ubuntu-tv team mailing list archive

[Thomas Mashos <thomas@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Ian Santopietro <isantop@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> I don't doubt that this behaviour is already present in a lot of households> but as technology savvy users, we have to remember that we are by nature> early adopters of tech so what we find simple and intuitive to use (such as> Ubuntu) may be bewildering for others.
> I understand what you mean about early adoption by tech savvy users,
> but I should point out that I'm the only tech savvy user in the
> household, and that I don't really watch very much TV at all. This is
> universal behaviour at my house, and it wasn't influenced by me at
> all.
> Like I said, I expect we're a bit of a corner case, but if this sort
> of behaviour was scarce, I doubt that DVRs themselves would be nearly
> as widespread as they are now, as this is what they're best at.
>
>> In response to "As for interfacing with cable, it wouldn't be very
>> hard to create a simple DVR program and use that for recording from an
>> input feed.", I disagree with this statement. It needs to be done
>> right, and really I think we need to use a solution that already
>> exists. Basic DVR functionality isn't extremely difficult, but it is
>> more than just recording (don't forget about scheduling, show
>> tracking, conflict resolution, space management, etc).
>
> Fair enough. I do agree that reusing an existing solution would be
> better. I probably should have used "implement" instead of "create" as
> it better conveys the general point.
>
> I think, ideally, that Ubuntu TV would be more than a MythTV frontend.
> I agree that MythTV would make an excellent media backend, but we want
> to do more with Ubuntu TV than just media. There could be a portion of
> it that would relay information from a MythTV backend, but we
> shouldn't limit ourselves to what MythTV can do.
>
> I also don't think that we should have a two machine dependency. By
> default, Ubuntu TV should be ready on its own, single piece of
> hardware, since that what is easiest to configure. There could be
> advanced settings for connecting to an external MythTV box, but it
> should not be a requirement.
> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 09:41, Thomas Mashos <thomas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 7:27 AM, Bruno Girin <brunogirin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On 03/01/12 14:50, Ian Santopietro wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't think channels will play a huge bearing on TV in the future.
>>>> Channels simply don't make any sense anymore to anyone except cable
>>>> companies. People will want to subscribe to a TV show and watch only the
>>>> shows they want, rwather than pay for an entire channel and only four or
>>>> five out of all of the shows each channel offers.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I agree with you that TV on demand of that sort is probably the future. But
>>> it needs to be as easy to use as today's live TV, where the simplicity of
>>> switching the box on and then pressing a number on the remote is all you
>>> have to do. This comes back to the original comment made by Thomas Söderberg
>>> about his folks finding MythTV difficult to use compared to a TV. The idea
>>> is to minimise the time and the number of interactions between switching the
>>> device on and being sat in the sofa watching the show you want.
>>>
>>>
>>>> This sort of behaviour is already present. No one in my house watches live
>>>> TV anymore. Instead we have the shows we want to watch set up to record, and
>>>> we watch them after they get recorded. This may be a bit extreme of a case,
>>>> but I'm pretty sure most people with DVR equipment do this at least a little
>>>> bit. It makes more sense for these people to simply purchase the show they
>>>> want, then watch them as new episodes become available, rather than paying
>>>> for an entire channel.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't doubt that this behaviour is already present in a lot of households
>>> but as technology savvy users, we have to remember that we are by nature
>>> early adopters of tech so what we find simple and intuitive to use (such as
>>> Ubuntu) may be bewildering for others.
>>>
>>> Anyway, if supporting live TV is a show stopper in terms of complexity, then
>>> I agree we shouldn't pursue this. But that doesn't preclude thinking hard
>>> about the user interface to make sure that its interaction model is as
>>> simple as the live TV interaction model. For example, one aspect of Unity
>>> that works extremely well and that would make complete sense for a TV is the
>>> use of the numerical key shortcuts (Super+0-9) to launch an application. By
>>> re-using that concept to enable users to quickly select a show when they
>>> first start UbuntuTV can give you a similar interaction model as live TV.
>>>
>>>
>>>> As for interfacing with cable, it wouldn't be very hard to create a simple
>>>> DVR program and use that for recording from an input feed.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Possibly, I can't comment as I don't know what it would involve but my
>>> experience is that each time I hear the phrase "it shouldn't be too hard
>>> to..." in technology, it usually ends up being a major endeavour, which
>>> obviously doesn't prevent me from saying this on a regular basis :-)
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>>
>>> Bruno
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-tv
>>> Post to     : ubuntu-tv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-tv
>>> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>>
>> In response to "As for interfacing with cable, it wouldn't be very
>> hard to create a simple DVR program and use that for recording from an
>> input feed.", I disagree with this statement. It needs to be done
>> right, and really I think we need to use a solution that already
>> exists. Basic DVR functionality isn't extremely difficult, but it is
>> more than just recording (don't forget about scheduling, show
>> tracking, conflict resolution, space management, etc).
>>
>> --
>> Thomas Mashos
>>
>> --
>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-tv
>> Post to     : ubuntu-tv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-tv
>> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
>
>
> --
> Ian Santopietro
>
> Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
> See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
>
> "Eala Earendel enlga beorohtast
>  Ofer middangeard monnum sended"
>
> Pa gur yv y porthaur?
>
> Public GPG key (RSA):
> http://keyserver.ubuntu.com:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x412F52DB1BBF1234

I agree, and I've said all for a long time (not here though) that the
power of MythTV is in the backend, and that the frontend feels dated
in comparison to other alternatives. I also agree that this needs to
be a single box solution. I don't think you will get any good DVR
functionality inside a TV (or a small low power box). Perhaps DVR
functionality should be considered advanced/extra and require the
extra box?

-- 
Thomas Mashos