Mass Media & Technology

Virgin Media reveals it's "V6" UHD set top box

(August 2016)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
VM
VMPhil
Wait, so you don't actually have Sky Q? Why are you complaining about something you haven't even used?

I agree with noggin, anyone who's got Sky Q at this point is very much an early adopter and should know about the risks involved (e.g. the price coming down rapidly). Same with anyone who first got Sky Digital or ONdigital at launch.
Stuart, London Lite and bilky asko gave kudos
PI
picard
Who is complaining, its an observation. I have used it, around my mates house, and when I was there, it did not work.

As I said I would expect there to be bugs, but how many bugs are acceptable? If its not usable?

Anyway we are going off topic.
NG
noggin Founding member
Yes I remember HD I was also an early subscriber, I bought a new PSU off Ebay and the Thomson box ok then until I got the 1tb. My 1TB box is six years old and still going strong, never had any issues at all.

Our 1TB is a little newer but has started to lock up a bit more frequently, and increasingly is downscaling 1080i to 576p until it is power-cycled (I'm sensitive to HD resolution, some people might not notice). I think this MAY be connected with the box thinking it doesn't have an HDCP connection as occasionally we get an error message like that (again fixed by a power cycle)

Quote:

Q just really seems to wind people up, as its billed as a premium product. You expect it to work. Lots of people have the hump over it.


Anyone buying something like this within the first 12 months of launch should expect the odd niggle. They haven't rolled out all the functionality yet have they?


I would expect the odd niggle, but Sky sells it with glossy adverts, lots of people will expect it to "just work", that is modern society for you. Q is a lot more complex than HD was when it started, the box etc, sure you know that. One of the problems they have is that the extra box mostly relies on wireless signals unless they use the cable, and wireless is still not reliable enough. Its nearly there. I have run cables anyway for BT so if I ever get Q should be ok. I do ask why BT did not build wireless into its 4k box that came out last year, perhaps that tells us something?


Well the main Sky Q box gets its high quality signal via its LNB feed, not via IP, whereas BT source their content entirely via IP, at high bitrates compared to streaming services, so there is a difference. UHD bitrates will be the most demanding, and the high quality high bitrate stuff on Sky Q will still be coming from an LNB or a harddrive, not directly via IP. I'd expect UHD 2160/50p stuff to be >20Mbs (probably nearer 30Mbs) - so can see why BT use a cable.

The Sky Q Mini boxes DO use IP for their SD and HD Live/Recorded TV services, and like you I'd be concerned if I were relying on WiFi for multiple boxes, particularly as Sky are using the Q Mini boxes as mesh repeaters which increases range, but can drop speeds. However for a single box streaming at most 16Mbs, 5GHz WiFi in a reasonable set-up should be OK. (Thick stone walls not great though...) Sky are supposed to be augmenting with Powerline connections (which BT also use and which should be up to the job - I get >50Mbs sustained through mine using iperf to test) but don't seem to have enabled that yet?

I agree that buggy systems aren't ideal - but I also don't agree that 'rushed' is the right way to describe it. This stuff is complex, early adopters for most systems these days are beta-testers. It's the way of the world. Systems are so complex that it's the only way.

However if your mate's system simply doesn't work - then it will presumably be under warranty. I've got quite a few friends with Sky Q who love it, and who have quite complex set-ups, though I think most of them have cabled network connectivity.
Last edited by noggin on 20 August 2016 2:54pm
UKnews and bilky asko gave kudos
VM
VMPhil
Who is complaining, its an observation. I have used it, around my mates house, and when I was there, it did not work.

Still, basing your opinion on using it once briefly is not exactly fair.
Critique, bilky asko and London Lite gave kudos
PI
picard
That is how consumers work, if you test drive a car and it breaks down, you also hear of others breaking down, you going to buy it?

I also said "it works ok most of the time", to be fair. Very Happy
DO
dosxuk
That is how consumers work, if you test drive a car and it breaks down, you also hear of others breaking down, you going to buy it?

I also said "it works ok most of the time", to be fair. Very Happy


The first versions of the iPhone and Android were terrible, buggy, crashing and lacking in standard features. Doesn't seem to have done them much harm though...
bilky asko and London Lite gave kudos
LL
London Lite Founding member
Even Sky's NOW TV service wasn't great in the early days, using an outdated Roku box. there were regular breakdowns in the service, but as the service has grown along with consumers, they've updated the streaming boxes twice and a loss in service is rare these days.
NW
nwtv2003
Even Sky's NOW TV service wasn't great in the early days, using an outdated Roku box. there were regular breakdowns in the service, but as the service has grown along with consumers, they've updated the streaming boxes twice and a loss in service is rare these days.


Two incidents come to mind, the Manchester derby in 2013, and the season premier of Game of Thrones in 2014, both of which crashed NOW TV on a grand scale. For the derby incident I got five free day passes as means of an apology.

Costly, and lessons learnt.
PI
picard
That is how consumers work, if you test drive a car and it breaks down, you also hear of others breaking down, you going to buy it?

I also said "it works ok most of the time", to be fair. Very Happy


The first versions of the iPhone and Android were terrible, buggy, crashing and lacking in standard features. Doesn't seem to have done them much harm though...


Consumer theory does not work for iPhone fanboys. Wink

Maybe times have changed, in the past businesses have gone near bust over buggy products. If they have an existing base I guess it allows them to get away with more. Only time will tell with Q.

I remember the days of On Digital, most people I knew would not get it because they said the picture kept breaking up, I did have it, and indeed the picture did keep breaking up, Im not sure that was the reason for its failure alone, it had other problems, but you get the idea.
BA
bilky asko
That is how consumers work, if you test drive a car and it breaks down, you also hear of others breaking down, you going to buy it?

I also said "it works ok most of the time", to be fair. Very Happy


It's more akin to the Tesla self-driving cars going wrong. It's cutting edge technology; I wouldn't expect tried and tested stuff to break, but I am going to expect new technology to have bugs.
London Lite and Larry the Loafer gave kudos
NJ
Neil Jones Founding member
Anybody who knows anything at all about technology and software should be aware the one thing you don't do when something new and shiny comes along is jump in head first and then complain later that your head hurts.

And of course there is a major difference between internal testing and "testing" done by the end users. End users have the amazing ability to generate issues, scenarios and setups that nobody ever saw or even thought possible in internal testing.

When Windows 98 was launched and somebody was speaking at a conference at great length about stable it was, they plugged a USB device into the computer and it blue-screened. Even the biggest companies screw up on occasion Smile
VM
VMPhil
I sometimes wonder if that Windows 98 blue screen video - originally a low quality RealVideo from the CNN website - is the most uploaded video on YouTube in terms of the sheer number of duplicates you can find

Newer posts