, and as I said above, what if you don't have a fast broadband, do you have to wait to watch the show you have supposedly recorded, say a film on BBC1HD, on a 4mb connection, because it won't be instant, and it won't be HD quality if streamed (as you have no HDD for progressive download - although I suppose it could have a 32GB onboard chip for this, and instant rewind - but it still won't be instant), and what if someone else in the house wants to use the internet for something else, I for one really can't see it working that way, not if it's supposed to for everyone.
There is mention that recordings will be cached in a central data centre, then accessed by the viewer on any device connected to the internet. That's about as much info there is on cloud recordings.
I take your point on internet speed and can see how it wouldn't be an acceptable to those who have poor speeds. I guess it's just another aspect of Sky's up and coming service we can only speculate on until all is confirmed by Sky. I'm sure recordings will be instant, but not sure how they will do it, I can't really see them overhauling their service and taking a backwards step where you will have to wait for personal recordings to start.
No internal storage only applies to the new 4k box. I'm assuming the cloud recordings will work differently on current boxes, probably as you say, recording on the hdd as normal then backed up to the cloud for viewing on other devices.
There is mention that recordings will be cached in a central data centre, then accessed by the viewer on any device connected to the internet. That's about as much info there is on cloud recordings.
I take your point on internet speed and can see how it wouldn't be an acceptable to those who have poor speeds. I guess it's just another aspect of Sky's up and coming service we can only speculate on until all is confirmed by Sky. I'm sure recordings will be instant, but not sure how they will do it, I can't really see them overhauling their service and taking a backwards step where you will have to wait for personal recordings to start.
Indeed, and I am sure there are far clever people than me and you (no disrespect meant) at Sky who know what they are doing, could be an interesting few years.
They've also spent a lot of money into becoming a large ISP - probably more money/effort than they've spent on satellite in the same time frame (since they don't actually own the satellites, after all).
The fact that they started with satellite does not mean they must continue as a satellite broadcaster. Better ways of doing things do become available and it'd be ignorant to discredit them
Yes, they have spent a lot of money on the ISP business, but not IPTV. Why would they spend massive amounts of money on IPTV when it would be in direct competition with their satellite service?
Would make sense to release a 4k streaming service if their 4k box is 18/24 months away from being launched. With Netflix/Amazon already streaming 4k and UHD Bluray only months away I can't see Sky sitting back waiting that amount of time.
How does it make sense for them to go through the trouble and expense of setting up an IPTV service when they primary delivery method will be Satellite?
Netflix and Amazon are just that, they are streaming businesses, their product relies on internet delivery. Sky's doesn't.
I'm not saying it couldn't happen, just that it probably wouldn't.
The service could be app based which could be placed on current Sky boxes with the 4k TV's doing the decoding, that's if Sky wanted to keep exclusively for Sky customers. Or the app could be made available on other products like PS3/4, Tivo to reach a wider audience.
When you spend a fortune of something you want to make it exclusive to the service you provide, you know like Sky are already known for doing.
When you invest so much money into a product and have the business there to provide it, you damn sure are going to use it rather than 3rd parties.
Opinions are just as vaild, but there is a massive difference between whether it will happen.
You are arguing it could happen, no one is denying that Sky could do that if they wanted, others like myself are arguing whether it would happen, since they already have a delivery method that is widely used.
Steaming everything via the cloud is going to be fun for people with multi room subs. Or when someone is doing something on a PC that causes delays in the streaming or a drop in bitrate.
People who currently have a Sky box with HDD aren't really going to be too happy to lose what they have today just to get 4K. Sky would be mad to change that, instead of just adding streaming and downloading as an option.
Anyone who has suggested an idea on how Sky could deliver 4k other than by a 4k stb has been shot down in flames - they know no different to anyone else here, the impression I'm getting is they think their suggestion is the only one that counts, in my eyes that's arrogance.
You are being shot down because you are suggesting things that are very unlikely to happen.
It isn't in Sky's interests to make a 4k service available through Smart TVs etc, just look at the way they have done things in the past, they keep it exclusive to themselves so you have no choice but to get their over services in order to get it.
This is what you are failing to realise. When looking into what a company could do, look at the past and it gives you at least an inkling of what they would do if they were launching such a service.
You aren't wrong, but you aren't right either. Its like saying Virgin Media could also start using Satellite to provide their products aswell, they could, but it it likely that they would?
As far as I can see no one has come outright and said 4k over IP will be the preferred method, just suggested Sky could do it, so I find some of your posts out of context, or I have misread them.
No, because the only one really claiming that Sky would realistically enter into a market they currently aren't in just to provide a service that they will be able to provide using the hardware type in a market that they already dominate.
I can see the advantages of Sky releasing a media type device providing a 4k service, ie. It's cheap to manufacture, it would reach a larger audience, it could be released in a relatively short time span, especially if the 4k box is 18/24 months away. I can't see any real disadvantages.
It would be a high cost for very little return, the number of people that would be interested in it would be small, and there would have to be a lot of 4k content made available for it to be seen as worth the cost to the consumer to get.
Steaming everything via the cloud is going to be fun for people with multi room subs. Or when someone is doing something on a PC that causes delays in the streaming or a drop in bitrate.
People who currently have a Sky box with HDD aren't really going to be too happy to lose what they have today just to get 4K. Sky would be mad to change that, instead of just adding streaming and downloading as an option.
I've played around with streaming content around my home using the NowTV box and my computer, it didn't work very well at all. Even SD content would buffer occasionally and HD content, if there was another device using the connection (such as a smartphone) it just kept buffering every couple of minutes.
If Sky do intend to implement such a system I hope it is optional.
Now TV clearly will seek to stream 4K video one day (first they need to get to full HD though!) but the experience is still pretty hit and miss at times.
Sky has the benefit of a system that is far more stable than streaming, and likely to remain so for some time. Why would it give that up when it hasn't simply shut down and told everyone to get a Now TV box, because they're aimed at different people.
Yes, they have spent a lot of money on the ISP business, but not IPTV. Why would they spend massive amounts of money on IPTV when it would be in direct competition with their satellite service?
How does it make sense for them to go through the trouble and expense of setting up an IPTV service when they primary delivery method will be Satellite?
Because it's another way of doing things - and potentially the future way of doing it. Satellite is not the be all and end all.
It's not really "competition" when you own both platforms. There are people who cannot receive satellite for whatever reason, and there are some who won't have high enough internet speeds for whatever reason. But Sky may potentially think that it is good to cover both bases with a view to an IPTV future.
I just don't get the whole "they have always been on satellite and will continue to be on satellite" mentality.
They don't own a large ISP for fun, and if they can use it as a reliable form of delivery they might go for it.
Steaming everything via the cloud is going to be fun for people with multi room subs. Or when someone is doing something on a PC that causes delays in the streaming or a drop in bitrate.
Sky as an ISP could very easily prioritise their video traffic to make sure that doesn't happen - just like how it doesn't happen on other IPTV services. Some even go as far as to have dedicated capacity for the TV service, whether you are watching TV or not, others will assign it if the TV STB is turned on.
I've played around with streaming content around my home using the NowTV box and my computer, it didn't work very well at all. Even SD content would buffer occasionally and HD content, if there was another device using the connection (such as a smartphone) it just kept buffering every couple of minutes.
If Sky do intend to implement such a system I hope it is optional.
Sounds like you have a serious issue with your connection/network, not an indictment of IPTV in general.
If you're trying to use Now TV on some crappy 1Mbit TalkTalk connection in an area with congested wifi then it will likely not work so well.
Sky as an ISP could very easily prioritise their video traffic to make sure that doesn't happen - just like how it doesn't happen on other IPTV services. Some even go as far as to have dedicated capacity for the TV service, whether you are watching TV or not, others will assign it if the TV STB is turned on.
Of course, but even Sky broadband customers aren't all on FTTC and many might not be even if it's available simply due to the cost. But they probably have a dish already!
(I know you don't need to have a Sky dish, indeed they're advertising that very fact, but I bet most do).
Sounds like you have a serious issue with your connection/network, not an indictment of IPTV in general.
If you're trying to use Now TV on some crappy 1Mbit TalkTalk connection in an area with congested wifi then it will likely not work so well.
I have 7Mbps and can have the same problems. It's rare, sure, but it happens. And if I'm streaming Now TV on the TV downstairs and my wife starts watching a Super HD broadcast on Netflix then it can also cause issues.
Sky doesn't want to have to deal with customer service calls about stuff like this, especially if people say 'when I used to watch via satellite I never had this problem'.
You're basically talking about a scenario that may be reality in a few years, but not now. But people are buying Ultra HD TVs today and want to watch content on them. Delivery via the Internet is just one method, and not necessarily the most practical for most (okay, a lot) of people.
Of course, but even Sky broadband customers aren't all on FTTC and many might not be even if it's available simply due to the cost. But they probably have a dish already!
(I know you don't need to have a Sky dish, indeed they're advertising that very fact, but I bet most do).
Indeed, but that will change in the future - more people will be on FTTC or even FTTP, and ADSL will die out as a form of connectivity. No one saying they have to do this tomorrow and turn off the satellite transmissions in the process.
Both technologies are not universally available (landlords/location/trees/etc all block satellite reception).
I have 7Mbps and can have the same problems. It's rare, sure, but it happens. And if I'm streaming Now TV on the TV downstairs and my wife starts watching a Super HD broadcast on Netflix then it can also cause issues.
Sky doesn't want to have to deal with customer service calls about stuff like this, especially if people say 'when I used to watch via satellite I never had this problem'.
You're basically talking about a scenario that may be reality in a few years, but not now. But people are buying Ultra HD TVs today and want to watch content on them. Delivery via the Internet is just one method, and not necessarily the most practical for most (okay, a lot) of people.
Sky is for the mass market.
But presumably, as I said, there is no traffic prioritisation, like there could be if Sky wanted to do IPTV in a serious way. They would also likely require a minimum bandwidth/connection speed whereas Now TV and Netflix don't - if it doesn't work, tough. Both of these would overcome your problem.
I think people are applying today's technologies and slightly irrelevant circumstances to how it could work if the network was properly designed to handle it and if Sky wanted to do IPTV in a big way.
The fact is that a lot of UHD TV owners will probably have the disposable incomes to afford better connections that would be capable of 4K IP streaming. Would it be universally available and perfect? Probably not, but no one is saying this. What it would provide is a quick way for Sky to do 4K before their new boxes are ready.
That future is still some way off. And I am not sure those who bought an Ultra HD TV are necessarily loaded, or in any way guaranteed a better Internet connection, any more than people who bought into 3D TVs were.
Ultra HD TVs are now pretty cheap (arguably as they're not fully compliant) so anyone can buy one.
I'd have one already if they were 'proper' Ultra HD TVs. Once these ship, I'll be getting one. And my street doesn't even have FTTC yet and the latest estimate (slipped from June 2012 is March 2016).
You are being shot down because you are suggesting things that are very unlikely to happen.
It isn't in Sky's interests to make a 4k service available through Smart TVs etc, just look at the way they have done things in the past, they keep it exclusive to themselves so you have no choice but to get their over services in order to get it.
This is what you are failing to realise. When looking into what a company could do, look at the past and it gives you at least an inkling of what they would do if they were launching such a service.
You aren't wrong, but you aren't right either. Its like saying Virgin Media could also start using Satellite to provide their products aswell, they could, but it it likely that they would?
As far as I'm aware no one has suggested 4k over IP will happen, certainly not as a primary/preferred method, only that the technology is now available for them to use if they wanted.
They could keep a media player type device exclusively for Sky customers, I'm pretty sure of that.
I'm looking at what the company could achieve today, not what they have achieved in the past. I'm fairly sure that is what Sky will be doing too.
Netflix will have been streaming 4k for a year this April, now Amazon are streaming 4k, then there is the threat from Chromecast and Apple, I can't see Sky holding back another 18+ months before starting a 4k service. They know best I suppose, they will be keeping an eye on 4k TV sales and what 4k content is readily available and way the situation up from there.
Because it's another way of doing things - and potentially the future way of doing it. Satellite is not the be all and end all.
It's not really "competition" when you own both platforms. There are people who cannot receive satellite for whatever reason, and there are some who won't have high enough internet speeds for whatever reason. But Sky may potentially think that it is good to cover both bases with a view to an IPTV future.
I just don't get the whole "they have always been on satellite and will continue to be on satellite" mentality.
They don't own a large ISP for fun, and if they can use it as a reliable form of delivery they might go for it.
To be honest it is going to be a long time before IPTV takes over in popularity from Satellite delivery.
I doubt that IPTV will be capable of handling the demand that Satellite and even DTT currently do for a while. IPTV is barely used compared to them, and currently IPTV providers rely on DTT to bring channels rather than providing over IP.
This is where Satellite wins, because it can provide everything.
Sounds like you have a serious issue with your connection/network, not an indictment of IPTV in general.
If you're trying to use Now TV on some crappy 1Mbit TalkTalk connection in an area with congested wifi then it will likely not work so well.
I didn't do a very good job of explaining, I meant streaming content from device to device over my home network using Plex, not streaming content from the like of Netlfix.
But I suppose the same issues would apply, unless you have a fast connection, when you're doing something so data intensive as streaming as well as browsing the web, it can overload the connection and cause the quality to drop, I suffered this while using Sky Go even on a 16mb connection.
As far as I'm aware no one has suggested 4k over IP will happen, certainly not as a primary/preferred method, only that the technology is now available for them to use if they wanted.
They could keep a media player type device exclusively for Sky customers, I'm pretty sure of that
But as they will be developing a STB that can provide 4k anyway, why would they spend the money developing such a device when there would be very little demand for it. Just because someone has bought a 4k TV doesn't mean they would be willing to splash out on a device and subscription only for a 4k channel.
Not only would the box have to be developed but they would then have to pay for the extra cost for transmission.
Netflix will have been streaming 4k for a year this April, now Amazon are streaming 4k, then there is the threat from Chromecast and Apple, I can't see Sky holding back another 18+ months before starting a 4k service. They know best I suppose, they will be keeping an eye on 4k TV sales and what 4k content is readily available and way the situation up from there.
But the difference is these two are STREAMING SERVICES, Sky isn't. What they do is irrelevant to what Sky does considering Sky is a live TV provider rather than just a on-demand content provider as they are.
Sky will hold out until they think there is a large enough market to warrant the cost of providing 4k, people simply owning a 4k TV doesn't warrant it, how many of those people are Sky TV customers in the first place, and how many of them would then be willing to pay more for a 4k channel on top?
When Sky decide it is time, they will launch one.
Sky make money from subscription TV, they probably don't actually mind how the viewer gets to watch their programming as long as a subscription is paid and their services are secure from piracy, if Sky could deliver their services down wet string they would be doing it.
Of course them supplying very controlled hardware means complete control and having to offer limited support for viewer's problems unlike dealing with PC/smart devices related problems which is a massive ballache compared to supporting a couple of satellite receivers and a dish.
IPTV taking over DTT let alone Satellite is a lot of years away. If IPTV offer no benefits over Satellite then they aren't going to change.
Sky has continued its US shopping spree by taking an equity stake in a internet video specialist, in a move that will be seen as part of a long-term shift away from satellite broadcasting and towards streaming.
"The economics of OTT [internet-streaming] delivery for bandwidth-hungry services is improving but it really depends on the scale. If it's on a smaller scale we might look at OTT but if we're taking it to market we'd probably want to take it to scale, which is what we're good at, so DTH [satellite] would definitely be part of that."
But the difference is these two are STREAMING SERVICES, Sky isn't. What they do is irrelevant to what Sky does considering Sky is a live TV provider rather than just a on-demand content provider as they are.
Not irrelevant according to Andrew Olson, BSkyB’s director of product development.
All traditional pay-TV providers are wary of the threat to their businesses from internet giants using improving broadband infrastructure to deliver programming “over the top” at lower prices. Google and Amazon have already introduced devices to connect televisions to their streaming services and Apple is has been rumoured to be preparing a big push into the living room for years.
Sky will hold out until they think there is a large enough market to warrant the cost of providing 4k, people simply owning a 4k TV doesn't warrant it, how many of those people are Sky TV customers in the first place, and how many of them would then be willing to pay more for a 4k channel on top?
When Sky decide it is time, they will launch one.
We haven't announced anything because we don't have a specific plan to announce. But we're testing the technology, watching the device prices and watching the take-up."
Well they do have Now TV and Sky Go, but given the low bitrate, low resolution quality - it doesn't bode well for them using either to roll out 4K anytime soon.
NowTV's target market are Freeview viewers, where picture quality doesn't appear to be the main driver. Sky aren't going to give them premium quality on the cheap.
Comments
Then Sky gives people 4K as well as everything else it has. Someone might then buy one even if they haven't got a 4K TV yet just to be ready.
Roku (or someone else) can come out with a streaming box for Now TV that does 4K too, which of course will be more limited than Sky's offering - but potentially a lot cheaper.
From what I have read the new box will be 4k compatible and recordings will be a accessed from the Cloud (no hdd), content will then be available from any web connected device, ie. Smart phone, tablet or smart tv. How 4k content is delivered is anyone's guess, could be satellite and/or internet. I think the new box/platform revamp is going to be a little more than more than you suggest - Sky's aim is to fend of threats from rivals like Netflix, Amazon Chromecast, and Apple, so it has to be more than a simple box upgrade.
Not sure how that is going to operate, especially with no hard drive, as their current system of On Demand uses the HDD for a progressive download, so can't see how a new Sky Box will operate any different?
If i wanted to record something, say Benidorm in HD tonight on ITV, as i was going out, when i get home, i like to watch it straight away, how would this be possible if it is stored in the Cloud, if i say lived where the broadband speed is about 4mb, and i had no HDD in my box?
I would expect the box to still have a HDD for recordings, but you might be able to access them elsewhere through a Cloud based system, but for the local machine, i cannot see everyone having instant access to their recordings without having them stored locally.
http://www.stuff.tv/sky/project-ethan-revamp-will-transform-sky-s-set-top-box-service/news
Only rumours though, and as I said above, what if you don't have a fast broadband, do you have to wait to watch the show you have supposedly recorded, say a film on BBC1HD, on a 4mb connection, because it won't be instant, and it won't be HD quality if streamed (as you have no HDD for progressive download - although I suppose it could have a 32GB onboard chip for this, and instant rewind - but it still won't be instant), and what if someone else in the house wants to use the internet for something else, I for one really can't see it working that way, not if it's supposed to for everyone.
There is mention that recordings will be cached in a central data centre, then accessed by the viewer on any device connected to the internet. That's about as much info there is on cloud recordings.
I take your point on internet speed and can see how it wouldn't be an acceptable to those who have poor speeds. I guess it's just another aspect of Sky's up and coming service we can only speculate on until all is confirmed by Sky. I'm sure recordings will be instant, but not sure how they will do it, I can't really see them overhauling their service and taking a backwards step where you will have to wait for personal recordings to start.
No internal storage only applies to the new 4k box. I'm assuming the cloud recordings will work differently on current boxes, probably as you say, recording on the hdd as normal then backed up to the cloud for viewing on other devices.
Indeed, and I am sure there are far clever people than me and you (no disrespect meant) at Sky who know what they are doing, could be an interesting few years.
How does it make sense for them to go through the trouble and expense of setting up an IPTV service when they primary delivery method will be Satellite?
Netflix and Amazon are just that, they are streaming businesses, their product relies on internet delivery. Sky's doesn't.
I'm not saying it couldn't happen, just that it probably wouldn't.
When you spend a fortune of something you want to make it exclusive to the service you provide, you know like Sky are already known for doing.
When you invest so much money into a product and have the business there to provide it, you damn sure are going to use it rather than 3rd parties.
Opinions are just as vaild, but there is a massive difference between whether it will happen.
You are arguing it could happen, no one is denying that Sky could do that if they wanted, others like myself are arguing whether it would happen, since they already have a delivery method that is widely used.
People who currently have a Sky box with HDD aren't really going to be too happy to lose what they have today just to get 4K. Sky would be mad to change that, instead of just adding streaming and downloading as an option.
It isn't in Sky's interests to make a 4k service available through Smart TVs etc, just look at the way they have done things in the past, they keep it exclusive to themselves so you have no choice but to get their over services in order to get it.
This is what you are failing to realise. When looking into what a company could do, look at the past and it gives you at least an inkling of what they would do if they were launching such a service.
You aren't wrong, but you aren't right either. Its like saying Virgin Media could also start using Satellite to provide their products aswell, they could, but it it likely that they would?
It would be a high cost for very little return, the number of people that would be interested in it would be small, and there would have to be a lot of 4k content made available for it to be seen as worth the cost to the consumer to get.
If Sky do intend to implement such a system I hope it is optional.
Sky has the benefit of a system that is far more stable than streaming, and likely to remain so for some time. Why would it give that up when it hasn't simply shut down and told everyone to get a Now TV box, because they're aimed at different people.
Because it's another way of doing things - and potentially the future way of doing it. Satellite is not the be all and end all.
It's not really "competition" when you own both platforms. There are people who cannot receive satellite for whatever reason, and there are some who won't have high enough internet speeds for whatever reason. But Sky may potentially think that it is good to cover both bases with a view to an IPTV future.
I just don't get the whole "they have always been on satellite and will continue to be on satellite" mentality.
They don't own a large ISP for fun, and if they can use it as a reliable form of delivery they might go for it.
Sky as an ISP could very easily prioritise their video traffic to make sure that doesn't happen - just like how it doesn't happen on other IPTV services. Some even go as far as to have dedicated capacity for the TV service, whether you are watching TV or not, others will assign it if the TV STB is turned on.
Sounds like you have a serious issue with your connection/network, not an indictment of IPTV in general.
If you're trying to use Now TV on some crappy 1Mbit TalkTalk connection in an area with congested wifi then it will likely not work so well.
Of course, but even Sky broadband customers aren't all on FTTC and many might not be even if it's available simply due to the cost. But they probably have a dish already!
(I know you don't need to have a Sky dish, indeed they're advertising that very fact, but I bet most do).
I have 7Mbps and can have the same problems. It's rare, sure, but it happens. And if I'm streaming Now TV on the TV downstairs and my wife starts watching a Super HD broadcast on Netflix then it can also cause issues.
Sky doesn't want to have to deal with customer service calls about stuff like this, especially if people say 'when I used to watch via satellite I never had this problem'.
You're basically talking about a scenario that may be reality in a few years, but not now. But people are buying Ultra HD TVs today and want to watch content on them. Delivery via the Internet is just one method, and not necessarily the most practical for most (okay, a lot) of people.
Sky is for the mass market.
Indeed, but that will change in the future - more people will be on FTTC or even FTTP, and ADSL will die out as a form of connectivity. No one saying they have to do this tomorrow and turn off the satellite transmissions in the process.
Both technologies are not universally available (landlords/location/trees/etc all block satellite reception).
But presumably, as I said, there is no traffic prioritisation, like there could be if Sky wanted to do IPTV in a serious way. They would also likely require a minimum bandwidth/connection speed whereas Now TV and Netflix don't - if it doesn't work, tough. Both of these would overcome your problem.
I think people are applying today's technologies and slightly irrelevant circumstances to how it could work if the network was properly designed to handle it and if Sky wanted to do IPTV in a big way.
The fact is that a lot of UHD TV owners will probably have the disposable incomes to afford better connections that would be capable of 4K IP streaming. Would it be universally available and perfect? Probably not, but no one is saying this. What it would provide is a quick way for Sky to do 4K before their new boxes are ready.
Ultra HD TVs are now pretty cheap (arguably as they're not fully compliant) so anyone can buy one.
I'd have one already if they were 'proper' Ultra HD TVs. Once these ship, I'll be getting one. And my street doesn't even have FTTC yet and the latest estimate (slipped from June 2012 is March 2016).
They could keep a media player type device exclusively for Sky customers, I'm pretty sure of that.
I'm looking at what the company could achieve today, not what they have achieved in the past. I'm fairly sure that is what Sky will be doing too.
Netflix will have been streaming 4k for a year this April, now Amazon are streaming 4k, then there is the threat from Chromecast and Apple, I can't see Sky holding back another 18+ months before starting a 4k service. They know best I suppose, they will be keeping an eye on 4k TV sales and what 4k content is readily available and way the situation up from there.
I doubt that IPTV will be capable of handling the demand that Satellite and even DTT currently do for a while. IPTV is barely used compared to them, and currently IPTV providers rely on DTT to bring channels rather than providing over IP.
This is where Satellite wins, because it can provide everything.
I didn't do a very good job of explaining, I meant streaming content from device to device over my home network using Plex, not streaming content from the like of Netlfix.
But I suppose the same issues would apply, unless you have a fast connection, when you're doing something so data intensive as streaming as well as browsing the web, it can overload the connection and cause the quality to drop, I suffered this while using Sky Go even on a 16mb connection.
Not only would the box have to be developed but they would then have to pay for the extra cost for transmission.
IPTV taking over DTT let alone Satellite is a lot of years away. If IPTV offer no benefits over Satellite then they aren't going to change.
But the difference is these two are STREAMING SERVICES, Sky isn't. What they do is irrelevant to what Sky does considering Sky is a live TV provider rather than just a on-demand content provider as they are.
Sky will hold out until they think there is a large enough market to warrant the cost of providing 4k, people simply owning a 4k TV doesn't warrant it, how many of those people are Sky TV customers in the first place, and how many of them would then be willing to pay more for a 4k channel on top?
When Sky decide it is time, they will launch one.
Of course them supplying very controlled hardware means complete control and having to offer limited support for viewer's problems unlike dealing with PC/smart devices related problems which is a massive ballache compared to supporting a couple of satellite receivers and a dish.
Should be interesting times ahead for Sky.
Sky has continued its US shopping spree by taking an equity stake in a internet video specialist, in a move that will be seen as part of a long-term shift away from satellite broadcasting and towards streaming.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/digital-media/11307935/Sky-prepares-for-streaming-future-with-stake-in-Elemental-Technologies.html
"The economics of OTT [internet-streaming] delivery for bandwidth-hungry services is improving but it really depends on the scale. If it's on a smaller scale we might look at OTT but if we're taking it to market we'd probably want to take it to scale, which is what we're good at, so DTH [satellite] would definitely be part of that."
http://www.stuff.tv/sky/project-ethan-revamp-will-transform-sky-s-set-top-box-service/news Not irrelevant according to Andrew Olson, BSkyB’s director of product development.
All traditional pay-TV providers are wary of the threat to their businesses from internet giants using improving broadband infrastructure to deliver programming “over the top” at lower prices. Google and Amazon have already introduced devices to connect televisions to their streaming services and Apple is has been rumoured to be preparing a big push into the living room for years.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/media/10789883/BSkyB-plans-major-overhaul-of-set-top-box-to-meet-Apple-threat.html
We haven't announced anything because we don't have a specific plan to announce. But we're testing the technology, watching the device prices and watching the take-up."
http://www.stuff.tv/sky/project-ethan-revamp-will-transform-sky-s-set-top-box-service/news
Pretty much what I said.....
NowTV's target market are Freeview viewers, where picture quality doesn't appear to be the main driver. Sky aren't going to give them premium quality on the cheap.
Sky Go PQ is fine on tablets and phones.