Sage becoming XBMC?

[sainswor99]

Originally Posted by S_M_E

That would depend on how much bling was added but you admit that it does have a hit (which is more than some are willing to admit) whether or not it's managed is another story.

The SageTV team are the ones that will make the decisions. Narflex might want to make the most bling-blang-blingiest UI ever conceived and that's his right. I'm not "telling" SageTV what to do, I'm just posting my opinion...

I guess I didn't make my point clear enough, then; my point was that by steering the conversation towards "bling" and the cost of said "bling", we're avoiding discussing other alternatives (like an improved navigational structure and low-cost graphical enhancements). By continuing to throw around the term "bling" as a term of concern, it seems as if you've overlooked everything else in my post.

I think your most valid argument (in terms of both my own worldview and pragmatic consistency) is the debate about development costs. While having an active 3rd-party development community does alleviate some of the form based concerns (as well as some of the functional ones; why hasn't Sage adopted nielm's webserver yet?), it does not address the two concerns of:

1. uninformed reviewers who only demonstrate the stock UI (and not the ability to use alternative interfaces), and
   
2. first-impression trial users (the people who don't know enough about the product to be able to customize it before the trial runs out).

I don't think any of us know how large the second group is; what was interesting to me is that if you google "SageTV reviews" (in order to address the first question), there seems to be two trends:

1. reviews that focus on just SageTV found the interface to be "beautiful", "intuitive", and "polished".
   
2. reviews that covered multiple PVR software found that the SageTV interface was "ugly", "unrefined", and "needed work".

Interesting.

[evilpenguin]

Originally Posted by sainswor99

While having an active 3rd-party development community does alleviate some of the form based concerns (as well as some of the functional ones; why hasn't Sage adopted nielm's webserver yet?), it does not address the two concerns of:

This is actually the point that gets me steamed up the most. Calling them 3rd-party developers paints a pretty picture, but in actuality they're paying customers who were so dissatisfied with parts of the product as delivered that they actually donated large portions of their free time to create the product they wanted in the first place.

I'm a plug-in dev and I've spent prolly 100+ hours working on various projects. And I'm not doing it because its fun or because I want to help build the Sage community (although, both of those are true more often than not): by and large I'm doing it because Sage isn't doing it themselves. I'm sure I don't speak for everyone, but I'd much rather be cracking open a beer and enjoying some TV than sitting in my office hacking away at Studio trying to create the experience that I wish Sage was delivering out of the box.

[Brent]

Originally Posted by evilpenguin

but I'd much rather be cracking open a beer and enjoying some TV than sitting in my office hacking away at Studio trying to create the experience that I wish Sage was delivering out of the box.

And I (as well as many others) really appreciate your work EP.

[S_M_E]

Originally Posted by sainswor99

I guess I didn't make my point clear enough, then; my point was that by steering the conversation towards "bling" and the cost of said "bling", we're avoiding discussing other alternatives (like an improved navigational structure and low-cost graphical enhancements). By continuing to throw around the term "bling" as a term of concern, it seems as if you've overlooked everything else in my post.

Not at all, I've said several times that I'm not against more features which of course will need to be added to the UI and I'm not against changing the menus to be more user-friendly. It's just the bling that I object to and I feel the 3rd party system can take care of additional UI desires, like the "bling" such as multiple skins, animations and effects.

I think your most valid argument (in terms of both my own worldview and pragmatic consistency) is the debate about development costs. While having an active 3rd-party development community does alleviate some of the form based concerns (as well as some of the functional ones; why hasn't Sage adopted nielm's webserver yet?)

I can think of several reasons including simplicity and security concerns not to mention some ISPs don't allow home users to run web servers on the public interface.

it does not address the two concerns of:

1. uninformed reviewers who only demonstrate the stock UI (and not the ability to use alternative interfaces), and
   
2. first-impression trial users (the people who don't know enough about the product to be able to customize it before the trial runs out).

Both could be handled through educating reviewers, documentation or even installer options to allow users to install SageMC during setup, which is much cheaper/faster than developing a new UI from scratch.

I don't think any of us know how large the second group is; what was interesting to me is that if you google "SageTV reviews" (in order to address the first question), there seems to be two trends:

1. reviews that focus on just SageTV found the interface to be "beautiful", "intuitive", and "polished".
   
2. reviews that covered multiple PVR software found that the SageTV interface was "ugly", "unrefined", and "needed work".

Interesting.

That is interesting but it does show that some people do like and use the stock STV. As I keep saying, "good is subjective" and even if they think it's ugly (I don't) people are still switching to Sage. Just in the general forum alone, there are many "newbie," "new user" "switching from BTV" type threads.

[sainswor99]

Originally Posted by S_M_E

I can think of several reasons including simplicity and security concerns not to mention some ISPs don't allow home users to run web servers on the public interface.

If you're going to answer my rhetorical question, then I might as well respond There's no need to allow public access to nielm's webserver to gain benefit out of it; although I do occassionally use it from a public interface, the majority of the time I use it on my LAN to manage Intelligent Recordings, etc. From what I recall, BTV had a web interface that was used for managing users, recordings, etc.; my point was that there are som functional extensions to Sage (not just form), and that some of them are mature enough that they warrant inclusion in the original product.

[bialio]

Originally Posted by evilpenguin

I'd much rather be cracking open a beer and enjoying some TV than sitting in my office hacking away at Studio trying to create the experience that I wish Sage was delivering out of the box.

What's funny is that I feel largely the same way - but my beef was with SageMC It wasn't "pretty" enough -- which is why I started created themes and mini-guides etc!

btl.

[S_M_E]

Originally Posted by evilpenguin

I'm a plug-in dev and I've spent prolly 100+ hours working on various projects. And I'm not doing it because its fun or because I want to help build the Sage community (although, both of those are true more often than not): by and large I'm doing it because Sage isn't doing it themselves. I'm sure I don't speak for everyone, but I'd much rather be cracking open a beer and enjoying some TV than sitting in my office hacking away at Studio trying to create the experience that I wish Sage was delivering out of the box.

Everyone has their own reasons for whatever contribution we make. My contribution is only 1 tutorial but I made mine because I like SageTV on WHS and I wanted to be able to help others enjoy what I enjoy. You have a 100+ hours in your contributions and, imo, that's 100+ hours that the Sage team has been able to spend on other issues. If the SageTV team had to spend the same amount of time on a UI as the SageMC project has spent (how many hours is THAT?), that would be even less time to spend on other things we want or need. In the end, nobody is making you write plugins even if you blame Sage for not making it like you want it. You choose to do it and as Brent said, people appreciate your work even if you wish you didn't have to. Even I appreciate your work, just because I like SageTV and 3rd party devs do help and enhance the project.

[samgreco]

Thanks to all that got this thread back to a discussion again.

sainswor99 - I think your last 2 posts nailed it. Navigation is key. I see my wife get confused about where to find things all the time in BOTH stock STV and SageMC. This is my main issue. It should be intuitive and clean.

As for relying on 3rd parties to develop STVs and plugins to get what I view as basic core functions, I am bothered by that. It's to easy for problems to go unresolved as one side blames the other for issues. Now I have NEVER seen that happen here, but it's a slippery slope.

Having said that, Mike and Dirk are the ONLY reason I am still here. I would have switched to something else if it hadn't been for SageMC. And the killer is, I don't love it. I just don't dislike it enough to give up the Sage functionality.

Funny, the only reason I ended up using Sage at all was because I moved into a new house that was thick with trees and couldn't get DTV here. So when faced with cable, my choice was Tivo or nothing, as they didn't even have their own DVR yet. I hated giving up my UltimateTV boxes, but would have had to anyway. Sage seemed the thing to do. If it were today, I'm not sure what I would do.

And as for the poll idea, I wasn't serious. I understand that a poll on this forum will not tell us much about those that bypassed Sage for whatever reason. But my point is, someone really needs to understand the realities of what is happening with potential customers. If I produce a product, I don't care hown many customers I have, I want to know how many I am losing.

[S_M_E]

Originally Posted by sainswor99

If you're going to answer my rhetorical question, then I might as well respond There's no need to allow public access to nielm's webserver to gain benefit out of it; although I do occassionally use it from a public interface, the majority of the time I use it on my LAN to manage Intelligent Recordings, etc. From what I recall, BTV had a web interface that was used for managing users, recordings, etc.; my point was that there are som functional extensions to Sage (not just form), and that some of them are mature enough that they warrant inclusion in the original product.

I didn't realize it was rhetorical but the points still stand. What happens when an ISP shuts off a user's account because they were running a web server that Sage included in the default install and they decide to sue Sage? What happens if that web server has a security hole and the user gets hacked because it was never patched? Some people still running Sage 3 4 and 5, not everyone upgrades regularly. If they do include one, how are they going to handle security/upgrades/patches for the web server and how much time will that take from other development? I have nothing against a web interface as an option/plugin but I don't want one as default.

Originally Posted by samgreco

If I produce a product, I don't care hown many customers I have, I want to know how many I am losing.

You'll never be able to tell how many customers leave Sage for another solution but you can figure out if sales are flat, increasing or declining. I bought Sage years ago but if I had switched to something else, how would they know that? Sage isn't like a company that makes a product that is constantly reordered by contract customers. I stopped eating at McDonald's 20 years ago but they'd never know that. All they care about is how many sales they make per hour/day/week/month/year because that is what is quantifiable.

[KarylFStein]

I use the stock UI, but it's not because I like it; I think it stinks. I'm used to it and my kids are used to it, so it will do.

For a long time, I used 3rd party additions to get the look-and-feel that I wanted. I was very happy with SageMC for a while. I'd probably still be happy with it, but...

When a new version of SageTV comes out, it may break those additions and you're left with not using the new features or using the stock UI until the additions can be updated.

For example, I like the dynamic menu addition, but it hasn't been officially blessed for use with the latest (stable) server. Some people are saying it works, but the developer made a post a while ago saying it needed some updates for the current stable version, so I haven't installed it. SageMC had a similar long lag at one of the major server updates. I'm not knocking the developers of those additions in any way--it's not like they get paid for their work. But, I just get worried that someday these things will be abandoned and I'll have to go back to the default UI if I want any new server features.

So, I've chosen to go the simple route where I know when a new version of the server comes out, I'll just have to install it. I like tinkering with the server, but these days I don't have the time to invest in doing that. In my view, it would be nice if Sage "invested" in some of these additions or graphic work that people have done and folded them into the core server releases. I'd be happy to pay a little more for an upgrade knowing that it's officially supported...

[MeInMaui]

Originally Posted by bialio

What's funny is that I feel largely the same way - but my beef was with SageMC It wasn't "pretty" enough -- which is why I started created themes and mini-guides etc!

btl.

Wait...Oh yeah. Me too.

[gveres]

Originally Posted by stuckless

[edit - Apple sells because of the bling bling factor]

That's sort of the same flawed logic that MS thought about with Vista. I think the market proved that statement wrong. Bling is nice... but Bling for the sake of bling is not good, especially when you start to prefer bling over performance.

I am actually pretty surprised by the nay-sayer responses here. It is not about bling. I really don't care if a new UI has reflections and "eye-candy" that keeps getting bandied about here. The reason that Apple is succesful, among many other reasons, is that they care about the user experience. That is not bling, that is user interaction. For the most part, their products are easy and intuitive to use (there are some exceptions). That is huge and is the "latest big thing" in the computer industry.

In my opinon the default UI in sage is anything but usable and intuitive. Maybe it was because I had a preconceived notion of what I wanted it to work like. (I came from BTV and I still feel that BTV video organization and UI are better. My wife keeps telling me this at least once a week and it has been about a year since I moved and I use SageMC. If I was using the default UI, she would have divorced me by now).

So please don't mistake "we want a better UI" with "we need a new UI that is all about the bling". What we really need is a new UI that is usable and intuitive. And yes, that takes a lot of time to develop and it takes user trials and experimentation to get right. It is an expensive proposition, but one that is usually well worth the effort.

Originally Posted by stuckless

If SageTV 7 came out and it was a direct rip-off of XBMC but they had to exclude features in order for that to happen, then I'd happily stay with version 6.

Why does anybody think that coming out with a new UI would mean that Sage would rip features out? I just don't understand that thinking.

Greg

[mistergq]

Originally Posted by gveres

I am actually pretty surprised by the nay-sayer responses here. It is not about bling. I really don't care if a new UI has reflections and "eye-candy" that keeps getting bandied about here. The reason that Apple is succesful, among many other reasons, is that they care about the user experience. That is not bling, that is user interaction. For the most part, their products are easy and intuitive to use (there are some exceptions). That is huge and is the "latest big thing" in the computer industry.

well stated. I agree.

In my opinon the default UI in sage is anything but usable and intuitive. Maybe it was because I had a preconceived notion of what I wanted it to work like. (I came from BTV and I still feel that BTV video organization and UI are better. My wife keeps telling me this at least once a week and it has been about a year since I moved and I use SageMC. If I was using the default UI, she would have divorced me by now).

Having come from BTV as well, I understand what you are saying...but I was never so in love with the BTV user interface. IMHO, its better than the default Sage UI, but not as good as SageMC. And as to the WAF, my wife actually likes SageMC a 1000 times more than BTV. So go figure.

For me, the biggest thing I miss is controlling the settings in web admin.

So please don't mistake "we want a better UI" with "we need a new UI that is all about the bling". What we really need is a new UI that is usable and intuitive. And yes, that takes a lot of time to develop and it takes user trials and experimentation to get right. It is an expensive proposition, but one that is usually well worth the effort.

Again, well stated.

[S_M_E]

As I mentioned earlier, I started with BTV but I moved to Sage for features. I don't even remember the old BTV interface anymore and I don't care either.

For some people it might not be about the bling but for some it is and that's why we're discussing it. Animation, skins and other visual effects (like glass) is not about organization nor usability, that's all eye candy and for the most part it's all superfluous, imo.

[wayner]

I tried BTV a few years ago and bought a license - I didn't consider Sage because of the UI. I moved to XP MCE and have been running an XP MCE box in my main Home Theatre room and 5 extenders around the house. I am now switching to Sage - I have 3 Sage extenders up and running using SageMC and I am buying more extenders.

My wife still uses the MCE extenders but she will be switching. Whenever I use these I find myself saying - this still looks much better than Sage, even SageMC and how old is the XP MCE interface - about 6 years old?

One more thing - I don't know if you folks in the US realize this but online services like Hulu, Netflix and even the network (NBC, ABC, etc.) web sites only work if you have a US IP address. Therefore I have no interest in anyone spending any time or money developing online web streaming functionality for Sage as it has 0 utility for those of us here in Canada or in other countries.

[OldPCGUY]

Originally Posted by LehighBri

The biggest reason I even decided to dabble with XBMC was simply based on the screenshot comparison's in the Lifehacker article below. I'm sure Lifehacker could have included a better screenshot of Sage but you can very clearly see how dated the UI is and how, for folks that have never ever heard of Sage, would never ever use it when looking at a comparison like that (without seeing the side-by-side feature list). I'm still sticking with Sage for now given its great TV and extender support but am quite frankly going to work real hard to see how I can use XBMC as my primary HTPC app and have it pull in media that Sage records (XBMC even has comparable TV features such as EDL comskip support).

Lifehacker article: http://lifehacker.com/5103464/five-b...r-applications

The Life Hacker overview was a joke and not an apples to apples comparison and no real discussion of features. The guy who wrote the article probably does not have a clue how difficult HD playback can be.

XBMC could be the best playback GUI in the world but playbacking HD content on a PC for different formats and full 5.1 and DTS support then good luck. I expect most people using this are downloading very low quaility bit torrents and doing stereo playback only.

I also doubt that XBMC supports BlueRay playback which makes it useless.

Some one at work told me he could download a BlueRay movie and I laughed at him. BlueRay is ~25Gbytes and would take how long to download at 10Mbits/second (33 Hours!!!! UHG!).

I have looked at Beyond TV and Sage is the only deal out there that supports DVD Playback, Ripped Blueray Playback (HD-200), and recording from multiple sources and CC support!! etc. etc. DRM is a huge issue and was totally underplayed.

Let's not forget that XBMC does not support any hardware. So does this mean no remote?

It really gets me frustrated when someone wants to compare a Mazda Miata to Toyata Tundra Pickup. Both are great but totally different applications.

[stuckless]

Why does anybody think that coming out with a new UI would mean that Sage would rip features out? I just don't understand that thinking.

Have you ever tried to retrofit an application (whether it be a web application or desktop application, etc,) to a completely new UI. If you have, then you'll know where I'm comming from. There is a huge amount of effect to build a new UI, and if you retrofitting an application, then you either have to cease development of new features until the UI is complete, or release a new UI without all the same features, or have 2 separate development teams. I've done this many times, and usually, what ends up happening is that the product runs late, then features get dropped, and eventually the new UI is released.

Look at he microsoft vista for example, the original vista feature list was quite impressive, but in the end, MS released an almost XP comparable OS without any of the features that were originally listed, except a new UI. I don't fault them, I've seen it happen too many times, and some of those times, I've been personally involved with a product. You never want to see this happen, but it does.

Sometimes it's not so much as ripping features out, but rather the product is stagnant for a year while the transition happens, so in the end, the only new feature is a UI upgrade. When a new product is released, and the only new feature is a UI upgrade, you have to ask yourself, is it worth it.

I think that Sage could use a UI overall, but I can also see the other side of the argument.

[JREkiwi]

Originally Posted by samgreco

In the stock STV, those stupid icons on the left of the recorded tv view has stopped me from using it. I have a habit of using the left arrow button to get to a previous menu. Those icons always require me to make an extra click. And I can’t make them go away. Silly, but there it is. That's one issue. There are many more.

I don't really want to get into this discussion, but just to show how easy it is to fix little issues like this I've made an import for the Default STV here that makes the display of "those stupid icons" optional.

John

[TallMomof2]

Let me add my POV. I'm a new user, since around August, and I can tell you why I chose STV. I was very unsatisfied with PQ from analog tuners on my PC. I work many hours daily on my PC and wanted the ability to watch TV windowed on my widescreen monitor when I had to do fairly mindless tasks. Finally, a HD solution that allowed me to watch any HD channel on STB arrived with the HD-PVR. Went ahead and ordered it without a whole lot of research. It came with some crappy software and a discount card for BTV. Went ahead and downloaded BTV and it didn't work well with the HD-PVR. Looked around some and found STV. Hated the UI but went ahead and downloaded a trial. At the end of the trial STV worked better than BTV with my HD-PVR. Even though I had already paid for BTV and preferred their interface I went with STV because it was working better with my HD-PVR. I still strongly disliked the interface but figured I could live with it.

There is a very steep learning curve with STV and I have a somewhat technical background (mechanical engineer, programming experience very dated... Fortran, some C) and I was intimidated by the plugins. I build my own computers and find STV difficult. I honestly didn't add in SageMC until about a month ago when I found Brent's tutorial. Since then I've added in a few more plugins but for casual users it's more than a little bit intimidating.

The UI definitely needs an overhaul, the functionality is great but the standard UI is too primitive. Most casual users would not consider STV because of the UI. And most casual users would have a difficult time figuring out plugins.

At a minimum bundle in SageMC and set it as the default UI but have the current standard UI as an option.

JMO

[ToxMox]

My bottom line assessment:

I use the default UI. I have tried SageMC but the functionality just isn't up to par for me. I'll try it again soon but I want something more than what the stock UI or SageMC offers. I want Sage to take it to the next level.

I feel that if SageTV uses some of its finite resources and invests in a new clean, beautiful, more functional & blingy (to a degree ui) that they will gain many customers and reach a completely untapped market hence bringing in a lot more money to continue to invest in the features we all know, love and have ever hoped for.

Would love for Sage to do some usability research and pay for top notch graphics.