<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 23/08/2012 03:24, Paul Gardiner
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:51bde5d0-3d25-4bbf-9ee1-8db2a5ff6fae@email.android.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Thomas Mashos <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:thomas@mashos.com"><thomas@mashos.com></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">As much flak as I'll get for saying that you should change your
expectations, I still think that the people that use Live TV are
missing out on a better TV experience.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
As far as I understand, the people arguing for the use of Live TV, aren't suggesting using it in preference to recording. I imagine most record almost everything they watch. So they aren't missing out on the "better way". The argument is just that there are on occasion circumstances where the feature is more appropriate than setting up a recording.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Exactly, I find my self watching Live TV when there is only long
shows recorded and I've only got 20/30 minutes to fill.<br>
<br>
I record everything I want to watch and have things going back years
(imported from my old box) that I'm yet to watch, but this doesn't
stop me from wanting to just watch live TV sometimes. If I find
something I like when surfing, I'll set a rule up, and I have rules
like this for several shows, as suggested earlier in this discussion
by the anti-LiveTV fraternity.<br>
<br>
When we got our first PVR (a Topfield Freeview box), our viewing
habits changed within a few weeks. We went from watching most
things live, with some recorded on video to watching hardly anything
live. Most stuff was recorded and this allowed us to watch things
appropriate to the available time. We could also stock up on
something and watch many back to back which was great for series
with long story arcs (stops the questions referring to something
that happened 6 weeks back). So we spend 98%+ of our watching time
on recordings.<br>
<br>
However, what this commercial PVR got right, which Myth doesn't, is
that the content is the heart of the experience. Not LiveTV, not
recordings, but just TV.<br>
<br>
You could setup a recording and watch it live from the recordings
list (as is the recommended method in Myth). However, if you were
channel surfing and stumbled across it (perhaps you'd forgotten it
was on but fancied watching it there and then), you could wind back
to the start of the show without going to the recordings list. It
just used the recording file when you reached this channel when
surfing.<br>
<br>
Does myth do this? No, it insists on creating two recordings of the
same thing, because myth is not looking at providing the user with
the content, myth is just looking at it as two different consumers
that both happen to be receiving the same data.<br>
<br>
Don't get me started with the problem with two recordings on the
same mux using both tuners and stopping LiveTV from receiving any
other mux, or the fact that you have to <i>Manually</i> change
input to use an inactive tuner, or to see channels on the other mux
if two recordings are in progress. My wife asks almost every week
why it won't let her see something on ITV2 when she knows it's
recording ITV1 and BBC1, the Topfield just worked and sorted it out
and she knew she couldn't get to channel 5, etc, but was happy with
the experience.<br>
<br>
A failing hard disk pushed me towards myth from the Topfield, but
the UX from myth is terrible when compared to commercial boxes and
is pushing us away again. There is a learning curve that just wasn't
there with the Topfield, or with any commercial box I've every used
Sky+, Virgin, etc. No visitor has ever got the hang of myth except
one of my geek friends, everyone has understood the Topfield without
anything more than "Here's how you switch it on".<br>
<br>
Please don't misunderstand, I'm not having a go at Myth or at the
Myth developers, you've done exceptionally well to build something
that can replace 98% of a commercial product.<br>
<br>
The fact is that most people who would want to use the software are
not developers, and so are likely to have different usage
patterns/needs <i>because </i>they don't think the same way as a
developer. They're not wrong to think differently and you shouldn't
be trying to tell them what to think (I've tried several times, but
perhaps you can explain to my wife when she wants to watch the
X-Factor live, why she has to go to the recordings list and not
LiveTV, her response? "But it is live now, so why can't I watch it
from LiveTV?").<br>
<br>
As Mike Dean said earlier "The point is make your DVR work for you",
well it does, 98% of the time. The 2% is the difference between a
good piece of software and a great product, and between something
that we 1% of the population that are developers can put up with and
use day to day, and what the other 99% of the population who are
users are prepared to use.<br>
<br>
Myth is like Symbian, very flexible and very configurable, but
difficult to setup and use without a reasonable amount of knowledge
of its idiosyncrasies, when most people just want an iphone because
it just works. <br>
<br>
Sorry for the long rant, no offence was intended.<br>
<br>
Ian.<br>
</body>
</html>