YouView over Satellite??
DJHB1980
Member Posts: 168 ✭✭
I may be an idiot.., lol
Could YouView be delivered via satellite.
Like YouView is now like FreeView but YouView being like FreeSat.
I hope this makes sense. And would basically men that YouView will be available via both mediums.
Obviously all future YouView boxes would need a dual Sat input plus dual Terrestrial tuner.
And you could have either or,.... or both?
Just a thought.
Could YouView be delivered via satellite.
Like YouView is now like FreeView but YouView being like FreeSat.
I hope this makes sense. And would basically men that YouView will be available via both mediums.
Obviously all future YouView boxes would need a dual Sat input plus dual Terrestrial tuner.
And you could have either or,.... or both?
Just a thought.
0
Comments
I posted the same idea some time ago here:
https://community.youview.com/youview...
Youview have never ruled it out, but they have kept a tight focus on freeview.
Lots has changed this suggestion was first made. Freesat's freetime equivalent of Youview, has become a flexible platform able to work both on freesat and freeview in some Panasonic tv's. And more recently Youview is now facing direct competition from freeview play. Nowtv are also about to release a box with a freeview tuner built in.
Youview have been expanding from the narrow settop box focus. You can now get it built into Sony tv's, but unfortunately it's only usable on freeview tuners. Perhaps this will change in th future to mirror what Freesat's freetime have done in panasoinc tv's?
At the moment Freesat's freetime is your best option for a connected freesat platform
And a satellite port on the TV.
If FreeView and FreeSat join somehow., should have a unified EPG & ecosystem being the free tv alternative.
Having pay addons NOW TV, Sky Go, Netflix, Amazon, BT Sport
Maybe wishful thinking.
Just read the thread in the link Joe gave you. Every possible angle on this has been covered on there, and its a good read.
I guess as its 2016 they could email.
I don't see a loser.
YouView, FreeView, FreeSat
Player prices won't be ridiculous.
Will need to be HD at least backwards compatible for next 3/5 yrs till everything is on HD capacity & at least 2tb HDD.
YouView is a unique take on Freeview and in its four short years of existence is already the #1 platform of choice. And they actually achieved that after only 3. Thats a staggering rate of progression which hasn't stopped yet. Freetime, which is a YouView clone, using HbbTV 2.0, dominates the much smaller Freesat market, and they're doing a very good job at it.
You got that message, not me.
When Youview first launched lots of people thought it was going to be the next connected version of freeview. Instead it was set up in competition to freeview.
The Freeview Consortium didn't like YouView because they refused to comply with its standards. And look at them now. And its because they refused to comply with their standards that YouView is now the #1 PVR/box of choice. And it is quite simply the best box one can buy.
http://support.youview.com/articles/S...
12. Respect is the name of the game. You must respect your fellow members. ................. Do not make uninvited remarks about typos, duplicate posts, posting styles, etc.
If you know something I don't, then I must bow to your much-hinted-at Secret Insider Knowledge :-)
But the above is not my understanding.
AIUI, YouView did not refuse to comply with the Freeview standards; it was more that they could not comply, because the Freeview standards simply did not allow for what YouView wanted to do.
Though I suspect that YouView asked Freeview to change their standards to accommodate YouView, and Freeview wouldn't. Which maybe accounts for the rather bad blood between them, and YouView being launched as a Freeview killer instead of as a Freeview extender.
Either way, whatever the difference, they must have been very subtle, because I defy anyone to tell me where, exactly, YouView departs from the Freeview standard, and what difference that makes, in normal day-to-day operation.
And Freeview Play is an analogue of YouView, at least of retail YouView, so somehow the issues got resolved for a Freeview conformant device.
So what, exactly, would YouView have had to have done different to conform with the Freeview standard? And in what way did not doing this make YouView #1, instead of making a hash of things?
Would Freeview conformance have ruled out the IP channels that BT and TT run? Maybe that would do it.
The YouView box is No 1, I suspect, because of the deals with BT and TT that put a lot of boxes out there. And because, however infuriating its needless restrictions, and lack of development of long-wished-for user features, no other box has gained the traction that YouView has.
But perhaps it is just fortunate for YouView that Humax have never released over here the box they sell in Australia.
I also think if YouView really were going to stick two fingers up to Freeview, though, they would not be so slavishly adhering to various Freeview standards, e.g. channel ordering.
OTOH, if Freeview certification was denied because YouView does not follow the D-Book recommendations on 4:3 versus 16:9, then more power to Freeview's elbow. But I can't think this was the sort of thing that YouView couldn't do; just something they wouldn't do, and shame on them for it.
Though I suspect that YouView asked Freeview to change their standards to accommodate YouView, and Freeview wouldn't. Which maybe accounts for the rather bad blood between them, and YouView being launched as a Freeview killer instead of as a Freeview extender.
I'd previously missed this comment. My bad.
No, that didn't happen at all. And the reasons that YouView isn't Freeview compliant go far deeper than that. Which are both technical and political. Its Digital UK (DTG) that don't like YouView, purely for the reason they choose to go their own way, with no Overlord looking over them. Masters of their own destiny, as it were. And would stand or fall by it. And their not doing too bad a job of it, up to now.
Back in 2012, when YouView first presented their thoughts and plans to the European Consortium which backed HbbTV 1.0 (which was poor by any set of standards) they allegedly were laughed out of the forum. The hypocritical thing about that was that the 1.0 standard at that time was garbage, and they knew it. And knew an evolvement was required, but they could never jump to YV standards, so tried to do so in incremental stages of progression. They jumped from 1.0 to 1.5 (a staging bridge) to the now 2.0.1.(HTML 5). And are are still no where near YV's standards.
http://informitv.com/2012/07/15/intellect-backs-hbbtv-despite-youview/
And then we get to SKY....
SKY tried to strangle Project Canvas, which evolved into YouView, from gestation, and spent years dragging it out before Ofcom. Objection after objection after objection. Why? Because Sky don't like competition in any form whatsoever. They have an American business attitude, which is not to share anything with anyone and to crush anything and everything which may be a threat to their business model. They thankfully failed and YouView eventually launched, years behind schedule, but they are here now and are firmly entrenched as an established and disruptive market force.
Stick a couple of satellite inputs on a 4K capable YouView box with a few bells and whistles attached and be massively competitive with Sky & NowTV
Ah........
YouView need to get into bed with FreeView & FreeSat and corner every angle.
Stick a couple of satellite inputs on a 4K capable YouView box with a few bells and whistles attached and be massively competitive with Sky & NowTV
A few pointers here as to the way the market is... I can understand what you say as making sense, but the market isn't made up like that, and so no provider currently does what you propose, as each provider targets one, and only one, specific platform to garner as much market share as possible.
The current platforms are Digital Terrestrial Television (DTT) /YouView, Freeview/Freeview Play, Sky, Freesat/Freetime, Cable TV (Liberty Global/Virgin media), ADSL broadband (TalkTalk) and Fibre (BT). Plus pure IP streaming services such as Netflix, Amazon Prime and Now TV.
As technology has progressed, most of the above have over time become hybrid providers, in that each now uses its platform of choice plus broadband or cable to provide an extra layer of services that provide added value, such as say on demand and box sets at your finger tips, at any time you want them.
So due to the complexity of the above and established market share of each of the above, no provider will or would ever make a multiple platform attack/attempt, as they would quite simply fail.
I have a 4k capable YouView device with a couple of satellite inputs on the side right now. And so do you - it's the Sony Android TV.
OK, it's not Freesat - which it's batsh*t crazy that it isn't, of course - but it could so easily be.
Re broadband, I think you will find that TalkTalk do Fibre, that BT do copper, and that a whole host of other providers do both, like for instance my Sky Fibre connection.
And Sky have just done what you said no provider would, which is make a triple play for a share of the Freeview market, with their new NowTV box and the add-on services you can get with it.
Another point is, the things you list aren't platforms, exactly; they are delivery mechanisms. Platforms, to me, are things like the YouView box, AppleTV, the various Sky boxes, Smart TVs, and so on.
I think this point is more than mere nitpicking, as it indicates a key issue here; any one offering is a combination of platform, delivery mechanism(s) and content.
So the market space can actually be considered as a 3D space, a cube if you like, with the three axes being platform, delivery mechanism(s) and content. To see who is competing with who over what, choose a face of the cube and look through it. To see differentiation, choose another face, and look through that.
And you get stuff that is right out in the middle (most of it), and stuff that clings to the axes like the completely platform-agnostic Netflix that never saw the need to build a Netflix device, while NowTV and Amazon did build devices, as well as provide their services/content delivery mechanisms.
Content-agnostic devices like the Rokus. And Hybrid platforms with a bit of it all, like YouView and Sky.
('Hybrid' is going to look pretty quaint soon, as terminology goes, BTW. People will start to say "What else could it be?" and point to their 'hybrid' wifi and 4G smartphones that nobody ever calls hybrid, for some reason).
Assertions like DJHB1980's above, then, become assertions about how offerings will move in that 3-dimensional space when they are modified in some way, and we can see, perhaps, that adding Freesat to YouView won't move it one iota in the Content dimension, as far as overlapping Sky content is concerned.
All of which is a very long way round to my one-liner reply to DJHB1980 above, that what he proposes won't make YouView one iota more competitive with Sky.
But having the full NowTV on YouView would. Hmmm.... Sky have been very careful, and very canny, about positioning NowTV so as not to cannibalise their full offering. I wonder if they think that having the full Now TV on YouView would be cannibalising it?
Roy>
Re broadband, I think you will find that TalkTalk do Fibre, that BT do copper, and that a whole host of other providers do both, like for instance my Sky Fibre connection.
Yes, of course they do do.
I was more referring more to the platforms main delivery mechanisms for TV and VoD, and majority of users. Ergo SKY> SAT, BT YV> fibre, TT YV> ADSL. Then there is a minority criss-cross of usage from all of them, as you describe above.
Another point is, the things you list aren't platforms, exactly; they are delivery mechanisms. Platforms, to me, are things like the YouView box, AppleTV, the various Sky boxes, Smart TVs, and so on.
The hardware? No, no, the devices are the delivery mechanisms, with the content shown on them the platform.
So the market space can actually be considered as a 3D space, a cube if you like, with the three axes being platform, delivery mechanism(s) and content.
What a fascinating way to describe it. And yes, totally agree!
But having the full NowTV on YouView would. Hmmm.... Sky have been very careful, and very canny, about positioning NowTV so as not to cannibalise their full offering. I wonder if they think that having the full Now TV on YouView would be cannibalising it?
Now, that is the question. And is a topic in itself....
Sky detest YouView. Or to go further, detest anything that they regard as competition. But to not be on YouView? Nooo... as they want a piece of that lovely pie.
Sky are desperate to be live on YV, and may well probably be the first commercial one on there (as the BBC are the first, with their stunning HD app delivery) but there will be caveats, for the reasons you point out above. Cannibalisation.
Numbering systems overhaul on both sides. Logical?
Many, well both, of the "stakeholders" are in both camps
FreeView - Owner
Arqiva
BBC
ITV plc
Channel Four Television Corporation
Sky plc
FreeSat Owner
BBC
ITV plc
There would need to be a cohesive overview
of both aerial and sat delivery.
FreeSat freetime & FreeView Play marriage???
I'm convincing myself now
Sorry I know it'll never happen but the possibilities
Worth us bottoming this platform thing though. I start from the analogy with:-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compu...
which, if we take Netflix as an example, could indeed be called a platform for content delivery, even though I am arguing for the platforms to be the physical devices. But the content can't be the platform, not usefully anyway, in my book.
After all, Game of Thrones isn't a platform, is it? But that's what I understand you to be saying above.
But there is certainly a sense in which Netflix is a platform, though more conventionally we call it an App, and for me, in this debate anyway, the platforms are the various sorts of hardware this App runs on.
Though I am happy to call YouView a platform, even though it itself runs on various Linux boxes, and Android TVs; its kind of like in the article I quote above when something is written to an OS layer, not the bare metal.
Delivery mechanisms, then, become the next thing to sort out. I am very anxious to avoid turning my cube into a tesseract(!), so maybe, as we have platforms on platforms, we can have delivery mechanisms on delivery mechanisms, so that the raw quadrumvirate of terrestrial broadcast, satellite broadcast, cable delivery and Internet delivery, gets refined into Freeview versus (nothing really, these days, though there used to be Top Up TV); Sky versus Freesat versus 'raw' satellite; Virgin; and an utter plethora of Internet delivery mechanisms from the most basic unicast, though those with sophisticated CDNs, to highly active multicast services like BT TV.
Maybe I should have said devices rather than platforms? Doesn't quite cover YouView though, which runs on many devices, but is essentially a single entity, hence me using platform.
Something similar is true, though to a lesser extent, of Apple's family of iOS devices. Like slime moulds though (and I'm not being pejorative here):-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slime...
they spend as much of their time considered as individual devices as they do being taken as a platform, depending on which way the wind is blowing, being much less monolithic, and more physically differentiated, than YouView devices.