5 ms·

I can't believe that people buy integrated media players with their TVs. They are usually multiple hundreds of dollars on top of the base TV model price, have

by tmuir 12y ago

I can't believe that people buy integrated media players with their TVs. They are usually multiple hundreds of dollars on top of the base TV model price, have terrible interfaces, and are crippleware, using apps with very few services. I suppose the economics aren't as straightforward, but I'm of the opinion that Chromecast, Roku, AppleTV, etc are the next layer of crippleware. A small form factor Windows box or a Mac Mini are superior to every set top media player on the market in every category but price. I've never seen a better interface on a media appliance. A wireless mouse always trumps a remote. But most importantly, you don't need the manufacturer to strike deals with Netflix/HBO/Hulu, you just need a web browser. The best interfaces for all of those services are the full websites. Not to mention all of the other features you get with a full blown computer.

jamesaguilar 12y ago
> every category but price Don't forget convenience. That is not a little thing.
balls187 12y ago
> I can't believe that people buy integrated media players with their TVs. They are usually multiple hundreds of dollars on top of the base TV model price, have terrible interfaces, and are crippleware, using apps with very few services. While I agree that the "media" capabilities of so-called smart tv's suck, it isn't necessarily a conscious decision of the purchaser. TV's typically fall into various tiers: Basic Advanced Premium The Media/App capabilities are usually bundled into the higher tiers, along with other feature upgrades (including size). Eventually as manufacturers find new things to charge money for, what were premium features become standard features on all sets.
atmosx 12y ago
Sorry but that comparison is flawed. You are comparing 35$ Chromecast to a 499$ mac mini. I can buy 3 Chromecasts, 1 for every TV in my house and still spare 400$...
enobrev 12y ago
> you don't need the manufacturer to strike deals with Netflix/HBO/Hulu, you just need a web browser. In theory, the same could be said for Chromecast, since the casting server isn't something that Google sets up, but rather a feature the media company adds to their own app / service (which is relatively easy to do). For all intents and purposes, it's an app-driven web browser for your TV with the ability to stream video. Personally, I'm a huge fan of using the actual netflix app to stream things to my television - same goes for youtube, pandora, class6ix, plex, and all the other apps I use to cast to my TVs and Stereos around the apt every day. I don't miss the wireless keyboard / mouse in the slightest.
SixSigma 12y ago
Manufacturers are adding these "features" to differentiate themselves in a marketwhere a dumb TV has lots of competition. The value is questionable but the user only really founds out when it's too late but they already got the actual tv part they wanted so they are not too disappointed.
gambiting 12y ago
My 50" Sony TV uses 35W of power. Adding a Mac Mini or a Windows Box would at least double that value. And no, PC connected to the TV is not superior, unless you have a mouse and a keyboard attached to it - which is already a subpar experience to using a TV remote/Smartphone. And I far prefer the Netflix interface on my TV to their web interface.
dec0dedab0de 12y ago
you don't need the manufacturer to strike deals with Netflix/HBO/Hulu, you just need a web browser I wish that were true, but silverlight does not work so well outside of windows and mac.
- johnny22 12y ago
  silverlight isn't required for netflix if you use a recent chrome browser on linux.
freehunter 12y ago
>A wireless mouse always trumps a remote. Absolutely not. I do not want a mouse being used at my couch. I do not want my movie interrupted with Windows Update. I do not want to fiddle with XBMC or some other hacked together, unintegrated system. I subscribe to the Unix philosophy when it comes to my home entertainment. I have a stereo that only plays audio. I have a TV that only plays video. I have a set-top box that only streams content. I have a DVD player than only plays discs. The last thing I need is a computer sitting in my living room making demands of me that are not related to the function I need it for. I can read ebooks on my phone or desktop, but a Kindle, as a dedicated device, is much better suited to that purpose. That's why I have a Roku. There will never be a mousepad on the arm of my couch.
- tmuir 12y ago
  Perhaps Windows would be a problem, but I've been using a Mac Mini in this fashion for 3 years now, and have never once been interrupted by OSX. Would you at least concede that everything else being equal, there is no faster input to start media than with a mouse? Every TV/Set Top remote interface I've ever used requires at least 3x the steps of the equivalent with a mouse, because you have a D-Pad. Maybe DVD players are even, but any menu based system is crippled by design, because you cant scroll or point.
  - freehunter 12y ago
    But I don't want to point. That's far too interactive for any media player design. Even PC-based things like Winamp, iTunes, or Windows Media player, it's just a list or at best, a grid. I don't need to have more than eight directions of movement, and just four is sufficient. If I'm going through a list with a mouse cursor, there's a chance I can move the cursor off that list, necessitating that I have to then move the cursor back to the list before making my selection. That's just poor UX. A mouse is completely unnecessary when you just have a grid or a list, a directional pad is more than sufficient. You can scroll just by going to the bottom of the list and continuing to go past that, which is how all menus work. It's not about how many steps it takes with a remote vs a mouse, it's about the UX of that specific UI. I don't want a desk in front of my couch. That's what remotes solve. I have a computer in my office and a media player in my living room, and I don't want to trade that for anything. Can media player UIs be improved? Yep. With a mouse? Not in my opinion.
mikeash 12y ago
My Apple TV is basically just an AirPlay receiver. My "workflow" is: navigate to video I want to watch on my iPad or iPhone. Select Apple TV as the output. Press play. Watch. No remote control is going to come close to that sort of convenience. A wireless mouse certainly doesn't qualify.
squeaky-clean 12y ago
>I can't believe that people buy integrated media players with their TVs. They are usually multiple hundreds of dollars on top of the base TV model price, have terrible interfaces, and are crippleware, using apps with very few services Most of these devices are priced at less than $50. Chromecast, Amazon Fire TV Stick, a Roku. I don't know where you're finding multiple hundred dollar devices. > A small form factor Windows box or a Mac Mini are superior to every set top media player on the market in every category but price My Roku is cheaper, quieter, uses less power, uses a real remote, doesn't require any installation or maintenance aside from initially inputting my username/passwords. I can search Netflix/Amazon/Hulu from one search bar on my home screen. I don't see any advantages a full PC has other than "it does things unrelated to TV", which I just don't care about. I don't want to write emails or check Facebook from my TV. >The best interfaces for all of those services are the full websites. For using them on a computer, maybe. But interfaces need to be different for different devices. What works on a 14" laptop or 24" monitor does not work well on a 60" TV. For example, Steam's Big Picture mode vs the desktop mode for gaming.
- tmuir 12y ago
  I mean that the integrated media players in the TVs themselves add $300 to the price of the TV.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> I suppose the economics aren't as straightforward, but I'm of the opinion that Chromecast, Roku, AppleTV, etc are the next layer of crippleware. A small form factor Windows box or a Mac Mini are superior to every set top media player on the market in every category but price. Price is a pretty big deal. The SFF Windows box or Mac Mini, however, are inferior to Chromecast in a number of other ways, however: size, power consumption, setup effort, etc. > A wireless mouse always trumps a remote. A wireless mouse requires a surface. A remote doesn't. Nor does my phone (the main control I use with a Chromecast). So, no, I don't think a wireless mouse always trumps a remote, particularly for typical living room media control use. > The best interfaces for all of those services are the full websites. I've used Netflix on a number of devices, including using the full website. IMO, the full website certainly has the most appropriate UI for desktop/laptop use, but equally certainly is not the best UI for typical living room use. > Not to mention all of the other features you get with a full blown computer. Sure, a full blown computer is great, but tying it up as an STB isn't a particularly efficient use of resources given most people's STB use cases. Especially when with many much cheaper set-top devices you can get much of the effect of having the full-blown computer that you use connected to the TV without having it dedicated to that purpose as an STB.
nathan_long 12y ago
>> I can't believe that people buy integrated media players with their TVs. Seems like the old way of "buy a TV, buy a VCR, plug them together" was much better. It's like software: use components so that each can be the best of breed and can be updated independently.

by tmuir 12y ago

jamesaguilar 12y ago

> every category but price Don't forget convenience. That is not a little thing.

balls187 12y ago

> I can't believe that people buy integrated media players with their TVs. They are usually multiple hundreds of dollars on top of the base TV model price, have terrible interfaces, and are crippleware, using apps with very few services. While I agree that the "media" capabilities of so-called smart tv's suck, it isn't necessarily a conscious decision of the purchaser. TV's typically fall into various tiers: Basic Advanced Premium The Media/App capabilities are usually bundled into the higher tiers, along with other feature upgrades (including size). Eventually as manufacturers find new things to charge money for, what were premium features become standard features on all sets.

atmosx 12y ago

Sorry but that comparison is flawed. You are comparing 35$ Chromecast to a 499$ mac mini. I can buy 3 Chromecasts, 1 for every TV in my house and still spare 400$...

enobrev 12y ago

> you don't need the manufacturer to strike deals with Netflix/HBO/Hulu, you just need a web browser. In theory, the same could be said for Chromecast, since the casting server isn't something that Google sets up, but rather a feature the media company adds to their own app / service (which is relatively easy to do). For all intents and purposes, it's an app-driven web browser for your TV with the ability to stream video. Personally, I'm a huge fan of using the actual netflix app to stream things to my television - same goes for youtube, pandora, class6ix, plex, and all the other apps I use to cast to my TVs and Stereos around the apt every day. I don't miss the wireless keyboard / mouse in the slightest.

SixSigma 12y ago

Manufacturers are adding these "features" to differentiate themselves in a marketwhere a dumb TV has lots of competition. The value is questionable but the user only really founds out when it's too late but they already got the actual tv part they wanted so they are not too disappointed.

gambiting 12y ago

My 50" Sony TV uses 35W of power. Adding a Mac Mini or a Windows Box would at least double that value. And no, PC connected to the TV is not superior, unless you have a mouse and a keyboard attached to it - which is already a subpar experience to using a TV remote/Smartphone. And I far prefer the Netflix interface on my TV to their web interface.

dec0dedab0de 12y ago

you don't need the manufacturer to strike deals with Netflix/HBO/Hulu, you just need a web browser I wish that were true, but silverlight does not work so well outside of windows and mac.

johnny22 12y ago
silverlight isn't required for netflix if you use a recent chrome browser on linux.

freehunter 12y ago

>A wireless mouse always trumps a remote. Absolutely not. I do not want a mouse being used at my couch. I do not want my movie interrupted with Windows Update. I do not want to fiddle with XBMC or some other hacked together, unintegrated system. I subscribe to the Unix philosophy when it comes to my home entertainment. I have a stereo that only plays audio. I have a TV that only plays video. I have a set-top box that only streams content. I have a DVD player than only plays discs. The last thing I need is a computer sitting in my living room making demands of me that are not related to the function I need it for. I can read ebooks on my phone or desktop, but a Kindle, as a dedicated device, is much better suited to that purpose. That's why I have a Roku. There will never be a mousepad on the arm of my couch.

tmuir 12y ago
Perhaps Windows would be a problem, but I've been using a Mac Mini in this fashion for 3 years now, and have never once been interrupted by OSX. Would you at least concede that everything else being equal, there is no faster input to start media than with a mouse? Every TV/Set Top remote interface I've ever used requires at least 3x the steps of the equivalent with a mouse, because you have a D-Pad. Maybe DVD players are even, but any menu based system is crippled by design, because you cant scroll or point.
- freehunter 12y ago
  But I don't want to point. That's far too interactive for any media player design. Even PC-based things like Winamp, iTunes, or Windows Media player, it's just a list or at best, a grid. I don't need to have more than eight directions of movement, and just four is sufficient. If I'm going through a list with a mouse cursor, there's a chance I can move the cursor off that list, necessitating that I have to then move the cursor back to the list before making my selection. That's just poor UX. A mouse is completely unnecessary when you just have a grid or a list, a directional pad is more than sufficient. You can scroll just by going to the bottom of the list and continuing to go past that, which is how all menus work. It's not about how many steps it takes with a remote vs a mouse, it's about the UX of that specific UI. I don't want a desk in front of my couch. That's what remotes solve. I have a computer in my office and a media player in my living room, and I don't want to trade that for anything. Can media player UIs be improved? Yep. With a mouse? Not in my opinion.

mikeash 12y ago

My Apple TV is basically just an AirPlay receiver. My "workflow" is: navigate to video I want to watch on my iPad or iPhone. Select Apple TV as the output. Press play. Watch. No remote control is going to come close to that sort of convenience. A wireless mouse certainly doesn't qualify.

squeaky-clean 12y ago

>I can't believe that people buy integrated media players with their TVs. They are usually multiple hundreds of dollars on top of the base TV model price, have terrible interfaces, and are crippleware, using apps with very few services Most of these devices are priced at less than $50. Chromecast, Amazon Fire TV Stick, a Roku. I don't know where you're finding multiple hundred dollar devices. > A small form factor Windows box or a Mac Mini are superior to every set top media player on the market in every category but price My Roku is cheaper, quieter, uses less power, uses a real remote, doesn't require any installation or maintenance aside from initially inputting my username/passwords. I can search Netflix/Amazon/Hulu from one search bar on my home screen. I don't see any advantages a full PC has other than "it does things unrelated to TV", which I just don't care about. I don't want to write emails or check Facebook from my TV. >The best interfaces for all of those services are the full websites. For using them on a computer, maybe. But interfaces need to be different for different devices. What works on a 14" laptop or 24" monitor does not work well on a 60" TV. For example, Steam's Big Picture mode vs the desktop mode for gaming.

tmuir 12y ago
I mean that the integrated media players in the TVs themselves add $300 to the price of the TV.

dragonwriter 12y ago

> I suppose the economics aren't as straightforward, but I'm of the opinion that Chromecast, Roku, AppleTV, etc are the next layer of crippleware. A small form factor Windows box or a Mac Mini are superior to every set top media player on the market in every category but price. Price is a pretty big deal. The SFF Windows box or Mac Mini, however, are inferior to Chromecast in a number of other ways, however: size, power consumption, setup effort, etc. > A wireless mouse always trumps a remote. A wireless mouse requires a surface. A remote doesn't. Nor does my phone (the main control I use with a Chromecast). So, no, I don't think a wireless mouse always trumps a remote, particularly for typical living room media control use. > The best interfaces for all of those services are the full websites. I've used Netflix on a number of devices, including using the full website. IMO, the full website certainly has the most appropriate UI for desktop/laptop use, but equally certainly is not the best UI for typical living room use. > Not to mention all of the other features you get with a full blown computer. Sure, a full blown computer is great, but tying it up as an STB isn't a particularly efficient use of resources given most people's STB use cases. Especially when with many much cheaper set-top devices you can get much of the effect of having the full-blown computer that you use connected to the TV without having it dedicated to that purpose as an STB.

nathan_long 12y ago

>> I can't believe that people buy integrated media players with their TVs. Seems like the old way of "buy a TV, buy a VCR, plug them together" was much better. It's like software: use components so that each can be the best of breed and can be updated independently.