[HN Gopher] TV: Now What? ___________________________________________________________________ TV: Now What? Author : ingve Score : 54 points Date : 2023-11-18 16:41 UTC (6 hours ago) (HTM) web link (commonsware.com) (TXT) w3m dump (commonsware.com) | jadbox wrote: | This seems likely to me as well. | | > To me, this level of fragmentation, coupled with the nature of | content-centric TV apps, suggests that a server-defined UI | approach might work well. | hammock wrote: | There still has to be some client side interface, an OS, a | browser, thin client, I/O, some layer right? | | Trying to thing of another example where a screen is just a | dumb-as-can-be terminal | CharlesW wrote: | > _Trying to thing of another example where a screen is just | a dumb-as-can-be terminal_ | | CarPlay and Android Auto come to mind. | badrabbit wrote: | The thing is, apps for TVs work relativley well. If I could run | something in an RPI that accepts infrared remote control as an | input device and have run all the drm-y media services, and have | it work reliably with low maintenance, I would much prefer that! | | If Amazon makes their custom Linux OS open source and allow users | to modify and update the fire tv sticks, that would be even | better! | midasuni wrote: | Amazon are double dipping - | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38194818 | | Only consumer equipment company I "trust" are Apple. | petepete wrote: | If your TV supports CEC you'll be able to control your | Raspberry Pi with your TV remote. It works perfectly with | OpenELEC, I suspect other platforms are fine too. | geerlingguy wrote: | Plex, Jellyfin, LibreELEC, Kodi... those are the best solutions | for those wanting to manage their own destiny and TV experience. | | You can run them on practically anything and there are Tiny PCs, | stick-form-factor Raspberry Pi devices (like CM4 TV Stick), and | other silent small boxes you can attach to a TV for a thin client | interface or just a shared media library / TV experience. | | It'd be nice if Amazon, Apple, Netflix, et all had integrations | though, besides wrapping a browser window. | barbazoo wrote: | > Plex, Jellyfin, LibreELEC, Kodi... those are the best | solutions for those wanting to manage their own destiny and TV | experience. | | As long as one produces their own content, right? | buildbot wrote: | Correct me if I am wrong, but hasn't it been found (In the | US) that making a digital copy of a DVD you own totally okay? | MobileVet wrote: | Correct. Personal archival is protected under fair use. [1] | | 1. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/10/28/202 | 1-23... | cmeacham98 wrote: | Correct (as long as you don't distribute it), but not all | content is available on DVDs, and many things come to DVDs | much later than they are available elsewhere. | | That said, there is a _less legal_ solution to those | problems... | slg wrote: | Sure, and the "water pipe" they sell on the boardwalk is | for "tobacco use only". | | Let's be honest, most people use this software to serve up | their library of pirated content. The number of people who | are even still buying physical media is relatively tiny. | That is why retailers like Best Buy are abandoning that | market. The population of people who buy that physical | media and then manually rip it has to be miniscule. | aschla wrote: | Quick side note on Best Buy abandoning selling physical | media, the cashier at Best Buy said they'll probably just | throw the rest of their stock in the trash when they stop | selling them in early 2024. So if anyone is interested in | some free blu-rays and doesn't mind dumpster diving... | elcomet wrote: | Those all have apps for Netflix and others, as well as video | on demand. | dartharva wrote: | what do you think | HumblyTossed wrote: | What exactly are you implying? You think I can't rip a Blue- | Ray or DVD? | mindslight wrote: | No, just pirate. I can kind of understand why people started | giving Netflix money for the convenience, despite that | supporting an industry desperately trying to destroy the | Internet. But now with a thousand and five different | "services", continually squeezing users for more revenue, | digital restrictions management that makes perfectly good | hardware stop working, and ever more surveillance telemetry | in the various apps and devices? Rent an off the shelf | seedbox, or set up your own with a consumer VPN, and don't | think twice. Consider it just another "service" and see if it | wins out in your life. And if down the line you end up | deciding it doesn't work well for you, you still get to keep | access to everything you've obtained! | scarface_74 wrote: | So instead of just paying a few bucks a month I'm going to | go through the trouble of trawling the internet to find a | good torrent and then set up my own Plex server (been those | done that) - alternative I can just open an app and not | think about it. | mindslight wrote: | Judging by the various threads on this topic, the current | streaming reality isn't "a few bucks" and it actually | involves quite a lot of cognitive overhead (exactly when | you just want to be relaxing!). Neither do you have to go | "trawling" for torrents - public trackers/catalogs easily | get you the contemporary zeitgeist and its back catalog. | But sure, keep on enjoying the simulated liberation of | the corporate sandbox. My comment was meant for those on | the fence. | AussieWog93 wrote: | It's funny you mention that. Convenience is exactly why I | switched to piracy earlier this year. | | To watch content legally, I first have to work out who | owns the rights in Australia (it can be different to the | US, and often changes - e.g. last time I watched The | Terminator it was on Netflix but now it's on Amazon | Prime), see if I have that app (I'm not signing up to an | app to watch one film, even if it were free it's not | worth the bullshit), and if not pick a different film and | start the whole process again. It's worse for TV shows, | where season 1 could be exclusive to Netflix but seasons | 2-7 are only on Stan. | | To pirate content, I open the Elementum tab in Kodi, type | in what I want to watch, and 20 seconds later it's | directly streaming from the bittorrent network in | fantastic HD quality. | | Elementum is a plugin for Kodi, works great. | snvzz wrote: | These days you get a much worse service if you pay[0]. | | Can't make that shit up. | | 0. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4GZUCwVRLs | Tajnymag wrote: | This is, unfortunately, a point very much tied to the | region you live in. In my region, even if I pay the same | price as the users from US, not only do I pay much more | in terms of percentage of my income, but I also get just | a fraction of the content available. | | Imagine, I'd want to watch some Doctor Who for example, | there's exactly zero streaming services offering the show | in my country. | adamomada wrote: | For a while now there are services out there (usually on | discord) who will rent you a plex container hooked up to | a ridiculous size media library (I've seen multiple in | the 1.5 PB+ range) with basically everything from every | streaming service , Bluray, or DVD in the original bit | for bit download, just sans-DRM | | This is probably going to catch on more and more - it's | not free, you have to pay, but! - it's $10 a month for | everything like Spotify | BlueTemplar wrote: | Popcorn Time is "just an app" too. | bobsmooth wrote: | I've never understood this idea of good torrents being | hard to find. TPB has been around for a long time. | h2odragon wrote: | Archive.org has vast amounts of video; from public domain | through "that's not supposed to be here." | | There's lots of other sources too. | all2 wrote: | I'm curious now, can you give an example of one of the | 'that's not supposed to be here' things? | h2odragon wrote: | cheerfully! | | Here's 3 examples of movies of Cultural Import * that are | copyrighted and technically, probably shouldn't be there. | But they're unavailable, or hard to find; possibly | outlawed in some places. | | I'm quite grateful to someone for taking the trouble to | find, digitize, and upload these classics, and that | archive.org can host them. | | + I'll leave it to you to figure out what the "cultural | import" is in each case here. As with all Art, it's | certainly debatable. | | https://archive.org/download/rollerblade/rollerblade.mp4 | | https://archive.org/download/flesh- | gordon-1974_20220429/Fles... | | https://archive.org/download/barbarella_202110/Barbarella | .mp... | slothtrop wrote: | Since all of these streaming platforms are available on the | browser, it should be trivial to run this through a pc/pi even | without API support, if a little cumbersome. SHould also run | faster than the ad-ridden software on | Firestick/Chromecast/Apple-tv. | jwells89 wrote: | A PC will work fine for general viewing but might be a | problem for those looking for more advanced features, e.g. | Dolby Vision. | | Apple TV has a few things one may consider "ads", but they're | limited to promotion of Apple's own shows (no third parties) | and can be done away with by simply ignoring the stock TV app | and moving it off the top row of the home screen where it'll | never get highlighted. They haven't bothered me personally, | and my Apple TV 4K working flawlessly since buying it in 2017 | is worth that tiny tradeoff. | foobiekr wrote: | The Jellyfin user experience would be a ton better if the | client app for the iphone/ipad actually took advantage of local | playback instead of relying on transcoding. Random seeks, | rewinds, and especially subtitles timing are all better if the | client is just accessing a file stream. This is especially true | as the codecs change and the on-NAS GPUs fall behind due to the | lifecycle differences. | scarface_74 wrote: | You can't run Plex well on just about anything if you need to | support transcoding | boerseth wrote: | The pendulum swings back to server-side. | ghaff wrote: | The thing is I'm not sure that people in general have a lot of | issue with client-side fragmentation. It's more the content | silos on the server side. But then people didn't like cable | bundles either. | kolanos wrote: | > Roku uses a proprietary language and UI toolkit | | I thought Roku was originally based on Silverlight, but I may be | misremembering. I can't find any source to validate that. | | But Roku still quietly has the biggest market share in this | space. | thakoppno wrote: | Brightscript is the name of their application language. Sounds | similar enough to Silverlight to me. I bet it's just a mix-up. | bitshiffed wrote: | SceneGraph, the XML, UI-layout component of Roku development | is similar to XAML from Silverlight; but BrightScript, the | language, is much closer to a modified VB6 than anything | .NET. | justinator wrote: | I know Netflix was def. Silverlight to begin with due to | supporting DRM. | hotnfresh wrote: | They use a language called BrigthScript that's closest to | Visual Basic. It was originally intended for digital signage. A | few years back they "improved" it with XML crap that you have | to use to describe public methods of your objects(!) and stuff. | It was better before (docs and examples for old and new style | exist). | | Notable quirks include the XML companion files for code | interface descriptions (in the newer SDK, anyway), and single = | doing double-duty as assignment and comparison. | | [edit] oh but my understanding is that big players get a | different SDK with the ability to e.g. use C libraries, which | is how they're able to look & work so much like they do on | other platforms. | sanitycheck wrote: | With sufficient head-scratching and ingenuity it's possible | to use BS to create a UI like the "big players" have. But | yes, they get to do roughly what they want as I understand it | - C and/or HTML/JS. | | Quite annoying when, in this space, the most common | requirement is "make it like Netflix". | sanitycheck wrote: | As someone who's used BS & Silverlight, I would say they are | not alike except very superficially (XML for layout - but | Android also has that). | | I'd have to look quite hard to find a language I like less than | BrightScript, it's horrible. | jmbwell wrote: | The fragmentation is both a flaw and a feature. It means we have | diversity in media vendors, at the cost of a pretty high | cognitive load to just watch something... which app is it on? | What's the account login? Search the device main search, then go | to each app and do its own individual search. All while dodging | ads and autoplay and "what's new" and "for you." | | It sucks for users. But it also sucks for developers, who have to | maintain multiple apps for multiple platforms, even multiple | generations per platform. And this affects users too, when a | version of an app eventually gets dropped because the developer | decides it's too costly to maintain. | | The diversity and competition is good, but there's got to be a | better way. The AppleTV platform makes some effort to bridge the | gaps, but apps have to play along, and many decide to roll their | own instead of using the provided APIs, complaining about the | APIs not letting them do what they want to do the way they want | to do it. To which I say, getting all these apps to do something | in a consistent way is the point. | | But whatever. I'm in no hurry to go back to huge cable bills. We | told the industry to get on board with streaming if they don't | want piracy, and they did, so now here we are. Instead of digging | through BitTorrent and newsgroups, we are juggling apps. | -\\_(deg_o)_/- | Osiris wrote: | "Huge cable bills" - we're already back there. Netflix is $23, | Apple TV just increased to $10c Disney+ is now $14, Hulu is | $20, Max is $16, Paramount is $10, Peacock is $6. | | You can easily spend $100 /mn on streaming services. | ghaff wrote: | Prices have been creeping up (and Netflix is the worst | offender). But, if you can live without live TV and can do | without that _one_ show on such and such a service, it 's | still a pretty good deal relative to the cable TV bundle | especially if you _also_ had one or two premium stations | /streaming services like HBO. | kevin_thibedeau wrote: | $7.99 in 2010 is $11.27 today. The remaining $4.22 delta is | reasonable given that their business model has changed from | purely licensing with zero competition to being locked out | of popular content and forced to produce their own. | ghaff wrote: | Oh, I understand the reasons. It's just one of services | where my monthly payments are yellow to red on my radar. | I keep them but it's on the bubble. | bmy78 wrote: | No one says you have to subscribe to ALL of the streaming | platforms at once. | | If cost is an issue, pick 1 or 2 services, watch the shows | you're interested in, then cancel those and pick 1 or 2. | Rince and repeat. | | You have choice with this approach and you don't need every | service offered. | slovette wrote: | While perhaps a nominal iteration of improvement, cable was | this way too. You didn't have to have the $100 /month | service package. There was always the $30 /mo basic cable | (no guide box). | | The industry simply recycling its business model in new | delivery methods is a valid complaint/perception. | ghaff wrote: | I didn't have a guide box--had a TiVo from pretty early | on--and I was still over $100/month before my HBO monthly | fee. | hatsix wrote: | the last base package I subscribed to was $80 | Eisenstein wrote: | The problem with cable was you couldn't have 'basic cable | + FX' or 'basic + AMC' it was $30 for lame selection of | mostly crap and then $80 - $100 for anything better. | nullindividual wrote: | But! With cable, if you didn't buy the upper tier | packages, you may have missed out on some great | shows/networks (e.g., HBO). And cable companies often use | contracts to make downgrading expensive. With streaming | services, cancelling after you've binge watch the shows | you're interested in comes with no penalty. | lotsofpulp wrote: | Mind boggling that someone can compare the utility to | cost ratio of cable/satellite TV requiring contracts and | installations to on demand libraries of near unlimited | content with instant sign up and cancel abilities on | every device. | | Exact opposite of a "nominal iteration". | Aerbil313 wrote: | The fragmentation is a phase until the industry matures. Take a | look at other industries, like woodworking. They have | established practices which don't change much. | | The software industry has so much potential I don't expect it | to mature for another hundred years. Although some patterns are | emerging, like strong typing and universal cross-platform | runtimes (most notably Web). | scarface_74 wrote: | Yes because cross platform frameworks like Electron and | before that Java Spring were the bees knees | hotnfresh wrote: | > The fragmentation is both a flaw and a feature | | It'd be _purely_ a feature if we banned shared ownership of | distribution and production, like we did with movie studios and | movie theaters for decades. | scarface_74 wrote: | This is monumentally a bad idea. Do you really want to ban | all producers from being able to distribute their own goods | and depend on middlemen? | | Whether you know it or not, since the 1930s things have | changed, TVs are popular, there is this thing called the | internet and websites. | | Do you also want to ban software developers and song writers | from being able to publish their own work on websites? | Eisenstein wrote: | > Do you really want to ban all producers from being able | to distribute their own goods and depend on middlemen? | | Yes. | | > Whether you know it or not, since the 1930s things have | changed, TVs are popular, there is this thing called the | internet and websites. | | So? | | > Do you also want to ban software developers and song | writers from being able to publish their own work on | websites? | | Maybe. It doesn't appear to be a problem yet, but if it is | then let's pursue that option. | scarface_74 wrote: | You agree with the fact that iOS developers must go | through the App Store? Would you want it to be illegal | for you to distribute any content you produce and for you | to have to go through a middle man? | | Does that also mean if that I wanted to create my own | Indy movie I couldn't sell it on my own website? | | How does it help the consumer for all content to have to | go through a middle man where they get a cut? | | And it matters because the law was there in the thirties | when the only way to get movie content out was via the | movie theaters. Now anyone can publish content | bawolff wrote: | > You agree with the fact that iOS developers must go | through the App Store? Would you want it to be illegal | for you to distribute any content you produce and for you | to have to go through a middle man? | | I mean, honestly, having app stores be separate from the | phone maker sounds like a great idea. The monopoly that | apple has on the app store is harmful to both producers | and consumers of apps. | | > Would you want it to be illegal for you to distribute | any content | | Isn't this already effectively the case in the phobe | market? Not illegal per se, but practically speaking | impossible. | scarface_74 wrote: | That's not what you're saying. You're saying that a | content producer should never be allowed to distribute on | their own site and that you as a software developer, | author, music producer, etc should not be allowed to | distribute your own work. | hotnfresh wrote: | It would be better for consumers if productions were | available through more outlets rather than fewer, so yes. | scarface_74 wrote: | You didn't answer the question , are you really saying | that it should be illegal for any content producer to | distribute their own content on their own website? | | I'm assuming you would apply those same standards to | software developers, writers, song writers and any video | content? | StableAlkyne wrote: | I wonder if anyone is saving statistics on torrent traffic. It | was huge in the 00s, then dropped as streaming became a thing. | | Now that the companies are back to rent-chasing (it's abhorrent | that some of them still show ads even when you pay), it would | be interesting to see what the numbers look like. Could be cool | to compare to music, because Spotify and Pandora have been | relatively not scummy. | 01100011 wrote: | I'd love to see the feds step in and force content providers to | make their content available to anyone willing to make a | compliant (sorry, DRM likely required)frontend. I should be | able to buy content from, say, Paramount using Hulu and not be | forced to use Paramount's app. | jncfhnb wrote: | The answer is streaming sites like SFlix | gavinray wrote: | Server-driven UI is a thing that's been gaining traction in | recent years. | | To my knowledge, at least a few FAANG companies have adopted this | for the reasons mentioned in the article (AirBnB, Lyft, Expedia) | | https://github.com/csmets/Server-Driven-UI | | There are a few frameworks that cater to this -- most of them are | variations on an API that returns JSON describing view components | and state/actions. | | For instance, DivKit: | | - https://github.com/divkit/divkit | | - https://divkit.tech/playground | | It's a decent idea IMO, though I have no personal experience with | it. I guess time will tell whether it catches on at-large though. | madeofpalk wrote: | This is hardly new in TV-land. | | The second generation Apple TV's app runtime was all server- | driven XML. TVMLKit is the "modern" replacement for this style | of Apple TV app (mostly to make it easier to port I guess) | https://developer.apple.com/documentation/tvmlkit | | Archived example | https://web.archive.org/web/20170813035144/http://trailers.a... | | TV's "native" platforms are also similar, or just straight up | HTML/CSS/JS. | russellbeattie wrote: | I decompiled Apple TV's Android app when it first launched, | and was surprised by how well made it was. Rather than rely | on a WebView to parse markup and display a GUI as most other | major media apps do, it integrated NodeJS for scripting, a | native XML parsing library, and then drew the entire UI | directly to the display as if it was a full screen video | game. This allowed it to have smooth, consistent animations | on hardware which choked on Chromium's bloated resource | needs. It also let Apple have a cross platform UX without | needing to rely on any of Android's native UI controls. | | I was pretty astounded by its elegance, simplicity and power. | Apple was able to build off the work they had already done | for Apple TV and the end result was a compact and relatively | straightforward application. I bet it's even easier to | maintain than apps which use standard Android dev tools and | libraries. | ctoth wrote: | Please consider accessibility while you're building this. The | number of TV apps which don't use the Accessibility APIs is | probably worse than on any other platform. Apple TV (as usual) is | the best, but still has issues. | yaur wrote: | A bunch of smart tvs already use react native so from the | perspective of a developer that already has to support everything | we don't expect this to require a ton of work. | | About 2/3 of our users are on some version of Android (which | excludes fire tv) so will still be our most relevant target | platform. | epaulson wrote: | The article is about what UI toolkits are used to build content | apps for TVs and TV devices like FireTV/Apple TV, but I wish for | a world where using those apps weren't my only options. | | It'd be nice if TVs and streaming service apps were better | participants in the open-protocol smart home. I'd like it to be | possible to call an API on my TV from say Home Assistant to tell | my TV to turn on, switch to Netflix, and play the next episode of | a show - though honestly I'd settle for just control over linear | TV channels and to be able to say 'switch to channel 55' at an | API level and have it work cross-vendor without having to use | their native app. Maybe you can do this with CEC and stick a | little raspberry PI and stick it into the TV with HDMI, but the | CEC content controls seem very limited. | | Apple's got some kind of a start for this since they've got a way | to feed data into Siri and their internal guide, including | telling the AppleTV device what's currently playing and what | should be considered 'up next' but they're all private APIs, I | think, and only work if the content providers sign deals with | Apple directly. | | Maybe a future version of the Matter standard will incorporate | media playback, right now I think it's just changing volume and | pausing whatever's playing on a speaker, and so a long way from | being able to control what the actual content being played is. | BlueTemplar wrote: | I would guess that you can do a LOT with VLC and a little bit | of scripting ? | jwells89 wrote: | A standardized approach would also let you use the OS' standard | video player widget which is practically always and upgrade | from whatever needlessly custom-rolled players streaming apps | tend to use. In fact the entire reason I subscribe to some | services via Apple TV channels rather than directly is so I can | watch their content on the standard tvOS player and skip the | official apps. | analog31 wrote: | Granted, we're kind of Luddites, but my wife and I were going | home from a social gathering, where some people were talking | about the latest TV shows. My wife said to me: "I was embarrassed | to admit it, but I don't know how to watch TV any more." | pmontra wrote: | What if we ban subscriptions and have to pay per view? Of course | that would be great for me because I watch one episode of one or | two TV series per week when there is something I like to watch | and then nothing for months. It would be probably bad for people | that like to watch something every day, unless prices are | substantially low or there are volume discounts. But a volume | discount is more or less the definition of a subscription. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-11-18 23:00 UTC)