Sage becoming XBMC?

[Brent]

Originally Posted by S_M_E

As I said before, people (and polls) on forums are a small percentage of actual Sage users

I think you're missing the point. It's not just people posting on forums who think the default UI is ugly. Its the thousands of potential SageTV customers who look at those screen-shots and go "wow, that's so Windows 3.1" and never go beyond that even when someone like me goes "but you can still make it look better with a nice add-on called SageMC" and they go "why would I pay for a software that requires me to go through a bunch of hoops to get it to look and work the way I want it to?".
That's the point. You lost them from the first impression and that is never a good thing.

and that doesn't answer my questions.

I disagree. I think it does answer your questions, you just don't like the answers - which is fine by the way. This isn't an argument with a definite right or wrong.

What is wrong with leaving the "bling" to 3rd party developers?

Nothing other than what I said above.

[quote]What's wrong with the default UI?
I think we covered it multiple times above

The answer to both, imo, is "nothing."

You and others may think so. I and many others disagree.

3rd party "bling" is still available bling and it doesn't drive up costs.
A lack of "bling" doesn't make the default UI bad in any way just as a lack of chrome valve covers doesn't make a car bad.

Not saying it's bad, just could be better...

[S_M_E]

Originally Posted by Brent

Nobody is asking you to upgrade to a new version. Stay with SageTV6, use the default STV and enjoy it. You don't have to change.

So, because I don't want silly "bling" I should either stick with an older buggy version or pay more for v7 so *you* can have bling?

Because I was ignoring you

Maybe I should do that too...

Seriously, I just missed them in the mass of the posts...
Nothing. I use SageMC today and love it. Try to contribute in any way I can as well.

Great, then there's no need for SageTV to waste time and money to develop what SageMC has already done.

• It looks like it did in 2004 (or earlier). I used Meedio and then BeyondTV and both of them looked better than SageTV's default UI. Any time you see SageTV mentioned in the press, they always diss it's look and say it needs a refresh. I agree wholeheartedly.

• So what if it looks the same as before? There's nothing wrong with it. I disagree wholeheartedly.
  
  

  The menus are overly complicated in my opinion

  I don't like the videos page.

  It isn't easily customizable like SageMC is.

  That's what SageMC is for.
  
  

  There isn't nearly as many plugins and themes available to the default STV - want to know why? There are many reasons for this, but one of the big ones is because new user/developers that come to SageTV go straight to SageMC because it has a more popular UI and they code for that UI.

Again, if SageMC is so great, there's no reason to change the default, adding development expenses.

I see nothing wrong with SageTV (the company) spending some resources to spruce up the default UI if for no other reason - at least to bring in new users and probably new developers as well.

I do see something wrong with it. It's not needed, you already said that SageMC is what you want and you already have it without SageTV having to make it over again.

I'm all for more features but the default gui is fine and there are already 3rd party options for the "bling" without having to reinvent the wheel.

EDIT:
To reuse my V8 analogy; If you want chrome valve covers, great, that's why there's an aftermarket but don't expect GM (etc) to make chrome valve covers standard on every model.

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by S_M_E

As I said before, people (and polls) on forums are a small percentage of actual Sage users and that doesn't answer my questions.

What is wrong with leaving the "bling" to 3rd party developers?

In the case of SageTV, where you're basically replacing the UI layer (unlike true "skins"), it means that when SageTV gets reviewed, the "bling" isn't. It means Sage gets lots of bad press about it's "1990's" UI. I don't know how many, but I've seen enough posts/comments about the poor stock UI stopping people from even looking at Sage that I can agree it's a problem.

What's wrong with the default UI?

It causes people to not look at Sage at all. Many people probably don't even realize they could use SageMC.

Functionally I don't think there's anything wrong with the stock UI, but I think it could definitely use a spruce up with some better graphics.

A lack of "bling" doesn't make the default UI bad in any way just as a lack of chrome valve covers doesn't make a car bad.

Lack of bling is a problem if it causes people to not consider your product.

[bialio]

You are looking at it from our (the customers) perspective. I'm looking at it from Sage's - they are losing customers, or perhaps missing out on market share is a better way to put it, because of the dated look of the default UI.

I don't think anyone can honestly deny this.

btl.

[S_M_E]

Originally Posted by bialio

I don't think anyone can honestly deny this.

btl.

I can.

[S_M_E]

Originally Posted by Brent

You and others may think so. I and many others disagree.

Not saying it's bad, just could be better...

I'm saying what you (and others) call "better" is subjective. I (and many others) call it a waste.

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by S_M_E

I can.

You deny the hundreds of posts on this, and other fora of people saying they'd never consider Sage due to it's (to them) "lackluster UI", and the numerous reviews of SageTV that complain about the UI's outdatedness?

FWIW, I use the stock UI, I rather like the way it's layed out, and I'm not a fan of SageMC, but I think denying that the stock UI is having a negative impact on Sage overall can't be denied.

[aaronb]

Originally Posted by bialio

Both keep some prospective new customers from trying out Sage. IF you go read about Sage on any other forum, the comments from non Sage users are amazingly consistent. They don't like the UI, and don't like the fact that a different UI (SageMC) is provided by 3rd party.

btl.

This is very true. I avoided Sage for years because the screenshots I saw did not look very impressive. First impressions mean a lot. Now that I finally switched I'm very happy with the feature set, but like Brent said I see little reason why they would need to sacrifice features or performance for a UI refresh.

There is of course a balance between adding eye candy and improving functionality, especially for a company with finite resources, but myself and apparently quite a few others are of the opinion that there are a lot of new users Sage could attract, which means more revenue to help fund the additional development costs.

ETA: and I type too slow since I just repeated what a bunch of people have already said in the meantime

[S_M_E]

Originally Posted by aaronb

This is very true. I avoided Sage for years because the screenshots I saw did not look very impressive. First impressions mean a lot. Now that I finally switched I'm very happy with the feature set, but like Brent said

So the stock UI didn't prevent you from switching to Sage despite claims of losing market share.

I see little reason why they would need to sacrifice features or performance for a UI refresh.

You said it below, "finite resources."

There is of course a balance between adding eye candy and improving functionality, especially for a company with finite resources, but myself and apparently quite a few others are of the opinion that there are a lot of new users Sage could attract, which means more revenue to help fund the additional development costs.

I think it's silly to assume that people wont use Sage (the superior product) because of the gui when you, yourself, and many others switched despite it. If you switched to Sage why wouldn't others?

Only SageTV staff knows, for sure, but I think their sales numbers will back up my opinion that people *are* buying SageTV even without the silly "bling" being default.

[aaronb]

Originally Posted by S_M_E

So the stock UI didn't prevent you from switching to Sage despite claims of losing market share.

Well, yes it did prevent me from switching for about 4 years, I don't think any business wants to take 4 years to convince a new customer. And when I finally did switch, it was only because Sage was the only PVR software with HDPVR support, a claim they won't be able to make forever. Had I not been an impatient early adopter of the HDPVR I never would have switched. And they also would have lost out on additional revenue from me because the UI was unfavorable enough that I don't even use Sage as a frontend (I say "would have" because I was an idiot and bought a client license before I was sure I wanted to use it, had I just downloaded the trial and used it for a couple weeks I definitely would not have given them the additional $30). They are also missing out on the sale of two HD200 extenders from me.

Originally Posted by S_M_E

I think it's silly to assume that people wont use Sage (the superior product) because of the gui when you, yourself, and many others switched despite it. If you switched to Sage why wouldn't others?

Like I said above, it took 4 years and a brief window in which they had exclusive support for an exciting new product. Not what you want to hope for to acquire a new customer.

Originally Posted by S_M_E

Only SageTV staff knows, for sure, but I think their sales numbers will back up my opinion that people *are* buying SageTV even without the silly "bling" being default.

Of course they are buying it, but how many more might buy it if it were more appealing? None of us can claim to know that for sure, but there is plenty of evidence to suggest that they are missing out on potential customers.

[jaminben]

Originally Posted by S_M_E

I think it's silly to assume that people wont use Sage (the superior product) because of the gui when you, yourself, and many others switched despite it. If you switched to Sage why wouldn't others?

Only SageTV staff knows, for sure, but I think their sales numbers will back up my opinion that people *are* buying SageTV even without the silly "bling" being default.

Wow, are you serious? So basically because your happy with the stock UI other peoples opinions don't count and we should all be happy that your happy with it?

Of course the UI plays a big part in someone deciding if their going to use Sage or another piece of HTPC software.

Why do you think people buy expensive items such as cars or watches? Does the car work any better because it looks good? No it doesn't it gets you from A-B the same as any cheaper model. Does an expensive watch tell the time any better than a cheap one? Of course it doesn't.
So why do people buy them? I'll tell you, BECAUSE THEY LOOK GOOD. This applies to all consumer goods even Sage's HTPC software.

With your sort of mentality Sage wont be around for much longer, lets hope they don't share your opinion.

[S_M_E]

Originally Posted by aaronb

Well, yes it did prevent me from switching for about 4 years

In the end, it didn't prevent you and many others from switching. It may have delayed it but it didn't prevent it.

Of course they are buying it, but how many more might buy it if it were more appealing? None of us can claim to know that for sure, but there is plenty of evidence to suggest that they are missing out on potential customers.

How many would stay away if it cost more because they spent 1000 hours developing what SageMC already does? It works both ways. There is little evidence because people *are* buying and switching.

Originally Posted by jaminben

Wow, are you serious? So basically because your happy with the stock UI other peoples opinions don't count and we should all be happy that your happy with it?

I don't care what you're happy about. You have another option, it's called SageMC.

Of course the UI plays a big part in someone deciding if their going to use Sage or another piece of HTPC software.

SageMC is a solution.

Why do you think people buy expensive items such as cars or watches? Does the car work any better because it looks good? No it doesn't it gets you from A-B the same as any cheaper model. Does an expensive watch tell the time any better than a cheap one? Of course it doesn't.
So why do people buy them? I'll tell you, BECAUSE THEY LOOK GOOD. This applies to all consumer goods even Sage's HTPC software.

Again, SageMC.

With your sort of mentality Sage wont be around for much longer, lets hope they don't share your opinion.

With your mentality, Sage should already be out of business because it's so ugly. I hope they do share my opinion and based on results, so far, they do. They seem happy to leave the silly "bling" to 3rd parties, so far, and that's fine by me.

[jaminben]

Originally Posted by S_M_E

Again, SageMC.

True but Sage dont advertise their product as SageTV/SageMC so how is the average consumer going to know? They wont and they'll move on to the next HTPC software which looks "Bling Bling" on that website and think this looks good, I'll try that.

Originally Posted by S_M_E

They seem happy to leave the silly "bling" to 3rd parties, so far, and that's fine by me.

You'll be telling me next you drive a clapped out banger, live in a run down 1 bed flat with no wall paper and no furniture becuase you dont like "BLING".

Oh well each to their own.

[aaronb]

Originally Posted by S_M_E

In the end, it didn't prevent you and many others from switching. It may have delayed it but it didn't prevent it.

You can't be serious. You think that's a good business model? "People may not like this part of our product, but maybe if 4 years from now we briefly have exclusive support for a hot new HTPC product they'll switch!"

And it DID prevent it, because like I said, they are missing out on more revenue from me since because of the UI I choose to use Sage as a backend only.

[S_M_E]

Originally Posted by jaminben

True but Sage dont advertise their product as SageTV/SageMC so how is the average consumer going to know? They wont and they'll move on to the next HTPC software which looks "Bling Bling" on that website and think this looks good, I'll try that.

There are thousands of Sage users that know nothing of SageMC so it's not as big of a factor as you assume.

They may very well try other software, I tried beyondtv before I switched to Sage. Just because they try other SW doesn't mean they wont end up with Sage, even with it's gui, like THOUSANDS of others who've switched.

My point is that they don't need to spend "finite resources" on doing what SageMC already offers. If SageTV wants to bundle SageMC as an option in the installer that's one thing but I'd rather they spent their time on features and bug fixes than on bling that's already available.

[Brent]

Originally Posted by S_M_E

As I said before, I don't have anything against those that want bling, I just shouldn't have to pay for it because SageMC is already there

As I said, you don't have to pay for anything more ever again. It's your decision to pay more if you want any new features in the new version. If it has the features you want and those are worth it to you, you'll buy it. Same thing for me.

Originally Posted by S_M_E

I don't care what you're happy about.

Originally Posted by S_M_E

With your mentality, Sage should already be out of business because it's so ugly. I hope they do share my opinion and based on results, so far, they do.

Originally Posted by S_M_E

They seem happy to leave the silly "bling" to 3rd parties, so far, and that's fine by me.

Originally Posted by S_M_E

So, because I don't want silly "bling" I should either stick with an older buggy version or pay more for v7 so *you* can have bling?

This shouldn't have ever gotten to the personal level here dude - lighten up.

Lets just agree to disagree here SME... You think you're right. We don't.

Originally Posted by S_M_E

Of course it's OK for Brent to say that anyone that doesn't agree with the "pro-bling" crowd is silly and ridiculous but my replying is out of line

Let me just say this. I don't have any problem with you voicing your opinion obviously. When I said "the silly thing about these arguments are that you can have both. It's ridiculous to think" that was obviously pointed towards the argument, not the person. There's a definite difference between that statement and the ones I'm quoting stated by you above.

[S_M_E]

Originally Posted by Brent

This shouldn't have ever gotten to the personal level here dude - lighten up.

Lets just agree to disagree here SME... You think you're right. We don't.

I *replied* to other people that got personal so don't try to put it on me.

Originally Posted by Brent

The silly thing about these arguments are that you can have both. It's ridiculous to think

Originally Posted by Brent

Nobody is asking you to upgrade to a new version. Stay with SageTV6, use the default STV and enjoy it. You don't have to change.

Because I was ignoring you

Originally Posted by jaminben

Wow, are you serious? So basically because your happy with the stock UI other peoples opinions don't count and we should all be happy that your happy with it?

With your sort of mentality Sage wont be around for much longer, lets hope they don't share your opinion.

etc...

I agree, you think you're right, others don't and as somebody mentioned earlier, there will never be an agreement. As I said before, I don't have anything against those that want bling, I just shouldn't have to pay for it because SageMC is already there.

[jaminben]

Originally Posted by S_M_E

I *replied* to other people that got personal so don't try to put it on me.




etc...

I agree, you think you're right, others don't and as somebody mentioned earlier, there will never be an agreement. As I said before, I don't have anything against those that want bling, I just shouldn't have to pay for it because SageMC is already there.

I dont agree and I want you to pay for it

I was only debating what I think about the default UI and didnt mean to offend or upset you.

[S_M_E]

How could anyone be offended by "With your sort of mentality Sage wont be around for much longer, lets hope they don't share your opinion" type comments?

Of course it's OK for Brent to say that anyone that doesn't agree with the "pro-bling" crowd is silly and ridiculous but my replying is out of line.

Oh yeah, I get it, it's OK for some to "get personal" but I should just lighten up.

[jaminben]