On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 7:27 AM, Bruno Girin <brunogi...@gmail.com> 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@lists.launchpad.net > 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@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-tv More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
