All the streaming boxes suck now

[zaphod]

Article on The Verge.  It rings very true to me, everyone is putting a wall up around their own content and not designing what is in the end users best interest.

Quote

But the perfect streaming box doesn’t exist. Who’s to blame for that? Everybody. But it starts with the streaming services themselves. For a streaming box to truly serve its cable-box purpose, it would need to index and access all the content available on every service, so users could search and organize as they like. But by and large, streaming services have decided it’s in their best interest to adopt a smartphone-style app model, making the app more important than the content — you don’t say, “I want to watch MythBusters” anymore, so much as you open up the Netflix app and see what it shows you. 
 

Many services thus withhold their data from aggregators and search engines, and so while many companies have tried to build a universal search system, nobody’s gotten even close. (Even the most successful ones are mostly manually created, which is why you might get four near-identical results for the same movie search.) Our TV viewing is stuck in an old-internet paradigm, where you have to navigate through an endless series of aggregators and folders to find what you’re looking for.

https://www.theverge.com/23621907/streaming-tv-boxes-roku-amazon-google-apple-nvidia

[SMHarman]

Roku does search as well as anyone can considering the data. 

 

Not sure why a streamer would want to restrict that data it prevents eyeballs getting to them. 

 

Roku integrates with CA nicely as well. 

[therockhr]

24 minutes ago, zaphod said:

Article on The Verge.  It rings very true to me, everyone is putting a wall up around their own content and not designing what is in the end users best interest.

https://www.theverge.com/23621907/streaming-tv-boxes-roku-amazon-google-apple-nvidia

I have to disagree somewhat. It has never been easier to find old quality content through streaming. I basically dont watch anything made before 2016 now (kidding, sort of). 

What I think needs to be figured out is there is not a need for both broadcast TV and cable/satellite TV. 

[Cyknight]

LOL 'I hate to be a downer' then proceeds to go on a true downer rant.

 

That said I don't completely disagree with the article, except that it's a lot more negative than it really needs to be. FireTV is the worst, Roku or Abble are the better interfaces, Shield is the best video quality. Don't bother with Google's own at all. Basically sums it up. That said, I don't truly AGREE that streaming boxes are the problem. He himself mentions that the the biggest culprit are streaming SERVICES. This is no different than saying cable boxes suck, when it's the channels (And the overkill of channels) on cable boxes is what sucked. What suck is having to have a million channels, and pay for them (usually in large packages of 10 you dont want for every 1 you want), to watch the things you want to watch. Sound familiar yet?

Everybody loved to hate cable. Then came Tivo and from there 'true' media streaming boxes. Then they turned into cable boxes (at least in that they had the same issues). Because they make money. Surprise!

I'd say arguably, and oh so ironically, that the main exception to devices getting bogged down and making it impossible to find things but are actually getting better are....cable boxes.

 

[ecschnei]

I feel like Plex is trying to accomplish what you're talking about. If you search in Plex it will show you all streaming services to watch that show on but it doesn't aggregate all guides from all sources... Yet. 

[Cyknight]

27 minutes ago, SMHarman said:

Not sure why a streamer would want to restrict that data it prevents eyeballs getting to them

The bigger ones want you to not think about what's out there, but only what's on THEM. So if Netflix isnt searchable - they assume (and not without reason, at least for now) that the VAST majority of people will then just open the netflix app - and stay there. And no nothing against netflix as such - it's no different for the others.

[Cyknight]

1 minute ago, ecschnei said:

I feel like Plex is trying to accomplish what you're talking about. If you search in Plex it will show you all streaming services to watch that show on but it doesn't aggregate all guides from all sources... Yet. 

Problem is, as long as the stream providers prevent the data from being hashed completely, no on will be able to do it (automatically)

[ecschnei]

1 minute ago, Cyknight said:

Problem is, as long as the stream providers prevent the data from being hashed completely, no on will be able to do it (automatically)

I believe they are working on backend deals with services to get the data and selling companies like Netflix on more exposure for their content. 

[ecschnei]

https://www.plex.tv/

Here it talks about universal search. 

[zaphod]

58 minutes ago, Cyknight said:

The bigger ones want you to not think about what's out there, but only what's on THEM. So if Netflix isnt searchable - they assume (and not without reason, at least for now) that the VAST majority of people will then just open the netflix app - and stay there. And no nothing against netflix as such - it's no different for the others.

This is really the point - they want you in their UI as much as possible.

Think of how much better music streaming is vs video streaming.  With music you can get almost all of the music you would ever desire from one service for one monthly fee.  You can search in one app/UI and put together playlists to your heart's content.

In the streaming video world everything is a walled garden, and some of the most desired content, such as live sports, is still only on cable.  Or the sports leagues streaming apps don't let you watch your own team as they want to protect their local TV revenue.

[Cyknight]

7 hours ago, ecschnei said:

I believe they are working on backend deals with services to get the data and selling companies like Netflix on more exposure for their content. 

All due respect: with an estimated 13 million worldwide Plex has a smaller active userbase than there are C4 systems active out there: even Roku dwarfs them (and they have a similar universal search, and have had it for ages for that matter).

I'd love for them to prove me wrong: but I sincerely doubt Disney+, Amazon and Netflix are changing policies because Plex asks nicely

[ecschnei]

I thought everybody shared in corporate America

[ekohn00]

14 hours ago, ecschnei said:

https://www.plex.tv/

Here it talks about universal search. 

I've played with this feature on Plex. Unfortunately its more of just a tv guide, I have no way to click on a show it found and watch.

The closest thing I've found has been apple's TV app. Especially if you note shows you watch on a regular base. The TV app will show new show, and you can click to watch (it then bring up the show in the corresponding streaming app directly (ie paramount+).  the downfall is not all streaming services are working with Apple.

[RAV]

Don't blame the box, blame the streaming services.

Roku's had global search for a while  and is adding Currently Watching bookmarks (only a couple services supporting) in the soon to be release.
Services don't want you anywhere but within their 'app'. Anything to keep you paying.

[therockhr]

5 minutes ago, RAV said:

Don't blame the box, blame the streaming services.

Roku's had global search for a while  and is adding Currently Watching bookmarks (only a couple services supporting) in the soon to be release.
Services don't want you anywhere but within their 'app'. Anything to keep you paying.

I think the issue is that Roku wants to take a cut of advertising revenue or wants these streaming services to advertise within the Roku ecosystem. I cant remember exactly what it was but I know the issue isnt just that the services want you in their app. 

[eggzlot]

18 hours ago, Cyknight said:

.What suck is having to have a million channels, and pay for them (usually in large packages of 10 you dont want for every 1 you want), to watch the things you want to watch. Sound familiar yet?

 

If you are paying $22/month for Netflix I bet you don't watch 90% or more of the content.  Same with a million cable channels and only watching 10. 

Get 5 apps and all the sudden you are paying n ear $100/month in subscription fees, then add in your ISP fees and are you any better off then when you had 300 cable channels?  The content on the these streaming apps would have made it to HBO, Showtime, etc like Sopranos, or Sex in the City, etc.  So for those who say well what I watch is on Netflix or Hulu, I guess I assume if the content was good, it would have found a home on cable too.

for years my brother in law ranted, wanted to get rid of cable, was the first I knew to cut the cord because he wanted to save money.  Now he agrees, he is paying more per month for all the apps versus his old cable bill (and not paying more because of inflation, just because he needs all these apps to get what he wants).

[Cyknight]

26 minutes ago, eggzlot said:

If you are ...

And that's exactly my point, and exactly what I always assumed would happen. It's funny - I have a good friend that was all over the Netflix model much like your brother in law. He told me a few weeks ago: "you were right, it's all just become cable in a new wrapper"

That said, I also don't think the (most likely) alternative that will give us access to everything easily found is all that good either: that the new company WOATC (pronounced watch, means we own all the content) has a singular service, a singular app (and eventually a single device to play it from that you can only get from them, at a large premium) that indeed has everything. Sure, you can search it all in that one app and find it....but they'll charge you 900 a month - because they can and there is no alternative - and the new content is pure garbage because why bother spending on anything if everyone's locked in.

The only other true alternative I see is is that we get NOAOTC (pronounce it notch, no-one owns any of the content) where we can all find the content at are heart's desire on any device - but the content still mostly suck, and everything is paid for via advertisement - so a 60 minute show is actually only 10 minutes of content, 30 minutes of product placement and 20 minutes of ads. And forget skipping ads after about a year or two.

As long as there are competing platforms (which is important) and competing content creators (also important) they will by default do whatever they can to get you 'locked' in to them (because it's the only way they'll be able to keep existing). Content quality doesn't cut it. Wish it did: but be honest to yourself and look around, quality doesn't count at all.

Note that I have no answers nor claim to know a better way. I'm just saying that I'm not surprised at all. Cynical? Probably.

[therockhr]

I remember people would always say "I hate paying for 300 channels when I really only watch about 10". I would always say you are really only paying for those 10 channels, the rest they just give you for free. People who werent into sports though always kind of got screwed because those channels were the bulk of the cost of cable.

The model is definitely a mess right now. Stuff is scattered everywhere but there is more content (some better some worse) than ever. In the sports world you can watch basically any college team (even lots of high school teams) on ESPN+ or other streaming apps. This was unheard of before the early 10s.

Where I think the cable and internet companies could actually benefit customers is they become the sign in service for the apps. You could go through Spectrum and choose which streaming services you want and then if you have spectrum internet it automatically logs you into that application when you select it through AppleTV or Roku. Youtube, Apple and Amazon kind of do this now with through Channels service.

Is this ever going to be cheaper or more cost effective? Of course not. Those companies arent going to give up that revenue they worked decades for. 

[R_Willis]

I hate how when browsing I think its Peacock and maybe Paramount with my Roku box it starts to stream an intro/trailer for every damn show you highlight. Havent been able to find a way to turn that off. Makes it almost unusable. 

[lippavisual]

Netflix and some others do it too.  I don’t mind it actually, when I want to see what something’s about.  But it does get annoying while your just scrolling through. 

[zaphod]

On 3/9/2023 at 11:00 AM, eggzlot said:

If you are paying $22/month for Netflix I bet you don't watch 90% or more of the content.  Same with a million cable channels and only watching 10. 

Get 5 apps and all the sudden you are paying n ear $100/month in subscription fees, then add in your ISP fees and are you any better off then when you had 300 cable channels?  The content on the these streaming apps would have made it to HBO, Showtime, etc like Sopranos, or Sex in the City, etc.  So for those who say well what I watch is on Netflix or Hulu, I guess I assume if the content was good, it would have found a home on cable too.

for years my brother in law ranted, wanted to get rid of cable, was the first I knew to cut the cord because he wanted to save money.  Now he agrees, he is paying more per month for all the apps versus his old cable bill (and not paying more because of inflation, just because he needs all these apps to get what he wants).

But there is a difference - you can rotate among the different services - each month subscribe to one and cancel the others.  But once people start doing this they will likely make you subscribe for a minimum of six months.

[Cyknight]

1 hour ago, zaphod said:

But there is a difference - you can rotate among the different services - each month subscribe to one and cancel the others.  But once people start doing this they will likely make you subscribe for a minimum of six months.

The monthly will likely just go up and then the 'deal' for a 6 month or year will be 'better' to the point that they'll essentially make pay by the month so uneconomical that they'll rope in (many/most) people anyway.

[eggzlot]

7 hours ago, zaphod said:

But there is a difference - you can rotate among the different services - each month subscribe to one and cancel the others.  But once people start doing this they will likely make you subscribe for a minimum of six months.

At some point I assume they will start locking in or offer significant “savings” for longer term commitments