*** Sky Q Thread ***
- Thread starter Cosimo
- Start date
Well, I suppose:-
1) They recon most people will only have one 4K TV in the house?
2) Getting 4K material over homeplugs (or even wireless) may be somewhat unreliable!?
2TB is plenty, especially with the improved on-demand services. Not sure what the comparison with MS proves; increased HDD sizes are just a natural progression, not a con. A bigger HDD at launch means a higher price.
Chances are most normal family's would go for the 1TB Sky Q box (0.7TB available) and with let say 4 people in the family recording to it.
I can see 0.7TB filling up really fast
Last edited:
Associate
Perhaps for the launch someone has decided that we only need the Sky Q Mini for the multiscreen boxes.
It is possible that they are hiding an alternative multiscreen box that does support 4K UHD but for some reason they are holding it back for now.
For the present time they are only supplying the one model that can support 4K UHD TV, the Sky Q Silver.
This is very true. The OD and CUTV services have greatly improved things, but there will be licensing issues (i.e. deleted after a specific date).
However the growing popularity of Sky's on-line services shows that they are loved by Sky's customer base and this is something that will continue to grow as a result.
Associate
At the present time I would agree with you @MissChief .
Currently though the cost of some good 4K sets brings thing into the price many people would have been paying a couple of years ago for a HD TV. So I'd suggest that it is reasonable to expect some to have two or more 4K TVs very soon.
Currently though the cost of some good 4K sets brings thing into the price many people would have been paying a couple of years ago for a HD TV. So I'd suggest that it is reasonable to expect some to have two or more 4K TVs very soon.
You need to take into account the size of TV required for 4K to make a noticeable difference, I'd argue that the amount of people with more than one of those in their house is going to be slim. It would also be foolish to assume that Sky would let the demand for multiple 4K boxes go unmet.
Associate
Very true @Caged.
No one has said that Sky won't be launching something to meet the demand. At this time we don't know just how well the system will cope 'in the wild' so to speak with HD transmissions.
4K transmissions would put any networking issues under a lot more strain.
I guess this is where forums such as this will play an important part as people come for help. I don't know how much knowledge & training the Sky Installation Engineers have in this area, but I would hope that it hasn't been forgotten.
No one has said that Sky won't be launching something to meet the demand. At this time we don't know just how well the system will cope 'in the wild' so to speak with HD transmissions.
4K transmissions would put any networking issues under a lot more strain.
I guess this is where forums such as this will play an important part as people come for help. I don't know how much knowledge & training the Sky Installation Engineers have in this area, but I would hope that it hasn't been forgotten.
Permabanned
Its all down to price , i was told by sky today it would cost about extra £20 + per month to have Sky Q . I hope not 
Sky charge us customers enough
Sky charge us customers enough
Last edited:
Associate
There are a lot of rumours being spread. Some of them might be to test the water. Others will be just what someone has made up.
Believe what you like, no one outside a very select group of people will have any idea about what the new packages are going to be or what the prices will be.
Having said that, Sky have said that they intend to sell the Sky Q products as Premium products.
It might be that they'll market them at £10 or £20 per month extra above the Sky+ HD range. It might be that they'll start at £10 per month, with an additional £10 for 4K UHD.
At this stage no one in the high street or on the forums will know.
Believe what you like, no one outside a very select group of people will have any idea about what the new packages are going to be or what the prices will be.
Having said that, Sky have said that they intend to sell the Sky Q products as Premium products.
It might be that they'll market them at £10 or £20 per month extra above the Sky+ HD range. It might be that they'll start at £10 per month, with an additional £10 for 4K UHD.
At this stage no one in the high street or on the forums will know.
Permabanned
If its over £15 per month extra you can count me out for sure , i would like a new Sky Hub but i think will cost
Last edited:
Soldato
Looked good till I saw this. No thank you. Looks like it might be tied to Sky Broadband. It doesnt say on the website you can use it with other providers. Considering Sky like to tie their boxes down to their own broadband......
Last edited:
Looked good till I saw this. No thank you. Looks like it might be tied to Sky Broadband. It doesnt say on the website you can use it with other providers. Considering Sky like to tie their boxes down to their own broadband......
It's got an ethernet connector on the back I believe? I'd hope that means it can be connected to the router via a dedicated LAN too (and not just by wireless/homeplug)?
Associate
You'll not be tied to any ISP with Sky Q.
However one of the features that is being pushed does require the Sky Q Hub for it to work. That feature would make all the Sky Q TV boxes an effective WiFi Hot spot.
This would mean that some Sky customers wouldn't need to run extra lengths of cable all around their homes.
However one of the features that is being pushed does require the Sky Q Hub for it to work. That feature would make all the Sky Q TV boxes an effective WiFi Hot spot.
This would mean that some Sky customers wouldn't need to run extra lengths of cable all around their homes.
Permabanned
Permabanned
They cannot be far off MissChief knowing Sky pricing , they will loose me as a long sky customer for sure , that could be the nail in the coffin for me
Question is would i get a better connection or service using the new Sky Q ?
Last edited:
