4 ms·
A "watch something random" + "skip to next random thing" might actually give us everything broadcasting had to offer with very little efford!
by continuational 9y ago
A "watch something random" + "skip to next random thing" might actually give us everything broadcasting had to offer with very little efford!
- BinaryIdiot 9y agoIt would have to be better than random, though. With "channel surfing" of the old days you would cross channels with themes but obviously Netflix has algorithms that would make this better. The biggest UX issue, IMO, is getting the channel surfing UX perfect. It must not show buffering or loading but an instant change between shows as I flip through. That's so much harder with digital I can't think of the last time I felt something pull off something as good as the analog. But yes this would be a HUGE help with my show selection as well.
- dzhiurgis 9y agoIs it really that difficult? Keep 100mb of cache, perhaps 10 shows, 10mb each, potentially overcompressed, as audio is the key. All starting at interesting place, not at intro.
- virtualized 9y agoApparently, yes. I have never used Netflix, but Amazon cannot even start a video half of the time. I have to reload the page and usually it works.
- dzdt 9y agoA good fraction of netflix use is on underpowered devices attached to tv's. Only the cable company can support channel-surfing on such underpowered set-top-boxes, because only the cable company gets the bandwidth to continually stream a whole lineup of shows independent of who is watching them.
- BinaryIdiot 9y agoI think it's difficult. That 100mb of cache has to be streaming in for X amount of shows / channels at once. If you start flipping through it has to cache your current show + some amount of the shows you're flipping though. It's not always easy to transition an analog UX over to digital and not have it appear slower or worse.