Comments on: YouView is finally on sale: 7 reasons why it may fail

By: David Eddington

David Eddington — Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:36:22 +0000

No one seems to have mentioned the fact that a large number of homes cannot receive a reliable 3.0Mb/s broadband service at peak times and and will not for some time to come by which time this will be obsolete.

By: Julian

Julian — Sun, 02 Sep 2012 11:59:36 +0000

That was exactly my sentiment until I bought the piece of junk.
The Freeview component of the T1000 is dreadful.
None of the Humax functions are present.
You can’t search Freeview content (my 8 year old humax 9200T has more features & better interface)
The channel list can’t be edited, or even favorited.
There is no provision for external content, either usb or networked. Plus no ability to backup recordings or watch on other devices (dlna access via phone tablet other smart tv etc – that the T2 can do)
I’ve been unable to even give this unit away after they’ve seen it in use. Folks won’t have it as catchup doesn’t have subtitles.
My advise don’t buy this crap, certainly not until they are forced to reinstate the missing features.

By: Paul Tyrrell

Paul Tyrrell — Fri, 03 Aug 2012 23:45:43 +0000

I was about to buy a Humax T2 before the Youview version of their PVR came out. Now I’m seriously considering the latter. Why? Because it seems to have the same basic functionality with the added attraction of a seamless EPG for catch-up programming, for only an extra £30 or so. I understand the YouView DTR-T1000 will not allow you to record catch-up shows for permanent playback (which is a shame, but understandable, given the licensing agreements they must have had to reach). Even so, this looks like an attractive package to me. Am I missing something here? Why would I get a T2 instead of a DTR-T1000 now?

By: Julian Ehrhardt

Julian Ehrhardt — Fri, 27 Jul 2012 22:03:19 +0000

Hi Martin. Please do. Would be very interested to read or to see if any market globally has come close to this kind of alliance. There should be a focus on the achievement in bringing this together as much as the project, despite its failings.

I also think we all need to remind ourselves that most of the country don’t live in our ‘tech world’, tweet, have ever heard of Google TV, Netflix, Android. It is about time products were developed and designed for them as a base level, such as YouView.

By: Mark Green

Mark Green — Fri, 27 Jul 2012 09:01:48 +0000

Lots of complicated sentences disguise factual inaccuracies. A mass-market proposition for the 95% of home without ‘smart’ tv (and 40% of those who do but haven’t actually connected them!) seems to have plenty of potential !

By: Martin Hoscik

Martin Hoscik — Fri, 27 Jul 2012 07:16:44 +0000

HI Julian

I’ve actually submitted an article to paidContent on this very point, I’m guessing it might go live today so it’d be interesting to hear your thoughts when it does.

By: Simon wain

Simon wain — Thu, 26 Jul 2012 21:32:09 +0000

What a ridiculously negative article about a product that has barely even launched.

By: EU Brainwashing

EU Brainwashing — Thu, 26 Jul 2012 20:41:04 +0000

I mean YouView of cause – but interesting. If I was Google I would be upset about name – passing close to passing-off.

By: ananymas

ananymas — Thu, 26 Jul 2012 20:28:41 +0000

I think the lack of 3rd party development options is the big weakness here. Looking purely at PVRs, the best have generally been the ones that have a developer community to fix problems the manufacturers take months or years to resolve, as well as adding new features, and in some cases extra applications that aid the use experience (I’m thinking Top field and Humax boxes mainly here)

For me , ass consumer, I’d like to see a central point of access for the streams from content providers opened up under the YouView banner making YouView a cloud platform available from varied hardware. License fees from both hardware vendors and commission on sales from the likes of Film4 instant and Netflix who would likely take the hit to be included on the search facility in such a broad platform would help cover costs and benefit the consumer.

Also, where’s the linked up stream of the scores and stats overlays on sports, so the raw pictures live on broadcast, and the overlay lives on the internet (e.g. HTML5 overlay) , so we don’t end up with oversized graphics in the middle of a widescreen TV AND give the user options to call up different stats or hide them instead of having broadcast ones cover up the action?
And that sort of dynamic HTML5 overlay would work so well for many other programme types too, as well as adverts – how’s that for ‘engagement’.

P.s.
@EUBrainwashing:
YouTube?

By: EU Brainwashing

EU Brainwashing — Thu, 26 Jul 2012 18:51:40 +0000

I know a man who had a young colt with such a good bloodline he knew it was going to win, and win and then some more. But to make money he had to hold it back a little in its early races else the betting odds would go so low he knew he could never make a killing at its first really big event.

YouTube is a winner but it is being presented with its legs tied together and blindfolded. If it was released at maxim potential it would corner the market, kill the opposition and then be referred to the monopolies commission. That is not good business.

YouTube is in for the long run and in a decade, I prophesies, it will dominate the market. As regards a revenue stream; It will prospective also be the portal for every interaction with government and access the inevitable ‘cashless society’ management system too. The raw ‘internet’ is currently too clunky and too diverse/open to be suitable to host such a system successfully.