On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Ian Santopietro <isan...@gmail.com> 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 <tho...@mashos.com> wrote: >> 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 > > > > -- > 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 -- 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
