yep, the "just set up extra streams" part1 : )Quote:
Originally Posted by seb_sh
Printable View
yep, the "just set up extra streams" part1 : )Quote:
Originally Posted by seb_sh
I suppose it's a hard task for the ones that made the great app and website, they can barely make the 1 stream work on your tv :pQuote:
Originally Posted by wyler
it is as simple as this: pay more.Quote:
Originally Posted by seb_sh
I found totally nonsense this "best services for null costs" request. and the related heavy irony too.
My wish to improve Rally.tv
- add the option to FX audio
- the ability to control volume with more than just on/off
- better arrangement of the library or re-live videos - there are times when e.g. due to SS delay you can't find the right video or continuation of the race footage
I don't think you want to understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by wyler
a. It's already the most expensive motorsport streaming service. I'm not requesting everything for nothing as you claim.
b. The additional streams are trivial since they have nothing to do with geography or the remote-ness of WRC as the data is already at the same place as the existing stream, maybe you are unaware, but video streaming is not exactly NASA grade technology anymore.
c. I can't pay more since this is all they offer...
sorry, maybe you don't know much about what you talkin about, some things are out of focus...Quote:
Originally Posted by seb_sh
a. it's not the price that matters. it's the cost. there's a difference. price is what customers pay, cost is what is needed to run the service. doesn't matter if it's already the most expensive service as it is. it matters that the cost to run/upgrade is higher than others. in other services, the cost is a) limited by context (track with technical facilities vs remote areas with production to be arranged) or b) divided into bigger numbers (1€ a fan for f1 will cover way more than 10€ a fan in wrc)
b. maybe you are unaware, but the real cost and difficulties are in data management, storage, and broadcast (to be clear: from "the same place" to you) . twice the streams, twice the capacity, twice the costs. it's not as easy as getting two camera feeds and you can choose in real time between them. u can have a split screen, where the data transmitted is the same, but if you want 2 streams at the same time you have to double the capacity, you need to have both streams from the broadcaster to your tv to choose one in real time, it's not that you choose and the broadcaster sends only one... (in fact, major problems of rallytv/all live are not in tv production, but on servers and data management)
c. that's the point about requesting everything for nothing. you can choose not to pay for sure, but you can't decide what is worth that price. at the moment that's the cost for basic ( or even under par ) production. if you want more you have to pay more. if you want the basic service that's the price. if you want something for a lower price, probably is not enough to sustain it.
aha, ok now we're getting somwhere. about the multiple streams, yes it's about capacity but i'm asking for 6 extra not 600... There are third parties that specialise in things like this, I know they would have to stream all of them constantly but that could be done through an intermediate point at said 3rd parties which would then restream and offer the capacity to get it to consumers. It would be strange to move the server infrastructure around with you...Quote:
Originally Posted by wyler
As for costs and price, I can decide if it's worth the price, that's fundamentally what I do as a consumer, I see what's being offered at what price and decide to buy it or not. I can also express my opinion about what would make it worth it for me. Even putting the on board streams aside for a moment, the improvements to the website and app and having an expert commentator are still valid missing things. People are in here asking for a simple volume control for crying out loud. That has nothing to do with remoteness or anything, the webdesigners and programmers worked in an office not in the forest with sticks and stones...
It's unacceptable for this ''new service'' to be way worse than previous one with increased price. To me, it looks like they want to do it by minimal effort and get as much as they can to their pockets. Sorry, our reality. One helicopter or 30 drones. What is cheaper? They could make a site or app, when you could sign on and record with your phone and someone from office could then choose what to show on service, or at least for highlights. In any case everyone have their phones up and record every car.
agreed, but you seem to miss always the same point! all the things you consider so easy to do, they cost money. and most of the things you talk about (like 3rd party restream) cost really a lot. maybe the volume control not so much, it depends on the architecture of the website/service that probably is outsourced. i agree it has to be upgraded, definitely, i'm just saying it takes money, and i'm not that sure the customer of rallytv are enough in numbers to cover it.Quote:
Originally Posted by seb_sh
I suspect Rally TV is aimed at broadcasters. That's where the aggregated audience is. RallyTV is for the hardcore fans.Quote:
Originally Posted by deephouse
And broadcaster demand high-production value, HD quality content.
They can't just put some stream from some fool filming on his iphone (probably in dangerous positions!)