NLZiet compensates customers affected by the disruption for a week of free viewing – picture and sound – news

I don’t understand why so many apps have to reinvent the wheel and not just copy the interface with popular apps?

I want to go further, so why do all these services need their own app?

Making a good video player is both difficult and expensive. Developing a good interface can be more difficult, especially if you want to serve the entire market with a single interface. From young children to the elderly. From IT experts to complete laymen. From 3 “phones to 99” televisions. Translate into all world languages ​​and all world texts (eg right to left).
It’s actually impossible to control all of those combinations with a single app. Features that advanced users want quickly make the app too complex for many others, not to mention the price.

All of these applications have the same target audience (“everyone”) and therefore make the same trade-offs and settlements. This way it’s flipping for everyone.

There are broadcasters who also offer an API in which people can write their own applications. That is much better. It would be better if they all use the same API so that you can connect any media player to any streaming player and then at least basic functions work (play, pause, next, volume, playlist, subtitle, …).

As an example, I’d like to point out F1 TV, which has a fairly open API and many people have written their own innovative interfaces that are entirely optimized for one purpose: motorsports and specifically F1 for fans who want more than two preview streaks.

Personally, I use an app that runs in text mode on a Linux server and leaves playback for the mpv that talks directly to the graphics card (without the OS in between) so that hardware decoding can be used without the flexibility of the software launcher.

This isn’t really a typical use case but it works great for me. mpv postprocessing beats the TV box because mpv has a “real” CPU and GPU at its disposal rather than a cheap SOC. As a true specialized app, it also has many more features and features than any other built-in video player or app, such as different ways to handle audio and video synchronization, different standards for subtitles (including crazy Japanese symbols), different algorithms for upgrading and interpolation.

I understand that most consumers don’t wait for that, but that’s the point. “one size fits all” solutions are just as much “one size fits all” solutions. You can have a better software if you can optimize it for target groups and niches. Unfortunately, these groups now only depend on whether you have a subscription to a particular service and a bit on the hardware, but not on how you want to use them. All users of the Service must do so using the same application. If there is a difference, then the groups consist of “all android/apple users” or “all LG customers”. The equipment you use to operate it is probably the least interesting aspect to distinguish.

However, attempts were made to obtain this form approx. Apple TV, for example, is somewhat similar. But this assumes that Apple programmers provide separate support for each connected service and/or that these services adapt to Apple’s wishes. This model only works for adult players. Little kids don’t get in the way. And you still have one player for all audiences.
So we have to flip the model. There is no one standard app for every service for every platform. Only one standard API for streaming services that all apps can use.

[Reactie gewijzigd door CAPSLOCK2000 op 3 april 2022 15:14]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back To Top