I can tell by your responses, or lack of, that you guys aren't very enthusiastic about supporting this area, but it is an area in JRiver that a huge majority of your paying customers are wanting support in.
I don't know about 'huge', but it may very well be a majority of users who feel this way. Whatever the numbers, the lack of enthusiasm you're referring to surely can't be a blatant disregard for what so many customers want. It seems more likely it has to do with the impossibility of satisfying the unreasonable expectations these users have.
This matter has been beaten to death—most recently in
Eye Candy. Some can't seem to understand or accept that MC can't be just like XBMC (or whatever) without, well, becoming XBMC. Theatre View is already far more advanced than XBMC, and adding or modifying visual elements via skinning while respecting it's completely flexible design just isn't feasible.
I don't mean to suggest that all of these users just want MC to be like XBMC. Some do appreciate the abilities of Theatre View, and would like some additional features to make it more visually appealing. But it's very clear most of these users have not even considered what Theatre View can already do. The message is, "I don't want to have to configure anything, I just want it to be like XMBC." The only rational response to this, "You're beyond our ability to support you. Use XBMC, if that's what you prefer." If you're running a business, of course, you don't say such things to customers.
So why not give them what they want—a 'Theatre View for Dummies' that looks just like XBMC? Because then there would be even more complaining that, while TVD is very pretty, it won't display custom fields wherever desired, allow menus to configured to suit the user's circumstances, etc., etc. It's a shame such a thing could not be created easily. It would be an excellent demonstration that what many ask for is not really what they want.
In the aftermath of the unproductive
Eye Candy discussion, I posted
Proposal: Logos in Theatre View's Info Panels. Although I like the idea, my main purpose was to demonstrate how we might suggest
specific, feasible features for Theatre View that might be used to improve it's visual appeal. Other than a handful of positive comments from experienced users who seem to appreciate the implications, it hasn't received much popular support.
My conclusion is developers really are on there own in such circumstances. If many users are going to demand the impossible while ignoring the feasible (not to mention many capabilities that already exist), maybe this is best ignored. Showing any enthusiasm for the phenomenon certainly won't help. The best strategy may be to conserve your energy for the day you've decided, using your own best judgment, to take a gamble and introduce a new feature you hope will be worth the development effort to create it.
I believe the first priority for Theatre View development should be on making the configuration system more powerful and easier to use. Many suggestions on how to do that have been made. Progress on that front will make Theatre View's potential more accessible, and hopefully increase appreciation of it's fundamental design. Then users will be more likely to demand features that are both useful and feasible. But that's just my opinion. If it's ignored, I'm not going to assume it's because JRiver is bent on ignoring what a huge majority of their customers want.
