News - Sky Player brings Sky TV to the Internet

[HEXUS]

Sky's array of channels and on-demand content are now available on a subscribtion basis via its online Sky Player.

Read more.

[Spud1]

Thats pretty cool, i've been waiting for Sky to come out with something like this for a long time now..its the logical extension for them.

This finally means that people living a property unsuitable for Sky can get a subscription with the main channels, and if you have a htpc or similar you can watch all the content on your TV screen

Personally I don't think that the costs are unreasonable either - sky are still having to pay for the content they show, and they will still have to pay for content delivery (not strictly pay cash for transit, but there is a cost involved) to your computer. There is not a huge difference in ongoing cost (I don't think) between airing content to peoples living rooms or to their computers.

One of the big things with this (for me) is if it will work outside of the UK - I would have *loved* this service when i lived abroad for a year, would have been great..

Well done sky anyway

[s_kinton]

I'm going to look into this for my HTPC. Wouldn't mind viewing a sample of the video quality beforehand though...

[llololloy]

Any chance of them doing the HD channels via online, or is that unlikely with the average uk broadband speed and usage allowance.
What bandwidth would be required for say 720p and 5.1 dolby?

[blaunchb]

I'm interested in their choice of "silverlight". I take Major League Baseball every year, last year they used "silverlight" for the single channel feed for the reason Sky quoted, ie better quality. At the same time MLB have a six screen package (called Mosaic) possibly using "flash". The "silverlight" feed was nothing like as good at delivering streaming video, there were many occasions where I could get a good feed from the old player and not from the "silverlight" based player. When I could get both I felt there was no difference in quality, frankly the ability to actually receive a reliable stream was the primary choice for which player I used. I notice that MLB have dropped "silverlight" for next year and are concentrating on "flash" for their player.Brian

[OilSheikh]

Bah!

It's NOT FREE! And it costs the same to subscribe whther you wtahc onlinr or via your TV

[rjpearce]

It sucks.. Despite having a normal Sky subscription you still have to PAY to watch things online.. Rubbish.

[Splash]

It sucks.. Despite having a normal Sky subscription you still have to PAY to watch things online.. Rubbish.

That's not my understanding of how it works - I'm just going to remote into home and test it, but my understaning is that if you have a valid Sky sub you can choose to watch online: this is a boon if you spend time working away from home, living out of hotels and the like.

I'll let you know how I get on in a minute...

[Splash]

Ok, logged into my Sky.com account and just streamed Sky Sports 1 to my PC. It doesn't cost any more than the sub you have.

Obviously if you want to stream channels that you don't subscribe to it's going to cost you more, but did you *really* expect otherwise?

[Parm]

Splash, how did you find the quality in comparison to say BBC iPlayer?

I think Sky Player is a good thing for existing Sky subscribers, but not so much for everyone else. It's a little too expensive as a standalone service, I think.

[Splash]

I was using it over Logmein, so I couldn't tell you from then however I'll check the quality now.

As I said, not something necessarily that I'd pay for as a standalone service, but it certainly adds value to the £50 I splurge a month for when I'm away from home with only a laptop for company.

EDIT - in terms of quality I just watched a minute or so of Sky Sports News and then some BBC news on the iPlayer and I feel they are pretty equal in terms of quality. I really did like the interface for changing channels etc from within the app, rather than having to go to a different webpage to do so.

[Spud1]

I'm interested in their choice of "silverlight". I take Major League Baseball every year, last year they used "silverlight" for the single channel feed for the reason Sky quoted, ie better quality. At the same time MLB have a six screen package (called Mosaic) possibly using "flash". The "silverlight" feed was nothing like as good at delivering streaming video, there were many occasions where I could get a good feed from the old player and not from the "silverlight" based player. When I could get both I felt there was no difference in quality, frankly the ability to actually receive a reliable stream was the primary choice for which player I used. I notice that MLB have dropped "silverlight" for next year and are concentrating on "flash" for their player.Brian

Silverlight is just a technology, and how it is implemented is what matters here - not the technology itself. From a technical point of view, Silverlight as a technology is vastly superior to flash in numerous ways, but if a silverlight application has been written badly, it will perform badly In that respect it is similar to any flash application..poor coding = poor results.

So it's not fair to blame Silverlight for the poor streaming on that particular service, and the same 'issue' should not appear with the sky player..if anything it should be miles better just because of the additional flexibility and toolsets that Silverlight offers.

Anyway, back on topic..I have had a bit of a play now and for us at least, we only have access to the 30 day catch up (similar to iPlayer or 4od) - the live streaming requires a multiroom subscription (figures as its just like buying another sky box really).

One thing that people seem to be missing here is that this is *not* an iPlayer or 4od style service, it is just a different way of viewing TV..so it *should* be the same cost (monthly) for the subscription, and it also makes sense to require you to have a multiroom subscription if you want to use the live service in addition to your "standard" box.

[Parm]

One thing that people seem to be missing here is that this is *not* an iPlayer or 4od style service, it is just a different way of viewing TV..so it *should* be the same cost (monthly) for the subscription, and it also makes sense to require you to have a multiroom subscription if you want to use the live service in addition to your "standard" box.

I feel you get more from the TV service, though. That has the advantage of the free kit (which could be a Sky+ box that provides recording functionality), and a remote control. Usually includes free installation of the dish, too, and that can route Sky around the house and allow for services like Freesat.

Whilst Sky Player gives you the same channels, it doesn't give any of the above so my personal feeling is that it should be a little cheaper. If it came with a free TV Tuner card for new subscribers, then it'd be a better deal.

[Splash]

Whilst Sky Player gives you the same channels, it doesn't give any of the above so my personal feeling is that it should be a little cheaper. If it came with a free TV Tuner card for new subscribers, then it'd be a better deal.

As I said, I think this is a "value added" package for current subscribers that they've decided they can offer to non-subscribers as well. As this kind of package it represents a good deal for current subscribers in my eyes.

[Saracen]

It'll no doubt appeal to some and be good value, and others won't be interested at all. At that level of price, I'm firmly in the latter camp.

[Joe5]

Personally I think this is a good thing. Having the infrastructure for both TV and broadband seems like a waste. They should morph the 2 into one so we don't have to pay TV licenses anymore. Hopefully the prices will drop dramatically as more people adopt the broadband TV.