If only Amazon would hire some app developers to re-work their video app UI. For years that app has been the digital equivalent of a WalMart bin of bargain DVDs. There's probably good stuff in there you'd like to see, but it's buried in a random pile of poor-quality, out-of-copyright junk, along with d-list content from the 60s, 70s and 80s. Hopefully the purchase of MGM would mean they'll value the asset and upgrade their app to present it (and other content) well, rather than just turning MGM into an underfunded side project.
The UI isn't great. It's not the worst, but it isn't great. They've also had some really good content that I don't think is that hard to find (though harder than other services).
My biggest peeve about Prime is the lack of a wall between included content and content that must be purchased. I often look to stream something and see that it's on Prime through my web search results. Then I click to go to the app, and it's only available for rent or purchase. With Netflix, HBO, etc...it's either there or not. Prime is more than video, but perhaps the shipping and media streaming should be separate services.
Fully agree with everything above.
I haven’t had complaints about the UI of the Amazon app on iOS (iPad), except for the organization/categorization, as you said above.
The Vizio TV app definitely has bad UI design (double press to pause, for starters), but that’s the case with all “smart TV” apps (they’re all sluggish & badly designed garbage), and Amazon’s isn’t even the worst.
Disney+ isn’t even usable. We were forced to connect my girlfriend’s MacBook Pro to the TV just to use the service at all (mine is too old, apparently, to stream 1080p through a Mini DisplayPort to HDMI without heating up and stuttering). And the Disney+ website repeatedly gets forced to reload in Safari, every 10-20 minutes (on Firefox it doesn’t, but there the movie is streamed in lower resolution!!).
“All” smart TV apps are sluggish and poorly designed garbage? You’ve tried them all? Because I know for a fact LG smart tv apps are fantastic, zippy and fully formed. As for Disney+, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that interface. Very user friendly and so easy to find new and old content. But I use their app like most people.
Aw man, so many classic films I will now never be able to see.
Yeah, streaming and IP ownership is a mess for the actual process of seeing the art made in spite of the executives’ best efforts to stop us seeing the stuff their companies paid to produce or distribute.
Have you checked DVD & Blu-ray, including used markets?
If only Amazon would hire some app developers to re-work their video app UI. For years that app has been the digital equivalent of a WalMart bin of bargain DVDs. There's probably good stuff in there you'd like to see, but it's buried in a random pile of poor-quality, out-of-copyright junk, along with d-list content from the 60s, 70s and 80s. Hopefully the purchase of MGM would mean they'll value the asset and upgrade their app to present it (and other content) well, rather than just turning MGM into an underfunded side project.
The UI isn't great. It's not the worst, but it isn't great. They've also had some really good content that I don't think is that hard to find (though harder than other services).
My biggest peeve about Prime is the lack of a wall between included content and content that must be purchased. I often look to stream something and see that it's on Prime through my web search results. Then I click to go to the app, and it's only available for rent or purchase. With Netflix, HBO, etc...it's either there or not. Prime is more than video, but perhaps the shipping and media streaming should be separate services.
Fully agree with everything above.
I haven’t had complaints about the UI of the Amazon app on iOS (iPad), except for the organization/categorization, as you said above.
The Vizio TV app definitely has bad UI design (double press to pause, for starters), but that’s the case with all “smart TV” apps (they’re all sluggish & badly designed garbage), and Amazon’s isn’t even the worst.
Disney+ isn’t even usable. We were forced to connect my girlfriend’s MacBook Pro to the TV just to use the service at all (mine is too old, apparently, to stream 1080p through a Mini DisplayPort to HDMI without heating up and stuttering). And the Disney+ website repeatedly gets forced to reload in Safari, every 10-20 minutes (on Firefox it doesn’t, but there the movie is streamed in lower resolution!!).
“All” smart TV apps are sluggish and poorly designed garbage? You’ve tried them all? Because I know for a fact LG smart tv apps are fantastic, zippy and fully formed. As for Disney+, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that interface. Very user friendly and so easy to find new and old content. But I use their app like most people.
We had a 4K LG first. It was shit (and I think the screen was defective). We returned it and got the 1080p Vizio. The only improvement was that the screen works.
Buying these TVs was stressful for us because we don’t take the expense lightly and everything we read about the entire market of smart TVs was that they’re garbage. That’s been the experience so far (my parents’ TV is also crap in terms of the software). My GF’s mother has a Sony TV that literally freezes up.
Maybe the Disney+ app works better on yours, but it didn’t let us watch anything without stuttering, pausing, and stopping entirely on the Vizio. The Disney+ website is problematic on both web browsers we use. Safari plays video sharp, but the page interrupts viewing and reloads every 12-20 minutes because of resource usage. On Firefox, it doesn’t reload but the image quality is worse (lower resolution).
No such problem with any other streaming we do (at least three others).
If only Amazon would hire some app developers to re-work their video app UI. For years that app has been the digital equivalent of a WalMart bin of bargain DVDs. There's probably good stuff in there you'd like to see, but it's buried in a random pile of poor-quality, out-of-copyright junk, along with d-list content from the 60s, 70s and 80s. Hopefully the purchase of MGM would mean they'll value the asset and upgrade their app to present it (and other content) well, rather than just turning MGM into an underfunded side project.
The UI isn't great. It's not the worst, but it isn't great. They've also had some really good content that I don't think is that hard to find (though harder than other services).
My biggest peeve about Prime is the lack of a wall between included content and content that must be purchased. I often look to stream something and see that it's on Prime through my web search results. Then I click to go to the app, and it's only available for rent or purchase. With Netflix, HBO, etc...it's either there or not. Prime is more than video, but perhaps the shipping and media streaming should be separate services.
Fully agree with everything above.
I haven’t had complaints about the UI of the Amazon app on iOS (iPad), except for the organization/categorization, as you said above.
The Vizio TV app definitely has bad UI design (double press to pause, for starters), but that’s the case with all “smart TV” apps (they’re all sluggish & badly designed garbage), and Amazon’s isn’t even the worst.
Disney+ isn’t even usable. We were forced to connect my girlfriend’s MacBook Pro to the TV just to use the service at all (mine is too old, apparently, to stream 1080p through a Mini DisplayPort to HDMI without heating up and stuttering). And the Disney+ website repeatedly gets forced to reload in Safari, every 10-20 minutes (on Firefox it doesn’t, but there the movie is streamed in lower resolution!!).
I use 2017 Apple tv 4K's on all of my tv's and they run Disney + and other apps without issue. Dolby Vision content on Disney + is crisp and stutter free via ATV 4K.
I have been using ATV's exclusively for years because I never liked how laggy smart tv apps and UI were/are?
Maybe you should try another browser if that is the only way that you can stream video as it seems Disney + and other streaming service websites don't play nice with Safari?
Unfortunately only Safari and Edge allow you to stream above 1080p.. the others are capped at 720p.
You sound like a prime candidate for a standalone streamer like ATV. It took some time but I was able to get the 3 that I have for significantly cheaper then retail and still in the sealed box on Letgo/Offer up. I was also able sell my non 4k versions to further offset the price of each of the new ones. It was worth the effort in the end.
I'll stop you there. No, MGM does not own "Legally Blond". The word "Blond" is perhaps the only word in the English language that has two different spellings depending on which the subject is male or female. The title is actually "Legally Blonde." A movie called "Legally Blond" would have to refer to a legal story about a ditzy male going to law school. Perhaps that would be about Justin Bieber.
Some languages, like French, have a different spelling for most adjectives (not just "blonde") depending upon the gender of the subject. I wonder how the "pronoun argument" works in those languages. If I'm writing an article about a transgender person in French, do I have to use different spellings for all the adjectives I use for transgenders?
Aw man, so many classic films I will now never be able to see.
Yeah, streaming and IP ownership is a mess for the actual process of seeing the art made in spite of the executives’ best efforts to stop us seeing the stuff their companies paid to produce or distribute.
Have you checked DVD & Blu-ray, including used markets?
Yeah that’s what I’ll likely need to do. I got rid of my DVD players a few years ago because streaming was the3 way of the future. Oh well, back to 2005 I guess
I'll stop you there. No, MGM does not own "Legally Blond". The word "Blond" is perhaps the only word in the English language that has two different spellings depending on which the subject is male or female. The title is actually "Legally Blonde." A movie called "Legally Blond" would have to refer to a legal story about a ditzy male going to law school. Perhaps that would be about Justin Bieber.
Some languages, like French, have a different spelling for most adjectives (not just "blonde") depending upon the gender of the subject. I wonder how the "pronoun argument" works in those languages. If I'm writing an article about a transgender person in French, do I have to use different spellings for all the adjectives I use for transgenders?
I’m a massive word-nerd and I never caught that there were two spellings of blond/blonde. I’m really surprised. I learned something today, thanks.
If only Amazon would hire some app developers to re-work their video app UI. For years that app has been the digital equivalent of a WalMart bin of bargain DVDs. There's probably good stuff in there you'd like to see, but it's buried in a random pile of poor-quality, out-of-copyright junk, along with d-list content from the 60s, 70s and 80s. Hopefully the purchase of MGM would mean they'll value the asset and upgrade their app to present it (and other content) well, rather than just turning MGM into an underfunded side project.
Is it just me, or is the Amazon Prime streaming quality horrible? Everything looks washed out and grainy-hurts my eyes.
Aw man, so many classic films I will now never be able to see.
Yeah, streaming and IP ownership is a mess for the actual process of seeing the art made in spite of the executives’ best efforts to stop us seeing the stuff their companies paid to produce or distribute.
Have you checked DVD & Blu-ray, including used markets?
Yeah that’s what I’ll likely need to do. I got rid of my DVD players a few years ago because streaming was the3 way of the future. Oh well, back to 2005 I guess
I'll stop you there. No, MGM does not own "Legally Blond". The word "Blond" is perhaps the only word in the English language that has two different spellings depending on which the subject is male or female. The title is actually "Legally Blonde." A movie called "Legally Blond" would have to refer to a legal story about a ditzy male going to law school. Perhaps that would be about Justin Bieber.
Some languages, like French, have a different spelling for most adjectives (not just "blonde") depending upon the gender of the subject. I wonder how the "pronoun argument" works in those languages. If I'm writing an article about a transgender person in French, do I have to use different spellings for all the adjectives I use for transgenders?
I’m a massive word-nerd and I never caught that there were two spellings of blond/blonde. I’m really surprised. I learned something today, thanks.
I consider myself a word-nerd too. Daniel Craig is a "blond Bond" not a "blonde Bond," for example. Hair colour for women comes in "blonde" colours but for men it has to be spelled "blond." Go check your pharmacy for hair dye products (for women and for men.) It took me 0.01 seconds to catch that mistake.
I can just imagine you running down your pharmacy lanes looking at the spelling of male and female hair dye products, and getting excited.
I'll stop you there. No, MGM does not own "Legally Blond". The word "Blond" is perhaps the only word in the English language that has two different spellings depending on which the subject is male or female. The title is actually "Legally Blonde." A movie called "Legally Blond" would have to refer to a legal story about a ditzy male going to law school. Perhaps that would be about Justin Bieber.
Some languages, like French, have a different spelling for most adjectives (not just "blonde") depending upon the gender of the subject. I wonder how the "pronoun argument" works in those languages. If I'm writing an article about a transgender person in French, do I have to use different spellings for all the adjectives I use for transgenders?
In contemporary US English, 'blond' is acceptable for both males and females.
I've always used 'blonde' for females and 'blond' for males though, and consider that to be 'correct' as I'm English and that's what I was always taught.
However, as languages evolve and I'm 'old' I haven't really been able to keep up with some changes that just don't sound right to me, especially when 'sexist' overtones are used as justification to change words.
Some people have used that argument for 'blond/blonde' which I just don't understand because it's simply something that remains from its French origins.
I will never use 'actor' for example as a universal gender-neutral noun. It just sounds weird (but that's my age again, ha!)
I'll never use 'assure' or 'ensure' interchangeably either.
That said, I do like inventing words. I've always wanted 'morenarse' to be picked up by the general Spanish population.
I think there's a good case for 'dosify' in English. Does anyone use that?
However, as languages evolve and I'm 'old' I haven't really been able to keep up with some changes that just don't sound right to me, especially when 'sexist' overtones are used as justification to change words.
Some activists are trying to abolish all gender-specific words because that goes against their ideas of freedom of choice of gender. The latest issue is to abolish the word "mother" because it implies a gender, apparently we have to use "birth parent" instead of "mother."
I like to respect people, but I consider it disrespectful to me when I'm told to change every tenth word that I speak because the entire English language has become "disrespectful."
Sounds like Amazon is simply going to remake and rebrand a lot of old content so they can claim more "exclusive" stuff. Does the world need more old movies and TV shows "reimagined" this way? First MacGuyver, then Walker, now ... ?
Apple is very picky on contents being shown on their TV+. Purchasing Warner Bros. seems to be the logical move for Apple.
“Picky on contents being shown”
Yes, ORIGINAL content. That’s what makes AppleTV+ different and not “another Netflix”. I called it years ago that Apple would do something innovative in the space(doesn’t take a Nostradamus) and they have. Original content, Spacial Audio and more are coming.
In 2-5 years Apple’s catalog will be killer and 100% original! Tim says Apple does things for the long run.
With that said, Apple should still buy old content and license it to 3rd parties or bundle it into a separate service. That would be the smart thing to do. This way they can make money outside AppleTV+ while keeping the allure of original programming. For example, license an old catalog to Netflix so they make money off BOTH AppleTV+ and Netflix. Think of it as a “Beats”.
It's as if you're waiting for Tim to crash through your wall painted red saying; "ooooh Yeaaaaah". I'm sorry man - but Apple TV is the most bizarre/bad streaming service of any streaming service ever released - ever. Tom Hanks even cried when Apple bought the rights to his new movie. The only movie above B+ they bought rights to. Do they expect subscribers to watch it 200 times?
Apple needs 2 of these big studio acquisitions just to be relevant. You can currently chew through anything worthwhile to watch in 3-4 days.
And what are you talking about Netflix??? They are currently the most productive original content creation entity in the world.
If anything - letting Amazon buy MGM indicates to me that they might be getting out of the content creation space - and will drop ATV in the next few years.
Aw man, so many classic films I will now never be able to see.
Why does everyone forget iTunes?!?!! Everything is on there and in 4K Dolby Vision!!
I blame Apple for not advertising iTunes more which is the biggest video library in the world.
I rent a lot of stuff from iTunes and yes it is great. I fear though that once Amazon owns the MGM catalogue, it will become a Prime Exclusive and not be available on the competing streaming services.
Apple is very picky on contents being shown on their TV+. Purchasing Warner Bros. seems to be the logical move for Apple.
“Picky on contents being shown”
Yes, ORIGINAL content. That’s what makes AppleTV+ different and not “another Netflix”. I called it years ago that Apple would do something innovative in the space(doesn’t take a Nostradamus) and they have. Original content, Spacial Audio and more are coming.
In 2-5 years Apple’s catalog will be killer and 100% original! Tim says Apple does things for the long run.
With that said, Apple should still buy old content and license it to 3rd parties or bundle it into a separate service. That would be the smart thing to do. This way they can make money outside AppleTV+ while keeping the allure of original programming. For example, license an old catalog to Netflix so they make money off BOTH AppleTV+ and Netflix. Think of it as a “Beats”.
It's as if you're waiting for Tim to crash through your wall painted red saying; "ooooh Yeaaaaah". I'm sorry man - but Apple TV is the most bizarre/bad streaming service of any streaming service ever released - ever. Tom Hanks even cried when Apple bought the rights to his new movie. The only movie above B+ they bought rights to. Do they expect subscribers to watch it 200 times?
Apple needs 2 of these big studio acquisitions just to be relevant. You can currently chew through anything worthwhile to watch in 3-4 days.
And what are you talking about Netflix??? They are currently the most productive original content creation entity in the world.
If anything - letting Amazon buy MGM indicates to me that they might be getting out of the content creation space - and will drop ATV in the next few years.
Man, for real... your post...
I have Apple TV+ and Disney+, among others, since I've been mostly at home for the last year, and it will take a long time to get through all that old Disney content, but I've already seen a lot of Disney's older content in the past (eg, Star Wars, Pixar) and the only thing that Disney+ can do to keep me now is to create new content, just like Apple TV+ has to do. There's the past, and there's the future. The past is important, but going forward into the future it's the new content that matters. I'm not sure why you called Apple TV+ "bizarre." Having a good back catalog is nice, but if you don't have a good investment in future programming, you're nothing. I find Apple TV+'s new content to be more interesting than Disney+'s new content, the latter of which seems mostly like spin-offs of historical programs like Star Wars. There are several things in your post that don't make sense; I hardly know where to start. Your opinions are very welcome here, but it would help if you back up your opinions with reasons and/or citations.
Comments
Have you checked DVD & Blu-ray, including used markets?
Buying these TVs was stressful for us because we don’t take the expense lightly and everything we read about the entire market of smart TVs was that they’re garbage. That’s been the experience so far (my parents’ TV is also crap in terms of the software). My GF’s mother has a Sony TV that literally freezes up.
Maybe the Disney+ app works better on yours, but it didn’t let us watch anything without stuttering, pausing, and stopping entirely on the Vizio. The Disney+ website is problematic on both web browsers we use. Safari plays video sharp, but the page interrupts viewing and reloads every 12-20 minutes because of resource usage. On Firefox, it doesn’t reload but the image quality is worse (lower resolution).
No such problem with any other streaming we do (at least three others).
Some languages, like French, have a different spelling for most adjectives (not just "blonde") depending upon the gender of the subject. I wonder how the "pronoun argument" works in those languages. If I'm writing an article about a transgender person in French, do I have to use different spellings for all the adjectives I use for transgenders?
I’m a massive word-nerd and I never caught that there were two spellings of blond/blonde. I’m really surprised. I learned something today, thanks.
I can just imagine you running down your pharmacy lanes looking at the spelling of male and female hair dye products, and getting excited.
I've always used 'blonde' for females and 'blond' for males though, and consider that to be 'correct' as I'm English and that's what I was always taught.
However, as languages evolve and I'm 'old' I haven't really been able to keep up with some changes that just don't sound right to me, especially when 'sexist' overtones are used as justification to change words.
Some people have used that argument for 'blond/blonde' which I just don't understand because it's simply something that remains from its French origins.
I will never use 'actor' for example as a universal gender-neutral noun. It just sounds weird (but that's my age again, ha!)
I'll never use 'assure' or 'ensure' interchangeably either.
That said, I do like inventing words. I've always wanted 'morenarse' to be picked up by the general Spanish population.
I think there's a good case for 'dosify' in English. Does anyone use that?
I like to respect people, but I consider it disrespectful to me when I'm told to change every tenth word that I speak because the entire English language has become "disrespectful."
I blame Apple for not advertising iTunes more which is the biggest video library in the world.
I'm sorry man - but Apple TV is the most bizarre/bad streaming service of any streaming service ever released - ever.
Tom Hanks even cried when Apple bought the rights to his new movie. The only movie above B+ they bought rights to. Do they expect subscribers to watch it 200 times?
Apple needs 2 of these big studio acquisitions just to be relevant. You can currently chew through anything worthwhile to watch in 3-4 days.
And what are you talking about Netflix??? They are currently the most productive original content creation entity in the world.
If anything - letting Amazon buy MGM indicates to me that they might be getting out of the content creation space - and will drop ATV in the next few years.
Man, for real... your post...