Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[JustinChase]

As with most things, people have little patience.  If they opened MC, and saw a DOS interface, that's it, they are done.  Of that there must be little doubt.

That tells us that interface and presentation ARE important.  That fact that it *can* be tweaked is fantastic, but no one that I've ever introduced to MC has any desire to do any tweaking.  Perhaps they might/will try selecting another skin, or view, if offered by the program, but they simply will not bother to try to learn

a) that they even have the ability to change the look of the program
b) where to go for help with learning how to do so
c) how to search the forums for help
d) the 'language' necessary to know what is even being discussed on the forums

They just won't bother.  That has been borne out in the posts of new users that are completely confused when they first install the program.

Further, I suspect that JRiver has some statistics on how many people download, how many of them actuall install and run the program (since it calls home), and how many are still using it after 2 weeks, and how many actually purchase.  I would suspect less than 1% purchase, but that number could/should be much higher.  Maybe I'm totally incorrect, I don't have the numbers.

Even if it was 5 times easier to make changes, the vast majority of users just won't bother.

IF JRiver wants to earn more customers, I think an easier and more 'likable' interface presented to them upon initial startup, along with more useful views will help tremendously.

Seemingly, JRiver disagrees, which is certainly their perogative.  Some people on these boards disagree too, which is also fine.

However, I stand by this assessment, as do many others.  So, if correct, making the system easier to not only make changes, but MUCH easier/possible for users to share these changes will have a big impact on people wanting to continue their MC experience.

The thing to remember is that this is really a very technical program, and support system.  "Normal" people just won't bother digging deeper; not when there are free alternatives that look pretty from the get-go.  The fact that MC is far superior to the alternatives 'under the hood' is of no concern/importance/obvious benefit to "normal" people.  Most people leave their TV's at the factory settings because they are bright and vibrant, but totally incorrect.  They don't care.

**Also; no pressure, but I'm still hoping to see the Glynor library; whenever it's available

[JimH]

... no one that I've ever introduced to MC has any desire to do any tweaking.  Perhaps they might/will try selecting another skin, or view, if offered by the program, but they simply will not bother to try to learn
... That has been borne out in the posts of new users that are completely confused when they first install the program.

I'm not seeing a lot of posts like that.  We have new users who are confused and we have experienced users who are confused.  The install process is one of the most trouble-free parts of the program.  It generally just works.  And thousands of times a day.

I would suspect less than 1% purchase, but that number could/should be much higher.

You're off by more than an order of magnitude.

... I think an easier and more 'likable' interface presented to them upon initial startup, along with more useful   views will help tremendously.  Seemingly, JRiver disagrees, which is certainly their perogative.

We don't disagree.  We just don't always agree with "your" priorities.  We have our own list.  Eye candy isn't near the top.  One problem is that there is no universal agreement on what is "likable".

However, I stand by this assessment, as do many others.  So, if correct, making the system easier to not only make changes, but MUCH easier/possible for users to share these changes will have a big impact on people wanting to continue their MC experience.

This may be possible.

The thing to remember is that this is really a very technical program, and support system.  "Normal" people just won't bother digging deeper;

I know it's not intended, but you're labelling everyone who uses MC as not normal.  Think about it.

What you may be forgeting is that there are many more users than those who post regularly here.  The top 100 posters on the forum probably account for a majority of the posts.  They're deeply interested in the subject.  

Most people just use the program.  Of the registered forum members, most never post.  And most people who purchase MC don't even register for the forums.

So what's "normal"?  

[AUser]

Actually I purchased Media Center because it's not "daddys first music player"
There are plenty of solutions for those users already, and I'd actually encourage more techiness.
I'm not opposed to eye candy, but I am to any dumbing down.

What's the quote?
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.

There really isn't a one-size-fits-all solution.
You pick the market you want to aim at, and write the program that fits that segment.

Also, when you change programs in large ways, you get hit by the new coke dilemma.
The people that bought (or would have bought) the program because they liked it stop upgrading/purchasing, because it's not that program anymore.

All I can say for certain is that if this starts resembling those one click video converters (ughh) I'd stop purchasing this product.
I seriously dislike the lowest common denominator approach.
Look what it did to tv.

[MrHaugen]

I think that the 1% is a bit off, but yes I agree that JRiver probably looses lots of potential costumers because they do not see the benefits that usually comes after the first impression period has settled. I've tried convincing LOTS of friends, but I don't know if I've ever managed to get one to stick with it. And that is a darn shame. I also think that a lot could be done by offering users to easily testing out new views/setups and skins etc. Switching skins is possible today of course, but it's not easily available for those with a remote. Some of the best user created skins are not even on the web page, and some skins themes are more than a minute installation, making many user just drop it. This should be easier and more intuitive.

I agree with Jim that the installation of MC is good. It's not many complaints there. What I think is that the installation process should be used to identify the needs and usage patterns for the user, so the setup would be somewhat customized for the individual users. Not trying to please everyone with just one default. I think that is partially what Justin points out.

We know by now that JRiver don't want to focus much on Eye Candy. While this in it's own COULD bring a much larger user base to the purchase button, there are also many other things Justin have in mind that is not Eye Candy, but rather functionality. For new users however, it does give the effect of a nicer look. I do not think that Eye Candy is really the major basis for Justins comments here though...

Justin DOES in a way label MC users as not "normal" But in this case it should be considered a homage With the introduction of direct show auto config meta and other things, MC HAVE gotten more friendly for "normal" users, and it's probably increasing market shares within the normal or casual media player/HTPC market pretty well now. But I DO think we still have to admit that MC have a user base that is largely based on people that have time and dedication to spend on their media collection. I don't think I'm to off here...

[lasker98]

I appreciate that MC is or appears to be infinitely customizable. The problem for me personally is that I don't have a clue how to do it. I consider myself fairly computer savvy but I have no clue about programming, which it seems is what is required to take advantage of MC's depth of potential.
I've read about expressions in the forums, but I don't even know where or how to apply the expressions, even if I could write one.. I'm sure I'm not alone in this.
I figure I'm using probably 10% at the most of MC's potential and really wish there was a way to get a little further without becoming a computer programmer to do it.
Whether this is through tutorials or more organized help, I don't know the answer.
I do really like the program and use it daily.

Bill

[pcstockton]

What you may be forgetting is that there are many more users than those who post regularly here.  The top 100 posters on the forum probably account for a majority of the posts.  They're deeply interested in the subject.  

Most people just use the program.  Of the registered forum members, most never post.  And most people who purchase MC don't even register for the forums.

So what's "normal"?  

Exactly.  I have turned MC on to 4 friends.  All have bought it.  NONE will ever set foot in here.  One of them is an IT guy I suppose could come by here.  But I am guessing he is not going to want to customize beyond that which is easily done in MC, e.g. column widths, skins, fonts, thumbnail spacing, Theater View list style, Items and tree order etc...

The other three will simply let me come over and tweak things as I learn.

There is VERY little I would change about MC.  None of which have anything to do with eye candy.

For example, probably my biggest gripe with MC is how the playlist arrows work.  I am referring to the little grey circles you see next to Album, Artist and Genre.  You click on them to go straight to the corresponding view.  My problem is that it all depends on which view you were last in for Artist.  

Example, I go into Genre and right-click on "Avant-garde" then "play with Play Doctor".  Then i go to the Playing Now view as i would normally.  After a while I might decide that this Uri Caine song is really floating my boat.  So I click on the Arrow next to his name.  Rather than opening up the artist view, MC pulls up the Genre(s) Thumbs he is tagged with.  (If some albums of Uri Caine are tagged with different Genres I see all applicable).  From there I must then click on artist, go back to Playing Now then click the arrow and it will simply bring up the Uri Caine Thumb.

I think the arrows should always go to that which the arrow corresponds to.

The ONLY other thing I can even think of would be the ability to manually set quality/compression level for all of those methods of streaming other than UPNP or Library Sharing.  This would be the server that is used by Gizmo, WebGizmo, JRemote, My River, WebPlay etc....  Currently this is not user configurable.  But it can be by the app developers.

Cheers!
Patrick

[JimH]

I figure I'm using probably 10% at the most of MC's potential and really wish there was a way to get a little further without becoming a computer programmer to do it.

Many changes can be made without programming.  Try right clicking on various parts of the interface to begin.

And this link provides other possibilities.
http://wiki.jriver.com/index.php/Simplified_Interface

[JustinChase]

I'm not seeing a lot of posts like that.  We have new users who are confused and we have experienced users who are confused.  The install process is one of the most trouble-free parts of the program.  It generally just works.  And thousands of times a day.

Sorry, I didn't mean confused with the installation, other than the dread of the countdown, the installation is great.  I meant that once they have it installed, it's usually a moment of "now what?"  That's the confusion I meant.

You're off by more than an order of magnitude.

That's awesome!  It's pretty hard to make a good guess based on what I read in a forum, it was not meant as a criticism in any way.  In the marketing I've done in the past, a 1% return was what we hoped for.

We don't disagree.  We just don't always agree with "your" priorities.  We have our own list.  Eye candy isn't near the top.  One problem is that there is no universal agreement on what is "likable".

I completely understand that you have your own priorities, and considering you know MUCH more about your business than I/we do, that's obviously necessary.  However, it's difficult for us to know what they may be at any given time.  It seems that the "to-do" list is somewhat flexible, since we've seen Matt put together some amazing work in a short period of time.  i.e. full convolver support in a week.  I didn't get the impression that was on the priority list when Matt read the request.  He seemed to like the idea, and BAM, more great stuff in MC!

So it seems that the right request at the right time, well written and justified can get stuff to the top of the list from time to time.  This is great, and I hope it never changes

Often times I don't chime in on something I would like to see changed because I feel like I'm harping, or nagging, and I know that bothers you.  I try to maintain the right balance between request and annoy, I may not be very good at it, sorry.

Regarding 'Eye 'Candy and 'Likable' - there is some consensus, but plenty of dissent also, so yeah, you'll never get it 'right' with everyone.  I think the things that most everyone has mostly agreed on in the last month or two that this has been a regular point of conversation are

• Giving the users the ability to do more customization more easily will help those that really want to tweak away
• Letting that work be shared would probably make it easier for other people (that don't want to tweak) to get something they like
• MC should not be crippled in any way by this process, it's power is it's undisputed greatest asset
• The default views and skins don't "WOW" too many people, most that comment agree improvement is needed here

This may be possible.

Great to hear  

I know it's not intended, but you're labelling everyone who uses MC as not normal.  Think about it.

Actually it is intended, but not in the way you think.  What I mean is that only a small percentage of the population care enough to fiddle with all the dials and switches and expressions and so forth that is currently required to really setup MC the way they want.  Most of the general population think I'm an excel genius because most people can't copy the format of a cell and paste it onto another cell.  People buy me lunch because I can save them hours with a vlookup.  I happen to enjoy using Excel (and MC) because it makes my life easier, so I learn about it.  People like this aren't "normal", myself included, because they have an interest and skill set about computers that most people don't have.

In that respect, the people that post on these boards aren't "normal".  It's not an insult, if anything it's a compliment, but it's mostly meant to point out that the opinions of the posters here are possibly VERY skewed from the general population, due to these facts.

What you may be forgetting is that there are many more users than those who post regularly here.  The top 100 posters on the forum probably account for a majority of the posts.  They're deeply interested in the subject.  Most people just use the program.  Of the registered forum members, most never post.  And most people who purchase MC don't even register for the forums.

No, I'm not forgetting, I'm trying to specifically point it out, and what I think it means.  When an expert user says 'all you have to do is customize it the way you want, it's easy', that's just not true for MOST of the population.  

So what's "normal"?

When I speak about what I think "normal" people want, I'm trying to articulate what those that aren't here may be thinking, and have told me when I've tried to share this.  As you said, most people that purchase MC don't register for the forum, and those that do, mostly don't post.

I think what I'm saying, and others have agreed with, is that if MC made it easier to customize, MC won't have to listen to any more complaints about 'eye candy' and 'likable'.  Once the users have more, easier tools to make/change/tweak their version of eye candy, and can share that work, which can/will be improved upon by other users, more and better options will be available for everyone to use.  I don't think it's the "free" price of XMBC that causes all the skins everyone seems to refer to/want, it's that it's much easier for more people to give it a go, and share.  If there was a view that was almost exactly what I wanted, I might decide to delve in and see if I could change it to be my perfect view.  If I have to start from scratch, I won't even start.

Thanks again for the enlightening dialog.  I enjoy exchanging ideas like this

[Scolex]

I think that the 1% is a bit off, but yes I agree that JRiver probably looses lots of potential costumers because they do not see the benefits that usually comes after the first impression period has settled.

I don't see how anyone could not immediately see and hear the benefits, unless they are more concerned with a pretty interface. For those people I say enjoy your pretty book cover that doesn't have any substance once you open it up.
If a person can't see and hear the benefits then they must be deaf/ignorant/blind (no disrespect) or they don't have enough hardware quality for it to matter because the quality of the audio and video is second to none. I can see a difference in quality even when using a SD TV card as the source when switching between MC and BTV, HD sources have a more pronounced difference.
Do that many people really judge a media player on how it looks? I think no within reason, they either choose it because they are a follower and it is popular, they have a device that has close integration with the app (i device/tunes) or they choose it for it's ease of use.

Part of a recent conversation with an iTunes user (typical novice user):
Me; Why do you like/use iTunes?
Him; I need it for my iPod and I like the radio stations.
Me; What about the user interface?
Him; What about it?
Me; Is it easy to use, do you think it looks nice?
Him; Yea I guess, I don't have any trouble finding what I need. Does it look nice? *chuckles* Why do I care I select a Radio station or playlist hit play and walk away.
 

[JustinChase]

Do that many people really judge a media player on how it looks?

Media player?  I think so, but it's hard to say for sure without a much broader sample size.

Stuff?  Um, YEAH!!!!!  Apple products cost double comparable Windows products, work with 25% of the software as Windows, and are totally closed source.  Yet, despite all that, perhaps you've noticed their popularity.

Substance is NOT what people want; Style is.  Sad, but true.

Remember, those that don't purchase because they don't like how it looks don't come here and tell us that.  They just silently go on to the next thing.  (i.e. the reference to the 'trials to purchase conversion' being an important indicator)

I'm not advocating that JRiver should 'cater to' these ;eye candy' people.  I'm suggesting that if JRiver wants to increase sales (and Jim has said they do), there is evidence that energy spent in this area will yield positive sales results.

It's really hard to see something you're close to, or passioniate about, as an "outsider" or "neutral".  You just have too much specific knowledge about it to be completely objective.  Not just JRiver and MC, but in most anything.

[JimH]

Substance is NOT what people want; Style is.  Sad, but true.

Having both style and substance would be nice.  But if I have to choose, I'll take substance.

We're just a handful of north woods lumberjacks here at JRiver, but Apple wishes they had our substance.

[pcstockton]

Our Bunyan in Portland, OR is right across the street from the "Dancing Bare" our nastiest/best strip club in town.  YES there is a Grateful Dead Bear mural outside.  And NO this place has nothing to do with anything hippy.  Talk about substance.....

[JustinChase]

Having both style and substance would be nice.  But if I have to choose, I'll take substance.

Me too, but not everyone agrees with us (the smart ones )

We're just a handful of north woods lumberjacks here at JRiver, but Apple wishes they had our substance.

If they don't, they REALLY should!!

[FastKayak]

First, I want to thank JustinChase for articulating points I really agree with.  

Secondly, I want to make the same point I've made a number of times - MC is amazing and is created by a truly fantastic group who also run a wonderful forum.  

Third, Jim I think some of your customers are saying MC has an inconceivable amount of substance...so much substance it is difficult to figure out and could use some attention to making the substance more accessible.  Both for existing customers, and presumably for trial or new customers.  More accessible sometimes blends over to folks wanting more eye-candy.

I would caution JRiver thinking we have theater view just where we want it and no changed is truly needed.  There is some percentage of your customer base that does not agree.  I have no idea of the size of the XBMC user base, but I'd love to hear a marketing message in some future JRiver newsletter telling XBMC folks your skins run on MC...come on over and test the water, our engine beats the crap out of the one you've been using!  I think a newsletter like that would grab AnandTech attention a lot.

You bet, a fellow Minnesotan - FastKayak / Larry    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Talk_Minnesotan

[Matt]

I would caution JRiver thinking we have theater view just where we want it and no changed is truly needed.

Each version Theater View gets better.  v17 added slick new list styles, more online backdrops, support for series and season art, Hulu, etc.

Could it get better?  Of course.  But that's true of just about everything in life.  And Theater View will keep getting better.

But I think the experience offered by Theater View connected in a home theater (10' screen, big stereo, etc.) is already pretty mind blowing.

[JustinChase]

But I think the experience offered by Theater View connected in a home theater (10' screen, big stereo, etc.) is already pretty mind blowing.

I really am curious; do you use the 'stock' Theater View?  Or have you modified if from the defaults?

I ask because I know TheaterView can be mind blowing, but I don't have the time, energy, nor skill to make it blow my mind.  It's good, and very functional, but after looking at some of the videos of other programs and 10' interfaces, MC is a little underwhelming to me, in comparison.  Certainly more functional, and better in most every way that really counts (substance), but not as visually interesting as some of the other stuff I've seen.

Also, I want to reiterate that none of my comments are meant to 'bash' anyone in any way, or sound unappreciative of what we do have, nor the improvements we continually see.  I'm just trying to articulate some of the things I think others are saying, and why I think the view often taken here is a little skewed by our general 'geekiness'.

[Fabricio]

But I DO think we still have to admit that MC have a user base that is largely based on people that have time and dedication to spend on their media collection.

+1

[Matt]

I really am curious; do you use the 'stock' Theater View?  Or have you modified if from the defaults?

I don't tweak the program nearly as much as a lot of users.

I'm not sure if that's because I was part of picking the defaults, or because I'm just not as smart as our users.  It's probably the latter.

As for Theater View, if you use some of the new list styles and all your stuff has artwork and tags (which is mostly automatic), it looks pretty cool to me.  All the animations are smooth, and the backdrops make it interesting.  

It's not Crysis 2 but it does look better than XBMC or WMC in my opinion.

[rick.ca]

I appreciate that MC is or appears to be infinitely customizable. The problem for me personally is that I don't have a clue how to do it. I consider myself fairly computer savvy but I have no clue about programming, which it seems is what is required to take advantage of MC's depth of potential.

I suspect it's this mindset, more than anything else, that prevents users from realizing the potential of MC. The 'fairly computer savvy but not a programmer' probably describes the average spreadsheet user. Most of those probably understand they only use 20% of the potential of something like Excel, and that's fine. If they require an unfamiliar tool or function to get the job at hand done, they have to find it and learn how to use it. Those who appreciate what the application is doing for them will control their frustration a solution is not instantly available to them, and will be happy just knowing whatever it is they need to do is possible. Those who declare themselves incapable of using the application won't. That says absolutely nothing about the usability, capability or effectiveness of Excel. It's huge user base will just want more of the same, and it will continue to be 'inaccessible' to those who believe it is so. The same is true with MC.

Many seem to believe use of MC's Expression Language requires programming skills. But the nature of the skill requirements are actually very similar to that of Excel. We can all imagine some programmers can do amazing things with Excel, but we also know the vast majority of it's users are not programmers—yet still making good use of it. Most applications of expressions in MC don't require any more skill than using Sum() in Excel. All you need to do is find the function(s) needed for whatever it is you want to do, and use it. And, just like with Excel, learning how to use a few leads to the realization most of the available functions do exactly what they say they'll do in the same manner.

[pcstockton]

Does XBMC have a standard view?  I could never find one in the multiple times I tried it again at the behest of a fan.

I think it would make much more sense if you went to XBMC and asked them to develop function on par with MC.

[Daydream]

Does XBMC have a standard view?  I could never find one in the multiple times I tried it again at the behest of a fan.

It does not. Its 10ft interface is the program for all purposes and intentions of non-(very) technical people.
The closest you can get is to get a browser for its SQLite database and poke around. But then you'd need to know databases, since we're talking about precise functionality and not a GUI for everybody.

I think it would make much more sense if you went to XBMC and asked them to develop function on par with MC.

It would not. If somebody would ask me to bet on which program would make its user base happier by developing alike features from its counterpart, MC would win hands down. In other words JRiver would need to develop Theater view to rival or top XBMC skins, while the XBMC team will have to bring all the functionality in MC to all the OSes they support, because that's their philosophy that whatever XBMC has (officially) has to be available on every platform they support. Combine that with the fact that the XBMC devs code for free, in their free time -> it will never happen.


A couple of other things:

We just don't always agree with "your" priorities.  We have our own list.  Eye candy isn't near the top.  One problem is that there is no universal agreement on what is "likable"

Is this list unchangeable, is it like you guys decided over a beer on Match 1st that this is the feature set for 2011-2012 and the rest of the world can scream whatever they like, it's not changing? Or is it sensible to change it if faced with solid arguments? You have us at some disadvantage - being paid customers and feeling like we can't influence the approach on this issue over a period of ahem, years.

That's generic. On a more focused approach, I agree what's likeable it's also subjective, debatable, particular. Is it that why it's so low on your priorities, because it's so obvious that no single person can win this battle? Why can't we remove ourselves from this disputes and DO things? All of us on what we do best. You guys give us a more complex skinning engine (opened to future additions since nothing will happen overnight) and we develop skins and attract new users. JRiver always did great things for what they chose to do. All this grief and interminable discussions is over something you kind of chose not to do.

[pcstockton]

You have us at some disadvantage - being paid customers and feeling like we can't influence the approach on this issue over a period of ahem, years.

UNCOOL.  Totally unfair.

JRiver caters to their client base and one-time customers (those who never plan on upgrading) at an unprecedented level.  Where in the world have you ever seen such wonderful support?  They take the time to respond to posts at an alarming rate.  I would bet almost every post is read by someone if not many of them.

Do you really think that most of those items on the to-do list aren't suggestions from users?

I have only been a customer for a few years (if that) and am blown away daily by the program, the forum, the support, the future.

Sorry, but if your suggestions are not implemented you should probably assume they are further down the list, or not even on the list because it is simply not the most important detail to most users (devs included).  At least you can at least be sure the suggestions haven't gone unnoticed.

The following has been said (more or less) in a few of these threads now by the higher ups:  It isn't even clear what is being asked for here as there aren't even mutually understood definitions of terms.  Can you give a concrete example of what you need?  

What exactly is missing?  What tool do you need?

If you are saying "make theater view look like XBMC" I would personally just use both apps if I were you.

-Patrick

(talking a little bit out of my ass here, but couldn't let that comment go.  I dont think i even understand the discussion.  In my naive understanding I think "eye-candy" means XBMC.  And I DO NOT like that player no matter how many times Ive tried it.  I am all down with improvements anywhere devs see fit, but very happy with the aesthetic.)

[FastKayak]

As the poster who mentioned XBMC let me mention a few things.  And by the way, this isn't UNCOOL or un-fair.  

I have been an MC customer since release 10 or so.  I gladly pay whatever price JRiver occasionally charges, its one of the best deals of how I spend my entertainment money.  I use the core functionality of MC daily and have for a long time.  I am an HUGE MC fan and look forward weekly or so to the latest build.

That said, the complaints about theater view go back a long way.  Years, maybe even more than 5.  Theater view has seen progress but it is functional progress for the most part.  In an earlier post Matt mentions new stuff in list styles.  I would point out they are they are 3 levels down, in at least my case they don't seem to work well and MC (as far as I know) can not be started with the new list view as the starting screen (see my comments on accessibility of the deep substance of MC).  With all due respect I think Matt helped make my point stronger.

Sure there isn't a single skin that makes even a reasonable percentage of users happy.  That really isn't the issue.  The issue is to make skinning easier, provide access to things today that can not be skinned and understand the smart MC community can come up with skins that work across the various wants and eye-candy preferences out there.  See some of the work of XPLAIN along with some of the things he would like to do and can not because they are not skinnable, there are fixed to the current theater view architecture.  In the end, in my opinion this is a way to unleash some of the power (substance) of MC that isn't available in any other product be they free or not.

To repeat, I am not an XBMC customer.  I have never set it up, have no idea how it works and whether it is even a good product.  However, I am completely drawn to the following quote from someone in the eye-candy thread -

"XBMC includes a new GUI library written from scratch. This library allows you to skin/change everything you see in XBMC, from the images, the sizes and positions of all controls, colours, fonts, and text, through to altering navigation and even adding new functionality."   XBMC Wiki

This is perhaps to much to ask of MC but at the same time it's one good explenation why XBMC has tons of skinns and J River does not.  Im not saying J River should do exactly what XBMC does, but I hope J River could get some inspiration from it.

It is exactly the ability to make MC look like I want that I am advocating for.  Be it that I do the skinning or I take something put together by the larger MC community.  My further point was for MC to become the product of choice of a larger customer base it needs to do two things - 1) do what the other guy does, but better, or easier, or faster or cheaper, and 2) do stuff the other guy doesn't do at all.  MC has #2 nailed.  It doesn't have enough of #1 to the degree it needs to (okay, faster is completely handled, got it and cheaper isn't going to happen, okay got that too.)

My comments are meant as constructive criticism.  They are meant to open doors so new customers will buy MC and JRiver can increase market share.  With Windows 8 stumbling over MS Media Center there is an opportunity to do so.

FastKayak / Larry

[Daydream]

UNCOOL.  Totally unfair.

You obviously do not know me or my older posts where I debated this topic do death.

I was not saying that JRiver does not provide support. Far from it. I was talking about this particular item - Theater View. And even not that they don't provide support but that they seem to have a slightly different agenda, year after year after year. You obvious are not aware of the length of this issue. For all the other features MC may be (is) ahead of the competition but for Theater view not so much. So I was commenting about it, and how I feel if the trend of piling features and speed and other awesome attributes for the rest of the application continues, but not so much for Theater View; therefore me and my wallet will feel disenchanted (this is not about money - MC's price is more than fair, this is about a principle).

But at any rate, thank you for me an opportunity to clarify something about my stance, XBMC and the world at large. I am a heavy XBMC user, just as much as I am an MC user. I know enough to realize that MC (Theater View) will never be XBMC and actually I wouldn't like that. There are too many differences that probably escape most people that just say "I want XBMC this or that". MC will be its own thing, and it has a great potential to surpass XBMC on the one feature that's causing all this discussion.

And I will be all for it to discuss in more technical details how things can be improved (beyond the "I want...") i.e. how would we manage to converge current options exposed for Theater View in GUI with (advanced) skin options in XML files. But that doesn't seem to be the norm.

With Windows 8 stumbling over MS Media Center there is an opportunity to do so.

Plus even XBMC didn't quite cause an uproar with Eden (latest version). HD bitstreaming still existing only on Windows forks and other things like that that did disappoint.

[pcstockton]

whatever.  you are still clinging to the "i spent $50 and want everything i want".

You go to a restaurant and spend $50.  it wasn't alll you dreamed it to be.  THEN you are there and on their website "for years" asking that the salmon be sous-vide to 55C rather than 46.     GO AWAY ALREADY!  If it sucks that much use both players.

(my god, i would LOVE synced lyrics like I had in Foobar.  I asked once or twice, not going to happen obviously.  give it up.)



you are right, i dont know you.  that is certainly the case.  I can verify that.

Why not just use XBMC and be done with it.  They are completely different players.  Get used to it.  Run both.

Do all of the important shite in MC, then dazzle your friends with your freeware.

-p

[pcstockton]

But at any rate, thank you for me an opportunity to clarify something about my stance, XBMC and the world at large. I am a heavy XBMC user, just as much as I am an MC user.

The world at large?  What are you talking about?  Once again, VERY SIMPLY can you describe what is missing and what you need/want?

[MrHaugen]

Daydream and Fastkayak, thanks for well written replays. I support you 100%.

whatever.  you are still clinging to the "i spent $50 and want everything i want".

This is not only about things he, I  or we want. I my self use Theater View ALL the time. It's almost the only interface I use except for my workstation. I've tried XBMC several times. The last time for 36 hours just for video, but had to uninstall it because I got sick of the navigation and sluggishness. I'm never leaving MC, but that does not mean that me or everyone else is happy, and that MC gets as much attention as it should.

This discussion springs largely from the idea of bringing MC to a wider audience. Helping out the new users more easily sticking with MC after testing it out. Not only focusing on media feature nutcases like me, geeks like me, IT guys like me, audiophiles and videophiles. The other segment which I call "casual media users" are actually a MUCH larger segment, and it's here that MC struggles getting new users the most. Of this I am 99.9% sure. In the Eye Candy thread there's been a lot of suggestions how to improve the first time usage for new users, to improve ease of customization AND at the same time to bring more features and to raise the perceived "bling/eye candy" in Theater View. I've tried to make a small summary of what I noticed as the most commonly agreed points:

http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=72095.msg489544#msg489544

Yes, MC is far superior in most fields. It's hands down the best player for audio, probably also for Video. It got NO competitors when it comes to flexibility and customization. It's standard view and features are almost limitless in usability. The problem is that the majority of users will not do a listening test and compare players (I don't), they will not see much of a difference in video playback over VLC player (I don't), they will not use expression or customize even the smallest detail because they do not want or have the time devoted to this. They just want it to work, be functional as well as presenting and playing their media in a nice way.

Yes, MC can do this, but try to think of all the media users you've seen out there. All the persons with iTunes and portable players or phones with music and other media. All the persons that have a Cable, PvR or DVD players. All the people at work or home using Spotify or other streaming services. ALL those are potential MC purchasers and users. If you take the average technical skill of those, I think most of you understand that customization to get things like they want is of no priority. They do not want to spend 1 hour on a forum to get the help needed to get what they want. Would they be willing to spend hours a week to figure out new functionality of a media player or media center? No, probably not. They stick with familiar alternatives instead. This is based on the usage and behavior of perhaps 50 persons I've seen using media over the last years. I might live in a strange country. But I doubt the difference is that huge from Norway to the US. Or any other place in the world.

So, what DO this big group of users want? They want things to work out of the box. They want things to be functional and look good out of the box. They want common and easily accessible features available when they want. They want hazel free media experience. As we've seen in the poll of the usage of the Theater View, a good 70% of the users used Theater View some or all the time (and that is just people on this forum). When you look at Media Center, which is actually the name of this product, I think most of those "normal users" sees this as a HTPC and couch experience. Most people I know of that uses music and video either have a dedicated PC for their TV, or they hook up their laptop to a TV. When they do, they would rather use a 10 foot interface instead of mouse and keyboard. I think it's pretty safe to say that Theater View is VERY important.

The problem is that people hear about XBMC and similar clones years before they hear anything about MC. It's much more wide spread and it's a well known product. That makes them a strong competitor just because of that. People coming from such systems have their catalog structure in place and things works as they expect. They have gotten used to nice skins that does pretty much everything they need (at least this is what they think).

The following is a list of what I believe many new MC users sees and thinks when they try out MC for the first time. At least those that come from other media center alternatives. These are not things that HAVE to be in MC, but I do think it's very often things people will miss. Please do not take this list as demands of what I want to be fixed or added. It's just what I personally believe have some of the biggest impacts on new users coming from competitors. It's partially based on feedback from friends and family and new and old posts on this forum.

- They need to adapt to the "library thinking" and they probably need to fix some some media types to have nice and consistent views in Theater View
- Theater View looks plain compared to what they have seen other places (more use of art work, backdrops, graphics for media properties and so on)
- They do not see ratings for their media, except when they highlight the item
- They do not see Number Plays in caption or possibly in the Info Panels
- The caption is just a string of text. No graphics to ease the reading. No alignment to get logical placement of the text/graphics
- They do not see a summary for series and seasons like they are used to
- They have no chance of selecting positions for the info panels
- They have wrong sorting in season view and perhaps others
- They can not sort or filter from within The the UI. They have to exit and edit options (less dynamic content than they are used to)
- They do not get the logical "Season " text in front of the season numbers in the views
- The backgrounds are sometimes wrong, and they are slow to change when selecting new items (especially if you need to download them). They are often used to ultra fast switching with local downloaded images.
- They DO have some nice cover flow and video wall options, but many users does not even know they are there because it's hidden in a sub menu
- Those cover flow and video list styles does attract some users, but those users who need to quickly glance at for instance ratings and description, this is a bad list choice. Yes, you can use enter and left left to go in and out again, but it's to much work when you want to look at several alternatives. Many are not used to it either.

All of those things mentioned, and the fact that so many uses XBMC and clones already (it's easier to be convinced of a large crowd going the right way), makes it very very hard for MC users to convince others of the fact that MC is a better product. Most people will not spend the time needed to actually figure out what all the upsides are. And that is incredibly sad imo. Because I know that if some more resources was spent here, it would be such an easy job for us to help you sell this superb piece of software to a lot more people. If some of the "major" overlaying causes was to be fixed, we would have a lot better basis for getting our friends and family to use this wonderful application.

[InflatableMouse]

I'll add my 2 cents to the discussion but I don't want to get involved other than this post. I appreciate MC in more ways than I can mention and it has a solid use in my home. The fact that I've been here since the early music jukebox versions testify to that.

I use MC mainly to manage my music collection from my workstation and I use MC on my HTPC when I want to seriously listen to some music (read: sit down and fall asleep on the couch ). Anything with video is played with XBMC. Just playing background music is done with XBMC too because its always running (cant run both and alt-tab, gives issues). My wife, my sons all use XBMC and I never had to explain how it worked; for my wife that means a lot because she is worse with pc's, home theater and remote controls than my dead grandma.

And why is that? Because its zero effort. All series, movies and music is imported with all covers, descriptions and tagged correctly and everything is where you would expect it to be when you browse the collections. New episodes are picked up automatically, tagged and ready when I come home. Zero effort, litteraly. HTPC is only an Atom machine running Windows 7. Never, ever any sluggishness. Never an issue, and I rarely ever reboot it. Occasionally the remote doesn't work but when that happens, no programs work with it so I guess thats a driver/windows issue.

XBMC runs with the heaviest skin there is, Aeon. It is absolutely gorgeous (subjective, I know ) http://xbmc.org/skins/aeon/. I've got it running with all animations enabled. Changing list views is a matter of a few clicks. Customizing menus (adding/removing items, creating aliases/shortcuts) is done in a matter of seconds and can all be done with the remote. The entire interface including all customizations and system settings can conveniently be done with the remote. With MC I need to switch to the standard view, get up, grab a mouse and keyboard and move closer to the TV because the font is too small.

Then there is plugin support, for instance lyrics and subtitles, but also for different remotes/configs, fanart downloading, different scrapers for music and video info, and many more. The subtitle addon is a big issue for me because even though my english is pretty good, I don't get all the slang and my wife and kids need it too. XMBC's subtitle plugin allow me to get subtitles for any series, any episode, any movie, with only a few remote control clicks. I can adjust offsets for subs and audio and brightness/contrast on the fly.

I *want* to use MC, for everything even for video. I tried and I will keep trying because it keeps getting better with each new release. ROHQ works flawless too. I would drop XBMC in a heartbeat even for less eye candy if MC offered me a near-level of convenience. The problem is that its too much hassle to organise the videos and get the view I want, And then when I have it, I have to reinstall at some point. For some reason I always seem to loose something, settings, views, something is always lost in the transition and then I need to do it all again. With XBMC, I copy 1 or 2 folders, I copy them back and I got everything how it was.

Why doesn't the video (and pictures for that matter) section in MC not offer the same level of views, like audio? When I install MC the audio tree gives me artists, albums, genres and this is the same in Theater View where I can browse on artist, album, genre. With movies and series (and pictures) nothing is where I expect it. In the tree view under Video There is no TV Shows, No seasons, no episodes. No panes. I need to manually create all that to be able to manage tags properly and when I do, some episodes are still missing and some movies don't show for some reason. I need to go through the entire list of hundreds of episodes, dozens of movies and correct like half of it, add collums, panes and muck about for hours. This is too much hassle, I'm really sorry but it is.

I can keep on writing about XMBC and all its lovely features and how well it works for me, but you get the picture. For me, for pure HTPC Theater mode, nothing beats XBMC, I'm sorry but you got a long way to go to reach that level of convenience, for me at least. For managing music collections and for the best possible music playback experience however, nothing beats MC.

[preproman]

But I think the experience offered by Theater View connected in a home theater (10' screen, big stereo, etc.) is already pretty mind blowing.

Theater View mind blowing?  Not even close.  

I was an XBMC user before moving over to MC.  I had it configured with an external player using MPC-HC with MadVR and the LAV splitters - so my viewing experience has not changed.

By the way - I only wanted to use one player.  Since JR does such a good job with audio I picked MC.  I told myself I'm willing to fight and struggle with the video part.

Now listen, I'm not talking about the capabilities and the functionalities of MC at all.   I'm talking about the LOOKS and the available skins we have to pick from.  Thanks to XPLAIN we have at least two good ones..  Lets compare what we have to XBMC shall we..

We have the 2 that XPLAIN created.  They have close to 30 skins to pick from that was made by (I'm guessing here) almost 30 different people.  The Aeon MQ3 skin vs. our Theater Views best skin??  And you say Theater View is mind blowing??  Aeon MQ3 kicks our ASS..

Let the folks who want to create skins - create them.  I'm sorry - why is that an issue?  

[xplain]

Thanks to XPLAIN we have at least two good ones.. 

And a third could be on the way, not just from me,

Read on here:http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=72366.0

[imugli]

So am I correct in saying we have this thread, an eye candy thread (which this one seems to be as well) as well as a couple of closed threads where people have taken to each other?

Really???

I must be missing something  

I consider myself to be one of the ones willing to teach myself if necessary, and I've even gone so far as to create my own view schemes to demonstrate what I (and Glynor, I think) would like in terms of TV Guide functionality (Series View, Time of Day, Genre etc). Funnily enough, when an actual example of what people would like something to look like has been put forward, the guys at JR have considered the idea and implemented it fairly quickly when they agreed.

http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=64851.msg435898#msg435898 is an example.

Thomas has already demonstrated that MC is skinnable if you put the time and effort into learning how to and others have demonstrated that when provided with specific, concrete examples, JR will implement them. Take the time. Learn the software. Create something CLOSE to what you're after. THEN come here and say "we want it to look better"...

[Daydream]

Once again, VERY SIMPLY can you describe what is missing and what you need/want?

1) Theater View ability to visually deliver information is not the best. And while 'best' is subjective, it surely is not up to the level of a certain competitor.
To be even more clear the 'eye candy' aspect is a side product. We don't want eye candy just because we need flowers and flying elephants all over the place. However design done right will convey the needed information and look appealing, even alluring, therefore creating the reflex of people wanting 'nice' things.

2) Having said that Theater View needs improving, the second thing missing is the ability to truly change the interface to display the information in a free form structure. While the case has been made that fields displayed can be customized, that's not it. There is a difference to customize fields in a fixed, given structure, and another thing to customize fields in a free form structure.

[JustinChase]

I must be missing something  

I consider myself to be one of the ones willing to teach myself if necessary, and I've even gone so far as to create my own view schemes to demonstrate what I (and Glynor, I think) would like in terms of TV Guide functionality (Series View, Time of Day, Genre etc). Funnily enough, when an actual example of what people would like something to look like has been put forward, the guys at JR have considered the idea and implemented it fairly quickly when they agreed.

http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=64851.msg435898#msg435898 is an example.

Thomas has already demonstrated that MC is skinnable if you put the time and effort into learning how to and others have demonstrated that when provided with specific, concrete examples, JR will implement them. Take the time. Learn the software. Create something CLOSE to what you're after. THEN come here and say "we want it to look better"...

This isn't directed at imugli, but his recent post is indicative of several posts that say something similar and was easy to quote. 

As I tried to point out, 'you' are not "normal" because you will put forth the time.  My thoughts were meant to try to illuminate the thoughts and feelings of the "normal" folks in the world.

Also, I don't think this is necessarily intended to elicit 1 or 2 specific changes to Theater View.  It's meant more of a holistic overview of the basic disconnect between what normal people will accept and pay for, and what seems to be the thinking behind why 'it's good enough for now'.

There have been maybe a half-dozen similar 'Theater View isn't as good as it could be' threads recently (and many over the years), and as has been pointed out in most of them, there is a lack of concrete examples, and no one agrees on what's 'best' or even 'needed' to fix the situation.  Understandably, it's difficult for JRiver to know exactly what to do to try to please more people than they upset with any changes.  Plus, whatever needs to be done will likely require some serious time expenditure to make it worth the effort.  So, I understand some reluctance to try to make change here, especially since we're surely past the 1/2 way point for v17.

However, there have been some really specific examples of what people want.  I can think of a few that I remember, but it would take me an hour to find and gather them into one place.  I don't mind spending the hour to so this, but I suspect it won't do any good.  I don't get the impression that JRiver is considering making any changes that have been proposed at this point.  Both Matt and Jim have indicated they are happy enough with the situation as it is.  It makes me sad, but I'll live with it, and keep my fingers crossed that some of these things make it into v18.  I wished for the ability to share views, and schemes, and user customization since v12 I think, nearly 10 years now.  That's still not possible yet.  Some others have recently suggested they would like this also, so maybe someday.

I think the general sentiment for why to not bother seems to be that it's currently possible to make changes to Theater View, and if someone doesn't want to put forth the effort, that's their unwillingness to adapt to MC, and they aren't a good fit for the power of MC, too bad for them.

I can't disagree too strongly with this, but I do disagree somewhat, as I've already stated.  However, it does seem that JRiver does want to increase sales, and honestly, how many computer geeks that really care about their media and have the computer saavy and time to devote to learning how to do it are there in the world?  Surely MC has been discovered and adopted by the majority of this niche market already.  I suspect that this group represents less than 25% of the general population of people that like music and movies, and would spend money to experience it more enjoyably.  I've tried to 'convert' a dozen or more people and no one cares to learn how to use it.  They just don't.  They aren't going to want to learn it tomorrow, or next week, or ever.  If it's not easier to use, they will NEVER give JRiver their money.  If it were easier to use, many would give JRiver money.

So, how do you make it easier?  I think this is the crux of the issue?  How do you make it easier for people to use and enjoy MC, but not 'dumb it down' for the expert users?

There have been many suggestions, but I have no idea how many have been captured by JRiver for implementation, but I suspect not many, since they are not convinced changes are necessary.  Perhaps someone is pasting them into an excel spreadsheet of ideas, who knows?  I do know that occasionally Jim will post to ask 'how can we make xxxxxx better', and I know I've seen dozens of ideas that had already been suggested, so it sure seems that these ideas and suggestions aren't being actively collected.

If we knew that JRiver wanted to focus on making this part of MC better, and told us that, I bet there would be a big influx of ideas and suggestions, and debates, and some great things would result, and MC would be improved. 

Often though, JRiver focuses on something suddenly, asks for input, gets one or 3 posts of feedback, and the change is made or implemented.  Sometimes people come and complain about the change because of unforseen side effects.  Many of these might have been avoided by a more lengthy discussion prior to implementation.  I really hope that if/when JRiver decides to focus on improving the usability and customizability of MC that all of these great ideas are found, all put together in one place for review, input sought from the community, then concerted effort is spent to make some changes, and it's worked on until it's "done".  I know MC is never done, but so many things get implemented, but never quite polished up.  I think this is one area where there should be a target set of what "done" looks like, and work continues until that is achieved.

Anyway, I don't really have much more to say about all this.  It's not meant as anything more than constructive feedback from a user that cares.

[sail121j]

It is nice to see the passion and interest from the serious users of MC with the underlying message of wanting to make it even better.  I have been a user for many years - always taking the beta loads and new stuff as soon as it comes out.  I use maybe half of its capabilities and have been an salesman to my friends that they have taken the product up too - enthusiastically.  The interest on this thread alone is very nice to see - love the product and keep up the good work.

Thanks
Jack

[Scolex]

A few visual representations of what I would like to see: (not the *prettiest* but it is just a quickie)

Additional setting for Theater View categories so a person doesn't need to edit a xml file for their custom categories as most people suffer from code-phobia and it would be impossible to enter all possible categories in a canned skin/theme.


We can access the OSD with the up/down arrows and the i/Info button so I say add a new Info panel that is bound to the i/Info button with settings something like this.


Here is what my settings would look like I chose bottom because most of my movies are 2.35:1 aspect and I push them to the top.


A new panel bound to the Menu key for access to items that are in the OSD, the single line of the OSD causes navigation to lack efficiency due to not knowing which way to move.
A setting to pause playback when entering the Menu would be wanted by some I am sure.



PS: I have something similar but with less info that I am implementing through a 3rd party application.

[imugli]

A few visual representations of what I would like to see: (not the *prettiest* but it is just a quickie)

....

I like this, and proposed something similar for TV...

http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=72181.0

This is not XBMC style make my TV look like a cartoon by adding icons for this, that and the other. It just makes sense

[rick.ca]

A few visual representations of what I would like to see...

The OSD File Info seems like a nice idea, but in the context of Theatre View, are we really going to use such a thing? The video was most likely launched from a view that included all the info we wanted to see. If we didn't look at it then, are we going to want to display it while the movie is playing? Without it, we can still stop the movie, review the info in Theatre View, and resume when done. If there is a demand for mid-movie info display, I think a better approach is the one presented earlier (somewhere in this multi-threaded discussion) where an info panel is presented beside the still playing video. Another approach would be a transparent overlay that flashes basic info on the screen for a second or two—just what you need when you've forgotten what you're watching (i.e., for us old farts) or the name of the director or principal actor. That could be invoked with a button press at a point where it will be least disruptive to the viewing of the video.

I agree an OSD that displays all the settings is much more efficient for finding and changing what needs to be changed. On the other hand, it's very disruptive when only one simple change (like the volume) is required. So, as I've suggest before, I think some sort of hybrid would work best. That could be as simple as one that works as it does now, but the first item is 'Menu', and selecting it will display something like your illustration. It's not clear from your mockup, but I assume Aspect and Subtitles would expand into full vertical lists of available settings (or only when there are 3 or more) for the item. That's what I would like to see as well for Chapters. The hybrid system should apply to these as well. In other words, if I want to see a list of chapters, I don't want to also see all the other settings. I would want to select 'Chapters' in the one-line OSD, and when I do so it displays a vertical list of chapters.

[Scolex]

The OSD File Info seems like I nice idea, but in the context of Theatre View, are we really going to use such a thing? The video was most likely launched from a view that included all the info we wanted to see. If we didn't look at it then, are we going to want to display it while the movie is playing? Without it, we can still stop the movie, review the info in Theatre View, and resume when done. If there is a demand for mid-movie info display, I think a better approach is the one presented earlier (somewhere in this multi-threaded discussion) where an info panel is presented beside the still playing video. Another approach would be a transparent overlay that flashes basic info on the screen for a second or two—just what you need when you've forgotten what you're watching (i.e., for us old farts) or the name of the director or principal actor. That could be invoked with a button press at a point where it will be least disruptive to the viewing of the video.

I agree an OSD that displays all the settings is much more efficient for finding and changing what needs to be changed. On the other hand, it's very disruptive when only one simple change (like the volume) is required. So, as I've suggest before, I think some sort of hybrid would work best. That could be as simple as one that works as it does now, but the first item is 'Menu', and selecting it will display something like your illustration. It's not clear from your mockup, but I assume Aspect and Subtitles would expand into full vertical lists of available settings (or only when there are 3 or more) for the item. That's what I would like to see as well for Chapters. The hybrid system should apply to these as well. In other words, if I want to see a list of chapters, I don't want to also see all the other settings. I would want to select 'Chapters' in the one-line OSD, and when I do so it displays a vertical list of chapters.

Let me elaborate the info panel would be available in all views you have configured it to appear in. If an item is highlighted whether it be a song, movie or whatever and you hit the info button the overlay appears, I just used an in movie example to limit the number of screen caps I needed. That way instead of selecting a file to get to a screen that gives you more than the [Name] you simply hit Info to have the panel appear and then either hit OK to play the file or Info again to close the panel. If you don't close the panel it will remain open as you cycle through the different files with the D-pad.

The standard OSD would still be there accessed by using the up/down arrows, only what is available is configurable as would the Menu. I did not show a configuration window for the Menu but it would be similar to the info panel for size/position and would have additional settings for what is listed. Yes once an item that has multiple selections is highlighted an expansion/drop down would become visible after a brief delay (500ms?), you would then use the up/down arrows and enter to select the desired option.

One other addition that would be GREAT imho would be if a trailer is available it would be displayed in the info panel instead of the thumbnail. Use some sort of naming convention so MC automatically knows the trailer is available [Name].trailer.[ext] and place it in the same folder as the primary movie.