3 ms·
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 Pl
by 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 agoSure, 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 agoI 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 agoI 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.