Given I wasn't the only person confused, I suspect this web page could be improved by just coming out and saying "sometimes I want audio to come from the TV, but want the screen to be blank." The tiny screenshot was too hard for me to read, so I skipped over it, and was a bit confused about the purpose of this project.
But it does directly say that. You just need to read for 30 seconds instead of 5. The 1st paragraph tells you the features of the app and paragraphs 3-6 tell you the motivation behind the app and the primary use case. That is a pretty good structure for this type of web page.
> A big ass screen in the living room makes this hard to achieve. If you want to listen to music or a podcast before going to bed, it’s impossible to avoid a bright now playing screen or animated screen saver.
I found that super confusing - why are you using the TV to listen to music or a podcast? Can't you use a different device? It still wasn't clear why you needed the TV on but blank after reading that. Why not grab headphones or use a bluetooth speaker? Why use the TV, which probably has terrible built-in speakers?
Given the explanations that some people want to use their Smart TV specifically for music/podcasts, it does make sense. But I would lead with that - not beat around the bush.
The page clearly outlines the need for the app, listening to audio in the dark. The app isn't the only way to satisfy that need. If you have some alternative way to address that need which you think is better, then maybe the app isn't for you.
We're not discussing whether the app is for me. We're discussing whether the information was presented in a good way for determining whether the app was good for me, and my opinion is that it was not. Even if the app was for me, I could've determined that much more readily if the author led with the problem "wanting audio from a smart TV with the screen off." Paragraph 6 is not the optimal location for a description of the problem being solved.
>why are you using the TV to listen to music or a podcast? Can't you use a different device? It still wasn't clear why you needed the TV on but blank after reading that. Why not grab headphones or use a bluetooth speaker? Why use the TV, which probably has terrible built-in speakers?
That was from your original comment. You seem to be wanting to discuss the effectiveness of the app rather than the information presented.
As I said in the other reply, people with this need will immediately understand the use case. The people here being confused about why anyone would want this app are confused because they aren't familiar with this need in which case they aren't the audience for this app anyway.
I think you are being unreasonable with the OP. The reason why this is confusing is not because some people want to listen to podcasts on their TV. The Apple TV comes with the podcast app preinstalled. The reason this is confusing is having a second audio input connected to the same audio system that needs the Apple TV on. The solution solves a very real world problem that has nothing to do with user preferences. The app is actually terrible at listening to podcasts in the dark because the podcast player is on a completely separate device. That's the confusing part.
I don't think they are and OP is demonstrating something I'm seeing more and more on the internet that's getting to be really prevalent and annoying.
presents product
oblivious_user: I don't get this? Why don't you do xyz? This provides me no value? What am I supposed to do with this?
happy_user: If you're in situation abc and don't wish to do xyz this app can help. If you don't see the value in this product you're probably not the target market.
oblivious_user: but why would anyone use this!? Just use xyz for crying out loud! I looked at this page for 5 seconds and I can't figure out what is does! This product sucks and they're not doing a good job convincing me I need it so nobody should need it!
happy_user: I literally told you the use case in my previous comment.
oblivious_user: It's still a stupid idea with a poor presentation. Use xyz and your life will be better!
It's really really annoying. Everything doesn't have to be made for everyone. If you don't have a use case for a product and you don't understand why anyone else would use a product then the product isn't for you.
It's so exhausting seeing Internet commenters confused over the popularity of a product that they have no use for because they don't understand it or they prefer xyz to abc when the product IS abc...
This reminds me of the following all-to-common StackOverflow interaction:
dev: <tries to figure out how to do abc. Due to various limitations, dev comes to the conclusion that the best way to do abc is using def. Explaining everything involved in abc is a lot of work, and dev just wants to ask about def> How can I do def?
stackoverflow: Don't do def, it's bad. Have you considered xyz?
dev: xyz isn't what I want. I really just want to do def.
stackoverflow: Don't do def, do lmnop.
dev: lmnop won't solve my problem. I just want to do def.
Yes, however there are times when you are enough of an expert in the domain to know why Y is the solution you need and you just want someone to help you with that part. You might know X better than anyone else, and explaining X won't get you far. You just want help with Y.
It is also true that there are many people who ask for help with Y and are wrong in thinking it is the correct way to solve X. I am describing the former situation and not the latter.
You need to reach the point where you have the appropriately shared context with the other person so that you are both able to work in the same direction.
That often involves explaining the situation sufficiently so that it is clear that the thing you are looking for doing it in such a way is the way that it needs to be done.
The vast majority of the time, when such questions are posted they are in the form of a work order and people who have gone through "maybe I should do XY" in the past have encountered some problems and are trying to warn you off of that path for the incomplete context that has been provided.
In such cases, it is necessary for the person with the question to sufficiently explain the problem, the context, and the constraints so that is is clear that XY, despite its known issues remains the clear and correct course of action.
On the other hand, there are times when people in the past have tried WY and decided in that situation Y was a bad idea. But your situation is X and it is quite different from what the answerer is familiar with from their experience with W. In this case you know X well, the answerer doesn't, and you know Y is what you want to do in this situation to solve X. The answerer assumes you're trying to solve W or something similar to W and you have to waste an inordinate amount of time assuring them your situation is sufficiently different from W in order to get a simple answer about how to do Y.
And that is why the onus is upon the person asking the question to explain the problem scope fully enough that anyone looking to help will be on the same page from the start and those who have encountered problems with similar approaches are aware that their experience isn't relevant.
Most often, the request comes in as:
> dev: How can I do def?
to which responses warning them of the problems with that approach and lacking the surrounding context are completely appropriate.
The issue is:
> ... Explaining everything involved in abc is a lot of work, and dev just wants to ask about def ...
Yes, it's a lot of work, but necessary to do either at the start or piecemeal consuming a lot more time overall between multiple people. To be respectful of other peoples' time, explaining abc is the correct thing to do.
> That is a pretty good structure for this type of web page.
Not really. Honestly, it was kind of confusing to me too...
All they had to say was "Apple makes it impossible to avoid playing a screen or animated screen saver during a podcast or listening to music. So, this app lets you listen to a podcast or music over a blank screen. That's it. That's all it is. It's a feature that AppleTV should have, but doesn't, so I made this app for it."
Literally don't have to write anything more than that.
Maybe the context of this appearing on HN is shifting the perception of this page, but this is posted on an individual's blog. If the author had the mindset of "literally don't have to write anything more than that", then they wouldn't have been blogging for seemingly 15 years.
This page is very far from the worst offenders when it comes to this sort of thing. The features are outlined in the first paragraph. You truly can't get better than that. Odds are people who will want this app will immediately identify why those features are useful. For the people who don't immediately see the use, you only have to read a few more short paragraphs.
> Maybe the context of this appearing on HN is shifting the perception of this page, but this is posted on an individual's blog. If the author had the mindset of "literally don't have to write anything more than that", then they wouldn't have been blogging for seemingly 15 years.
100% agree. But the OP is the highest rated comment, so clearly HN thinks this is important.
HN has a long history of being completely wrongheaded and dismissive in the top comment when something like this is shared. It is the old it is trivially easily to replicate Dropbox with FTP and curl situation.
You don't even need to read for 30 seconds, the very first image has text in it that explains what the app does, and the sentence after it, still in the opening section, explains that you should read the text of the image to learn what the app does. Literally, the people complaining about not wanting to read too much must have the attention spans of gnats.
I have wished many times that I could just “mute the picture” but not the audio, especially when I am trying to fall asleep. Wish there was something like this for Roku.
Our Sony TV has a "Screen off" mode under quick-settings menu. Everything goes off related to screen, incl LEDs. We use it a lot while listening to music via Spotify and other services.
The beauty is, volume buttons don't turn the screen back on either, so it truly becomes a connected speaker.
My old one had a remote button for “PIC OFF”! What year roughly was yours made? I’m wondering if my new one has that buried somewhere. Mine is running the “Google TV” OS
Mine is a Sony X900H[0] (or its equivalent in EU), and runs Android, too. The feature is under the (Sony specific) quick settings menu accessed by the gear icon on the remote control.
