4 ms·

In-house is the problem. I don't want 200 separate media apps.

k-mcgrady 12y ago
You actually watch 200 TV channels? Also, why would apps be required? If they did this it would probably also work on the web. Take a look at BBC iPlayer/ITV Player/4OD in the UK. On demand and streaming via the web or mobile apps. Works pretty well.
- samelawrence 12y ago
  Sure, but for things like tight integration with set-top boxes / consoles / mobile devices, a thick application would be required (unless every device gets magical, stable browsers with good non-desktop UXs), and if each provider creates their own media streams, you'll have enormous fragmentation of experiences and interfaces, as well as software clutter.
- hawleyal 12y ago
  I don't want BBC iPlayer, ITV player, 40D, Fox Sports player, HBO player, Showtime player, Paramount player, Miramax player, Comedy Central player, AMC player, NBC player, Sony Pictures player, et al. It doesn't matter if they are web apps or other apps. They are separate, and because of this, shitty. Edit: Itunes for music was massively dominant because it has everything. Separate stores for every single music publisher would be ridiculous. The same goes for other media.
  - k-mcgrady 12y ago
    I take your point, I just don't think it's as shitty as you I guess. Obviously one, integrated solution would work best. But with music you only have half a dozen companies to deal with and you just have to sell their stuff. With TV you have hundreds of channels, different production companies, several revenue models, and huge variations in rights across the globe. Look at how long Apple has been supposedly working on a TV and even they can't make it work.
    - hawleyal 12y ago
      There are thousands of record companies inside Itunes.
      - k-mcgrady 12y ago
        There are the 4 majors (and their imprints etc.) and afaik a few groups that negotiate on behalf of the indies.
orbifold 12y ago
In Germany you can watch a lifestream of all the public and some of the private tv stations on their website in HD, more often than not together with some form of interactive chat. They even have a 2 hour time shift function and offer past broadcasts for on demand viewing, subject to some restrictions (After some lobbying by private tv stations the public stations are forced to delete certain content after a some period). You could have watched both the Olympics and the Worldcup at your own convenience that way, for example.
- riffraff 12y ago
  how is that implemented though? In italy basically all tv stations have online broadcasts, and the national TV (RAI) has both streaming and a huge online archive. You could have watched the olympics and FIFA WorldCup in streaming (if you were in the country) but you'd likely have to use youtube, a custom flash player and silverlight :/
  - JetSpiegel 12y ago
    In Portugal all the broadcast TV have internet interfaces somewhere, you can point rtmpdump at their servers and watch TV with VLC. It's not a supported thing, just a backdoor to their own flash plugins.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

You actually watch 200 TV channels? Also, why would apps be required? If they did this it would probably also work on the web. Take a look at BBC iPlayer/ITV Player/4OD in the UK. On demand and streaming via the web or mobile apps. Works pretty well.

samelawrence 12y ago
Sure, but for things like tight integration with set-top boxes / consoles / mobile devices, a thick application would be required (unless every device gets magical, stable browsers with good non-desktop UXs), and if each provider creates their own media streams, you'll have enormous fragmentation of experiences and interfaces, as well as software clutter.
hawleyal 12y ago
I don't want BBC iPlayer, ITV player, 40D, Fox Sports player, HBO player, Showtime player, Paramount player, Miramax player, Comedy Central player, AMC player, NBC player, Sony Pictures player, et al. It doesn't matter if they are web apps or other apps. They are separate, and because of this, shitty. Edit: Itunes for music was massively dominant because it has everything. Separate stores for every single music publisher would be ridiculous. The same goes for other media.
- k-mcgrady 12y ago
  I take your point, I just don't think it's as shitty as you I guess. Obviously one, integrated solution would work best. But with music you only have half a dozen companies to deal with and you just have to sell their stuff. With TV you have hundreds of channels, different production companies, several revenue models, and huge variations in rights across the globe. Look at how long Apple has been supposedly working on a TV and even they can't make it work.
  - hawleyal 12y ago
    There are thousands of record companies inside Itunes.
    - k-mcgrady 12y ago
      There are the 4 majors (and their imprints etc.) and afaik a few groups that negotiate on behalf of the indies.

orbifold 12y ago

In Germany you can watch a lifestream of all the public and some of the private tv stations on their website in HD, more often than not together with some form of interactive chat. They even have a 2 hour time shift function and offer past broadcasts for on demand viewing, subject to some restrictions (After some lobbying by private tv stations the public stations are forced to delete certain content after a some period). You could have watched both the Olympics and the Worldcup at your own convenience that way, for example.

riffraff 12y ago
how is that implemented though? In italy basically all tv stations have online broadcasts, and the national TV (RAI) has both streaming and a huge online archive. You could have watched the olympics and FIFA WorldCup in streaming (if you were in the country) but you'd likely have to use youtube, a custom flash player and silverlight :/
- JetSpiegel 12y ago
  In Portugal all the broadcast TV have internet interfaces somewhere, you can point rtmpdump at their servers and watch TV with VLC. It's not a supported thing, just a backdoor to their own flash plugins.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]