Opinion: Apple TV has nothing over Sky Q

Discussion in 'Apple TV and Home Theater' started by GadgetBen, Feb 8, 2016.

  1. GadgetBen macrumors 6502a

    GadgetBen

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2015
    Location:
    London
    #1
    So tomorrow here in the UK we have the launch of Sky Q. A new set top box for Sky subscribers:

    http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2016/01/sk...eatures-and-more-everything-you-need-to-know/

    12million subscribers have a Sky box in the UK and I don't see why we would switch to Apple TV or the need to have Apple TV as an additional device. Apple TV simply can't compete on channels and content with Sky.

    I was really disappointed when Apple announced only that their new Apple TV would be a smaller box and not a flatscreen TV. The potential sales income from releasing a TV over a little box would have been immense. I would also like to think that Apple would have made something that could 'hands-down' beat any other TV on the market. Like they do with their phones, watches, TV's and Macs. Nothing comes close to Apple products for me.

    But here we are in 2016 and there has been talk of an actual Apple TV for years. I don't know why they didn't follow through. So now, when faced with the competition and taking on the set-top box market - they are years away from having the TV channels that people will actually want to watch (and eventually be charged a subscription for).

    Sky were lagging behind with their equipment but now they have introduced Sky Q, they have made quite some ground. Sure, the Apple TV has Siri but to have the capability to pause Premier League matches on your TV and then catch up later on your iPad is simply amazing (a feature called 'Fluid Viewing').

    So how can Apple TV compete with this? Bring out a kick ass TV and let the subscription channels improve the set-top boxes!

    Apple TV is one of the only products that Apple have released which has significantly disappointed for me.
     
  2. andyp350 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2011
    #2
    Totally different products in totally different price ranges. Sky requires a monthly subscription plus hardware costs and is a live TV service with on demand features. The Apple TV is primarily a media streaming and on demand set top box with no required monthly contracts or costs. Do you work for sky by any chance?
     
  3. Mac... nificent, Feb 8, 2016
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2016

    Mac... nificent macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    #3
    Because it wasn't unique enough.

    $78.00 PER MONTH ($936.00 per year, each and every year PLUS $143.00 set up fee. $1100 LOL) with no user selectable apps or Siri = you can keep it :D
     
  4. LiveM macrumors 6502a

    LiveM

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2015
    #4
    You can thank products like Apple TV for forcing Sky to finally improve their dire offerings.

    For me, though, I have cancelled. I am eagerly looking forward to returing those enormous and slow boxes and remotes, and saving more than enough to pay for Apple Music, Netflix, NFL Game Pass, HBO Now all the movies I like on iTunes or disc, and pay for a drinks anytime we want to watch a big match that is on Sky.

    All of this comes with the far superior experience and convenience of hardware and UI, plus significant power savings as well.

    Honestly, I get a warm feeling just thinking about Sky, knowing that this is our last month.
     
  5. MrTazz macrumors member

    MrTazz

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2015
  6. mw360 macrumors 65816

    mw360

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2010
    #6
    Here's another opinion: Apple didn't do a TV because they couldn't figure out how to make these 'immense' piles of money. Jobs himself complained the margins were too thin, and owners held on to them for too long. You can be sure Apple's research was almost entitely into how they could distinguish their product in the market, how they could keep that distinction for years (patents etc.) and how they could persuade the owners to buy a new one every three years or so. (I think the average is 10 years).

    There are no obvious answers to these questions, especially when you consider that the main part, the screen, would be made by Samsung, LG, Sharp etc. There haven't been any intersting innovations in TV's since, erm, ever, and there isn't really any great user dissatisfactions with TVs as devices. If anything, the worst TV experience is coming from these Smart TV's which only exist because of manufacturers trying to force innovation into a place it doesn't fit.
     
  7. Mac... nificent macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    #7
    Excellent point :)
     
  8. benjitek macrumors 6502a

    benjitek

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2012
    #8
    Then why bother reading forums like this one, much less posting in them? It isn't exactly a revelation that the AppleTV isn't a flatscreen TV.

    Doesn't SkyQ have their own user forums so you can read about and praise their products and services...? Bashing AppleTV in a fan-forum serves no purpose... o_O
     
  9. rolsskk macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2008
    #9
    The setup fee alone makes me laugh. They show it off as being something easy to use as well as a competitor, but they have to charge you to just plug the thing in??
     
  10. 2010mini macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    #10
    TV sets have very low profit margins vs. streaming set top boxes
     
  11. bluespark macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Location:
    New York
    #11
    These boxes are not in direct competition -- they do different things at different price points and neither does everything the other does.

    As to why the ATV wasn't an actual television, it's likely that Apple ever did much more than to merely investigate the possibility. As others have pointed out, TV margins are razor-thin and there's tons of competition. And unless Apple were going to buy the displays themselves from another company (thereby increasing its cost), it would merely be one player among many in a field with plenty of pre-existing expertise and accumulated intellectual property. Moreover, people don't want to routinely upgrade their TV to enjoy a few new features, but they very well might want to upgrade set-top boxes for that reason. The best solution for nearly everyone is to have the best "dumb" display you can buy (i.e., that with the best picture quality and irrespective of features not related to picture quality and connectivity) and the smartest set-top box(es).
     
  12. off_piste macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2015
    #12
    Apple could institute an Apple TV Upgrade Program like they did with the iPhone.
     
  13. mcdj macrumors 604

    mcdj

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2007
    Location:
    NYC
    #13
    Apple is financially addicted to creating devices that users can and will sell/trade in/otherwise upgrade on an annual/biannual basis. TVs don't fit that category. Even though a good TV is even cheaper than an iPhone, they're not like a phone in the minds of consumers, who are generally unwilling to tear apart their home theater and reprogram remotes every two years just to have the latest model. A breakout box is always easier to upgrade.
     
  14. GadgetBen, Feb 8, 2016
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2016

    GadgetBen thread starter macrumors 6502a

    GadgetBen

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2015
    Location:
    London
    #14
    Some good points. Firstly, I don't work for Sky! I'm GadgetBen a gadget lover of all kinds! I can't stand the high subscription fees and I think R M is a criminal. There, are you happy?!

    Secondly, I'm not Apple bashing, get off your fan wagon. If you were smart enough you would have seen my profile picture is me wearing an Apple Watch. Above my picture it states that I regularly contribute to this forum!

    I also happen to own nearly every Apple product going, including the Apple TV 1st Gen.

    I still believe that Apple have missed a trick here. They simply can't compete on shows, channels and content. Aside from the monthly costs. In two or three years Apple will want to start charging a subscription fee anyway, its the natural progression. But I don't think they will sell enough boxes / provide enough quality content to start demanding monthly fees.
     
  15. Blujelly macrumors 65816

    Blujelly

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2012
    Location:
    South East England
    #15
    As this has been said and I agree you can't compare the two, unless ATV starts to do the same hen yes you can compare, now onto Sky...

    Finally Sky have upgraded its only been like what? 8 years+

    For the same price of Sky (lets face it you wont pay £54 it will be around £70-£80 once you add on extras) I'm getting the same with Virgin minus 4k oh and im getting 200mb compared to Sky's 80.....

    I think for the sake of 4k I'll stick with Virgin

    (Oh and this makes it my 1000th post :))
     
  16. GadgetBen thread starter macrumors 6502a

    GadgetBen

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2015
    Location:
    London
    #16
    (Hypothetically) If Sky bought the rights to the Super Bowl and every NFL game and every baseball, basketball game, ice hockey game on TV, would you pay for it? (Assuming you are a sports fan)

    This is what we are faced with in the UK. All the sports we love, the rights are pretty much owned by Sky.
    --- Post Merged, Feb 8, 2016 ---

    Congrats! Well I'm upgrading today so I'll find out exactly how much it is. As an existing customer, you get a better deal so they say.
     
  17. Blujelly macrumors 65816

    Blujelly

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2012
    Location:
    South East England
    #17
    I used to be a custom of Sky for years, decided to make the switch when we changed house.

    I've just had a quick look and a package that is the same as my Virgin one, its comes in higher and its only 40mb not 80.
    For an extra £12.50 a month its already a high costs, Sky isn't exactly cheap nor do they like to haggle.
     
  18. andrewstirling macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 19, 2015
    #18
    Aren't sky charging £42 a month for one single skyQ box? With an additional monthly fee if you wish to watch in another room. This went from something I was hugely interested in to something I wouldn't touch with a barge pole the second prices were announced. And this is from someone who already hands over £110 a month to the company.
     
  19. GadgetBen, Feb 8, 2016
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2016

    GadgetBen thread starter macrumors 6502a

    GadgetBen

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2015
    Location:
    London
    #19
    Monthly total cost is £100 per month with everything but Sky Movies. Includes a box for another room as well.

    Sky Q Silver.

    I'm an existing customer though with Sky broadband so not sure if that has made it cheaper.


    --- Post Merged, Feb 9, 2016 ---
    Innovation is what Apple do. Just with a few of these it would have been an awesome TV:

    TV Siri will the full potential of the iPhone Siri but with a knowledge of TV shows and movies.
    Handoff to your TV for movies and TV shows from your iPad
    A camera for family selfies, movement detection and FaceTime
    Thinnest and lightest TV on the market
    Push reminders when your favourite shows are starting or new series are out
    Remote record shows from your iPhone to your TV from anywhere in the world

    Where's Apple's innovation in launching just another TV box with apps?!

    My Sony TV has apps! I don't need an extra box for this.
     
  20. Dave Meadows macrumors 68020

    Dave Meadows

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2010
    #20
    I've just ordered SkyQ. My new monthly cost will be £120.24. For this I'll get the whole package, TV, Movies, Sports, Fibre Broadband, Line rental and calls.

    I'm more interested in getting ready for Ultra HD content.
     
  21. mikelj macrumors member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2011
    #21
    The box subscription is tied up with the payment for channel subscription. I can't remember all the details (it's on SKY's site so no point regurgitating), but for the single box, full TV package I'm currently on (no SKY broadband), an extra £12-odd per month will get me the Q Silver box plus one Q Mini (plus live streaming of all TV channels on up to two tablets/PC's) - effectively 12 tuners in all. Personally, I'm happy to pay that and the £50 install fee (you require a new LNB - if that's still the term - and I suppose I'll have a new dish thanks as mine's looking a little weather-beaten), but it's the £99 one-off cost that's a little hard to swollow, since you're renting, not paying, for the equipment.
     
  22. andrewstirling macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 19, 2015
    #22
    Ah no go for me then. I have a communal dish with only two feeds coming into my flat
     
  23. rhett7660 macrumors G4

    rhett7660

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Location:
    Sunny, Southern California
    #23
    This sounds like it would be more along the lines a cable or satellite box subscription. This product is nothing like the ATV.
     
  24. andrewstirling macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 19, 2015
    #24
    Yeah they're definitely different beasts. For me, I love how I can access my entire music collection, iTunes movie collection, watch Netflix as well as listen to soundcloud mixes and podcasts. I have sky as well which I love watching football on and the occasional box set. I don't think I'd like to get rid of either.
     
  25. mikelj macrumors member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2011
    #25
    I think it will work with communal feeds and it employs some kind of stacking technology so up to 12 tuners can be run from the standard twin feeds.
     

Share This Page