PocketTV or PocketDivx ???

[Guest madu]

What are you trying to prove?? Is it that a professional SP oriented app is better than an amateur port by an end-user?? Is that the title you're arguing for coz I can see clear aggressive defence here..

Oh, and by the way, if some interested parties have not started the fight.... :roll:

[Guest drblow]

:) :( :D :lol: :lol: :lol:

This thread has been brilliant!!

I started reading here coz I wanted to find out if the bugs in pocket MVP had been resolved yet, but somehow ended up reading a good argument. Maybe there should be a poll about who won the argument!?!? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Well, for my 2 cents (I just spent a half hour reading it all, so I have to say something!!) - as a user, not a developer or programmer or anything, I have to say that I don't really find there is much difference between the 2 apps in performance. I do find the UI of pocketTV nicer & easier to get used to, and the layout is more appealing than MVP - however, to me all this means is that it takes 30 secs less time to work out the buttons in the first place! And that it looks nice ... but once I start a video clip, I switch to full screen so I don't care about the nice UI anymore!! Also, personally speaking I prefer apps which are skinable ... which I gather MVP is!

Having said all that, I think the Pocket TV team should beware of their approach in this forum. I agree wholeheartedly with Spacemonkey saying that there have been quite a few threads about pocket DivX which seem to have a whole bunch of posts from the pocket TV team?!? Most of which it has to be said, sound very bl**dy defensive to me!! And maybe what he says about marketing to the masses instead of us "terrorists" (I'm Irish, you know - I might know where you live!! :twisted: ) could be true.

At the end of the day, I have had my SPV for a couple of months now, and have found the MoDaCo forum to be a sanctuary of great minds - who in the main seem to do their tireless work for free, and for the benefit of other SPV users - which is great!! :P

All the developers seem to share ideas, and swap code with each other - many people have helped me with queries, solved problems, provided apps - all for free, and with a spirit of generosity... blah, blah ... :lol:

The whole tone of the pocket TV team has seemed to me very negative - it appears that you are not here to discuss your app with advanced users, and beta testers - but to argue with them everytime someone mentions a bug they may/may not have found. This is very uncommon in this forum in the time I have been here - infact other beta test apps that I have used - the developers have been very helpful & appreciative of the feedback (poor Clinteastman :lol: )

So, I'm gonna uninstall pocket TV and stick with MVP - just coz they're nice guys!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Well, that's just what I think, it's a poll right?!! Thats for opinions innit?! :twisted:

P.S. Oh yeah - don't go doing a reply with all my sentences cut up and your wee replies underneath - it's just silly!!

[Guest The PocketTV Team]

> What are you trying to prove?? Is it that a professional SP oriented app is better than an amateur port by an end-user?

We are not trying to prove anything.

We are just trying to make a well designed, useful, stable and simple little video player that many people will appreciate (it will be free for personal use) and will be able to use as an alternate to other solutions, that are good too.

Many people appreciate having choices. Ultimately people will try all the choices available (and known from them) and choose the one (or the ones) that fit best their needs.

We think that the software landscape on the Smartphone will be somehow similar to that of the Pocket PC, and both PocketTV and PocketDivX are used by many people already on Pocket PCs, because they both have strength (and weaknesses) that are somehow complementary.

Let's work together to improve both, rather than fight like 10-year old kids about which is the best.

The answer is: it depends for what. If file size (for a given quality & resolution) is your primary concern, PocketDivX is the best, because MPEG-4 is a more efficient compression format, in particular at lower bitrates (less overhead). If stability and usability is your first concern, then PocketTV is probably better. etc...

[Guest ClintEastman]

The answer is: it depends for what. If file size (for a given quality & resolution) is your primary concern, PocketDivX is the best, because MPEG-4 is a more efficient compression format, in particular at lower bitrates (less overhead).  If stability and usability is your first concern, then PocketTV is probably better. etc...

Beautifully put. :)

[Guest Myke]

i just downloaded pocketTV and it is an amazing little app! it works quickly and has many many option the divx player doesnt have. i find the divx player freezes often and i have to soft reset my device, i have yet have to do this with pocketTV. i love the options. you guys did a wonderful job. if I find anything that needs improvement, ill let ya know!

[Guest Myke]

is there any way to play mp3s in pocketTV?

[Guest procalli]

Hello,

to be honest I wasn't that impressed with PocketTv and the reason is playback. I downloaded the Monsters Inc short (copyright issues?) and found it quite blocky when playing back on the app.

Given that this was encoded for PocketTV by PocketTV id have thought it would have looked better especially considering its an animation and can be encodeded easier because of the block colours.

Also I found it a bit of a bind that smartexplorer had to be installed for PocketTV to work plus for a 'professional' outfit with 15 years experience they couldn't program a simple file explorer and initially a proper install program.

I too have uninstalled PocketTV as I dont really have the need for it as I prefer the fulscreen 176*220 divx files which since divx player was updated play a lot smoother.

Also it does seem to me after reading numerous threads that PocketTV seem to be on the defensive all the time whilst pointing out flaws in what is a brilliant app.

My 2p worth.

ps.

Just noticed on another this reply PocketTV gave to a problem, which I have found also, with their app

This problem is somehow fixed in the current beta. It is not perfect yet, it takes a few second to recover the sync, but it works much better than PocketDivX, which looses totally the A/V sync when you use their seek command... at least on our test streams (e.g. mikes_new_car_sps.mpg).

How can they justify a problem by saying its better than another app. Not very professional?

[Guest The PocketTV Team]

is there any way to play mp3s in pocketTV?

No, currently there is no MP3 decoder in PocketTV, but WMP can play MP3, and so does PocketDivX, so you already have a choice.

The use of MP3 in commercial applications involves patent royalties to be paid to Thomson & Fraunhofer. I think that the cost for a blanket MP3 license is $50,000. There is no cost for the audio formats used in MPEG-1 video files (i.e. MPEG-1 Layer 1 and Layer 2).

[Guest The PocketTV Team]

> to be honest I wasn't that impressed with PocketTv and the reason is playback. I downloaded the Monsters Inc short (copyright issues?)

It's a trailer. Trailers are ads for movies, and the studios are generally very happy when their ads get distributed on the net. That's why they don't protect them with complicated anti-copy encryption schemes!

> and found it quite blocky when playing back on the app.

Well, we have compressed the file at a very low bitrate (120 Kbit/sec, including 32Kbit/sec of audio), so yes, it's a bit blocky, but we wanted to have a small file, to show that it can still provide a quality that is acceptable for the average viewers.

I'm not trying to justify anything or to be defensive, I just want to give a correct explanation.

If you want, we can provide the same stream encoded at a slightly higher bitrate (say 160Kbit/sec), with a much higher quality. This has nothing to do with PocketTV. The quality of the video depends on the parameters used in the file (I have to repeat that, since many people don't get it - and of course it's the same with PocketDivX, WMP etc).

> Given that this was encoded for PocketTV by PocketTV id have thought it would have looked better especially considering its an animation and can be encodeded easier because of the block colours.

Actually no, in fact animations are generally harder to compress with MPEG, since MPEG is designed for natural images (also true for MPEG-4 by the way). So sharp edges are not easy to compress with a good quality at a low bitrate.

> Also I found it a bit of a bind that smartexplorer had to be installed for PocketTV to work plus for a 'professional' outfit with 15 years experience they couldn't program a simple file explorer

First, smartexplorer does not have to be installed. But yes, currently one file explorer must be installed (it can be Smart Explorer, AI File Manager or ALL-explorer), and I bet you that most people who install third party apps on their smartphones do have one file explorer installed.

This is just a temporary solution in the current BETA. We *will* implement a built-in file explorer in the final product, it is just not the first thing on our priority list, and we have to do things in a certain order using our limited resources. We decided to make the BETA available before the product was finished, and many people like that we have done that. We have already explained that in the *long* PocketTV thread. We did the programmable button mapping (not in PocketDivX), and right now, we are developing a good way to seek in streams (and keep a/v sync), and PocketDivX cannot seek in streams *and* keep a/v sync, so seeking without a/v sync is not very useful, you would agree. Once those more important items will be done, we'll do a small file explorer, but this is not necessary in order to use PocketTV.

> and initially a proper install program.

I'm so happy that you mention that part: all the problems that we had with our CAB installation have been traced by bugs in the Smartphone CAB installer. Those bugs have been acknowledged by MS and many developers will have problems with them (e.g. registry keys and file association set incorrectly when installing app on Storage Card).

So please don't blame developers when they have problems caused by MS bugs. Also, don't try to run PocketTV from IPSM (phone's internal memory): it triggers a bug in the OS that can wreck your phone... this bug has also been acknowledged by MS, and some game developers have had the same problem. No fix yet, but we know that MS has fixed it in Smartphone 2005... (Smartphone .NET).

> I too have uninstalled PocketTV as I dont really have the need for it as I prefer the fulscreen 176*220 divx files which since divx player was updated play a lot smoother.

> Also it does seem to me after reading numerous threads that PocketTV seem to be on the defensive all the time whilst pointing out flaws in what is a brilliant app.

I'm sorry if you feel that way. For example, in this answer to your "critics", we are just clarifying some questions that you raise.

> How can they justify a problem by saying its better than another app. Not very professional?

We are not justifying a problem that we have. Sometimes we have a problem, we acknowledge it and we try to fix it. This one has been fixed, by the way. And we call it a BETA because it is not a finished product, and it has know limitations and problems.

Bad a/v sync after seeking has plagued PocketDivX for the last 4 years, and it is still not fixed, obviously. That's just a fact.

I hope this clarifies the points that you raised. I tried to give you the most professional answers. But you probably don't care because you prefer PocketDivX, which is a respectable choice.

[Guest Simon Desser]

If you want, we can provide the same stream encoded at a slightly higher bitrate (say 160Kbit/sec), with a much higher quality.

I would love to see that, as it's only really the "blockiness" of my mpeg files that I don't like. Also if you could list the settings in text form so we can save them as an .mcf that would be great :)

[Guest Machineman]

for me it IS............................... DivX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :-) :-) :-)

[Guest The PocketTV Team]

I would love to see that, as it's only really the "blockiness" of my mpeg files that I don't like. Also if you could list the settings in text form so we can save them as an .mcf that would be great :)

OK, we'll provide a higher-bitrate version if you want.

here it is:

http://www.mpegtv.com/wince/pockettv/mpg/s...ew_car_hsps.mpg

Naturally, higher bitrate means slightly lower fps, but less blockiness.

Oh, by the way, when you see blockiness with PocketTV, if you play the same file with PocketDivX, you will see the exact same blockiness.

We tried to attach a cmf file in the other long thread, but file attachement does not work on this forum... so we listed the file content, which is not very convenient...

Look at pages 21 and 22 of this thread:

http://smartphone.modaco.com/viewtopic.php...r=asc&start=300

[Guest Monolithix [MVP]]

Can we keep the threads on topic please people:

Pocket TV:

http://smartphone.modaco.com/viewtopic.php?t=58319

PocketDivX:

http://smartphone.modaco.com/viewtopic.php?t=58232

Ask your questions on the apps in the relevent threads.

Cheers.

[Guest drblow]

Em... you can post files here - you just have to zip them first ...

[Guest jim80b]

ok i think might people looking at this thread agree that pocket mvp is better than pocket tv....

(pocket tv team dont take this as a bad mark against your app but...)

on the files i have compressed to test out both apps, i can say that the tv player have a better mpeg decoding engine and if you encode your files with a high enough bitrate you can get fantastic, and i mean dvd on a phone, vidoe and decent sound. this does mean it runs slow... like 7 fps or less so its not the best on the spv... but on the newer faster phones it will be fine.

now mvp i think is the solution for the spv as it can show quality comparable with tv and a high fps (can't say what it is but its in the 20's) with a ok file size. again when faster phones come out quality can get better and same for sound.

its going to come down in the end to a choice between size (divx wins at the mo but its quite close)

and stability (tv IS quite stable but i myself find mvp is acceptable)

ohh. and of course price, as long as at least one is free that player is going to be the only choice. if you were thinking of charging for pocket tv it would have to do a LOT more than just play mpegs, i for one would rather play mpegs on the mvp, buggy as it is, than pay for tv at the moment.

sorry for such a long post ;-)

[Guest The PocketTV Team]

> pocket mvp is better than pocket tv....

I don't think it's better, it has the advantage to play more advanced formats, but it is much less stable (and takes a really long time to open large files, i don't know why...)

Has anyone been able to seek in a stream with PocketDivX and recover a/v sync ? Honestly ?

> if you encode your files with a high enough bitrate you can get fantastic, and i mean dvd on a phone, vidoe and decent sound. this does mean it runs slow... like 7 fps or less

No, you can get a much higher fps that that with high quality mpg if you select the right encoding parameters. You can get about 20 fps at 200 Kbit/sec in 176x136, and that will be the optimum quality at this resolution. Higher bitrate will only reduce the fps but not increase the video quality. What bitrate and image size have you encoded at, in the example that you are refering to ?

> can't say what it is but its in the 20's

Yes, it's too bad that the current version of PocketDivX does not have an option to see the fps... It's sometimes useful to benchmark performances.

> (tv IS quite stable but i myself find mvp is acceptable)

Quite stable... have you ever managed to crash it ? Since we did the port on Smartphone, we never managed to get it to freeze or crash, and we did quite a bit of testing. On the other hand, PocketDivX often just quits, or freezes, but it's not because of a bad job in the Smartphone port (malloc did a good job), it's because of shortcomings in the underlying code. It's been like that on Pocket PC for years.

> ohh. and of course price, as long as at least one is free that player is going to be the only choice. if you were thinking of charging for pocket tv it would have to do a LOT more than just play mpegs, i for one would rather play mpegs on the mvp, buggy as it is, than pay for tv at the moment.

We will not charge for personal use of PocketTV on unlocked Smartphones. It is possible (but not certain) that we charge for the version "signed" for locked phones, because signing apps is not free. And we will definitely charge for commercial use (PocketTV Enterprise Edition).

[Guest procalli]

I think the main problem is the readiness of the PocketTV team to blow their own trumpet.

Yes we know that PocketTV is more reliable.

Yes we Know that you measure everything in fps or else you wouldnt have trumpeted the monsters inc clip ( which isnt a trailer and therefore copyrighted) although it was quite blocky.

Yes we gather that PocketMVP is a port as you point this out each time you mention it (not always directly)

Yes we know the smartphone sdk is buggy as you also point this out numerous times to hide the shortcomings of your app especially the IPSM bug.

Your app is usable but is beaten hands down by PocketMVP due to

1. Built in file explorer

2. Ability to play most files including MPEG 1

3 Most potential given some of the menu choices which havent been programmed.

4 Non confrontational attitude of programmer.

5 Programmed for Prestige not profits

6 There at the start when all we had was WMP

I could go on but am writing my dissertation at the moment.

Thankyou for listening

[Guest The PocketTV Team]

> Yes we know that PocketTV is more reliable.

Thanks!

> Yes we Know that you measure everything in fps or else you wouldnt have trumpeted the monsters inc clip ( which isnt a trailer and therefore copyrighted) although it was quite blocky.

You are quite wrong here. We think usability is WAY more important than fps. But good performances are also important, obviously.

Technically, you are right, the monsters inc clip is not a trailer, but it's part of the add campain from Walt Disney productions to promote their "Monster's Inc" series of movies. So it's an ad. It is copyrighted, of course, but as far as we know, Walt Disney productions are very happy to have it viewed by a maximum number of people! Copyrighted does not mean illegal to distribute, as long as you don't alter the content (i.e. remove the credits).

> Yes we gather that PocketMVP is a port as you point this out each time you mention it (not always directly).

So...? PocketTV for Smartphone is also a port... and our Pocket PC version was also a port (since it was originally developed for Linux). So what ? We never said a port was a bad thing, if the port is well done.

> Yes we know the smartphone sdk is buggy as you also point this out numerous times to hide the shortcomings of your app especially the IPSM bug.

What are you trying to say there ?

The IPSM bug *is* a real bug, we are in contact with the people at MS that are trying to resolve it... If you have problems with this bug, we can put you in touch with those people at MS.

> Your app is usable but is beaten hands down by PocketMVP due to

> 1. Built in file explorer

We'll have one, probably next week, since you feel it's the most important thing. We consider that a good, working seek feature is way more important than a buit-in file explorer, since there is no work-around when seeking does not work. And it's hard to make seeking work well, especially on a Smartphone.

> 2. Ability to play most files including MPEG 1

Ok, we all know that PocketTV plays MPEG-1 very well, but it plays only MPEG-1 movie streams. That's a design choice we made. We do have code to decode other formats (e.g. MP3), but we decided not to include any code that involves IP (Intellectual Property) that is not free of patent royalties. We feel that a good, free MPEG-1 player may be more useful than a not-so-good multi-format player with IP issues attached. IP issues are why PocketDivX cannot be bundled by manufacturers.

> 4 Non confrontational attitude of programmer.

We are in good term with the owner of the code (mark dukette). And we don't want confrontation. But we want correct, un-bias information, and it not always the case on the forums.

PocketTV is *not* perfect. In fact it's currently a BETA, it's unfinished, work in progress. But at least it is available as an alternate choice, it works well (those who tried it know that) and you should give us credit for making a good free application available to Smartphone users, rather than just do the usual bashing.

> 5 Programmed for Prestige not profits

Well that's not totally true. Yes, most of the code of PocketDivX is open-source and was contributed for free by Mark and others (and is now owned by Mark). But the company the own the rights on the DivX format (and the use of it in any form) is a for-profit company (called DivX Networks). But that's a long story, not the right place to discuss it here.

If you look at the software landscape on Smartphone (and on Pocket PC), you won't find too many good applications that are provided free for personal use. We don't make any profit from doing that either. We make profits only when we sell the Enterprise Edition version for commercial use, and we need to, since our rent is *not* free, and like everyone else, we need to make a living, and that's our full-time job. What's important is the fact that an app is good and free, not *why* the developer made it (e.g. for prestige or because he was bored or...).

We develop PocketTV because we have fun doing that. That's our number one motivation, before prestige and profits.

> 6 There at the start when all we had was WMP

I'm not sure what you mean. PocketTV existed before PocketDivX on the Pocket PC (and before that, on the Palm-size PC like the Casio E-100). You probably mean that the first port of PocketDivX to Smartphone was available a couple of days before PocketTV. That's correct, but it's not very important in the long run, is it ?

And by the way, all you had was not just WMP. There was already another video player called Emblaze... that was there before PocketDivX. Have you tried it ? (yes, it sucks!)

> I could go on but am writing my dissertation at the moment.

Good luck :)

And please, procalli, stick with PocketDivX since you like it so much. Others may have a different preferences. I even know people who prefer WMP!

[Guest madu]

WHOAA!!! This is getting more and more interesting with every post!! Makes me laugh! Seriously though, I do not agree with many bashing points here, like 'Built in file explorer' especially knowing it will be there in full version and I agree that it is not the top priority @ this point. Regards for actually prioritising features and seek function is definitely more important than file explorer since as you said there are workarounds for one and non for the other...

But I do agree that 'bashing' comes from the confrontational attitude (please check all posts in this topic if you think I'm lieing). It does indeed seem that having to 'compete' with PocketMVP on PPC platform you are eager to suppress that at early stages on SP platform. And truly there is a fine line between 'presenting explanations/clearing up issues based on wrong information' and defending what is still a BETA.

I think PocketTV is a good proper product even in early stages, aimed at a little different market and has some other priorities. (Would general public bother encoding clips in DivX?? Even I being able to, don't. And copanies would probably NOT use DivX). So why is there such a harsh defence??

Oh, and for the comments:

> PocketTV is *not* perfect. In fact it's currently a BETA, it's unfinished, work in progress.

= Nothing is perfect. And never will be. And we know it's a Beta since pointed out *many* times. We have no problem with that and there's no need to remind us - it's an assumption already. We here are more guinea pigs than end-users of your product and can &probably do (apart from bashing :) ) provide a valuable feedback.

> But at least it is available as an alternate choice, it works well (those who tried it know that) and you should give us credit for making a good free application available to Smartphone users, rather than just do the usual bashing.

= Thank you (no sarcasm). Indeed, we do appreciate the fact and that you provide us with a good alternative. But as you say we do have an alternative (most people here being techy is a big factor) and some might prefer a different one. The bashing comes from defence&trumpet, kinda saying you have an alternative, but we assure you that all is crap and this is better. No offence, but indeed it is the feeling in this topic.

>We develop PocketTV because we have fun doing that. That's our number one motivation, before prestige and profits.

= Not many people do these days, and if so - Respect!

> And please, procalli, stick with PocketDivX since you like it so much. Others may have a different preferences. I even know people who prefer WMP!

= Isn't thit kinda hinting that PMVP is inferior to PTV in same way as....

Thanks and regards

madu

[Guest The PocketTV Team]

Nicely put madu...! (no sarcasmes either, I mean it). Thanks.

[Guest procalli]

Interesting replies to my previous post.

Again from the tone you are on the defensive when theres nothing to be defensive about. All I was trying to say is that although your product seems fine, the attitude in your replies seem dismissive of the competition and the smartphone 'porter'. Why?

I mean youve only made a MPEG1 player, nothing more,nothing less, whereas the MVP player plays everthing and when completed will probably be a lot more useful than yours.

Unless youve found a new way of decoding MPEG files there is no reason why POCKETMVP cannot playback these files the same.

The fact you have thought about bundling your app means that on the ppc money drives you.

Again from my experience PocketTV is not that good as can be shown by the files you provided.

I wasn't aware that anyone could distribute copyrighted materials. And if as you say that the animated short was advertising the larger film, does that mean that I can make a music player and bundle singles with it as these are used to promote the album?

Maybe you should read your replies and think of what you have done. Not only can we bug test your app but we can help you with your customer services so that when/if your app is bundled you can deal with the customers with a friendly attitude.

ie.

Customer : This program doesn't seem to play properly

oldPocketTV: It plays better than pocketMVP and what do expect with a microsoft os!!

Customer :huh????

After the customer service beta tests :)

Customer : This program doesn't seem to play properly

oldPocketTV: Oh please send me you specs and Ill see what the problem is. Oh I see you are running too many background tasks.

Customer :oh thankyou, your a nice person, would you like a scone with cream and Jam.

Case closed!!

back to the dissertation.

[Guest The PocketTV Team]

> Again from the tone you are on the defensive

It looks like regarless of what I say, you will say that, so it does not mean anything...!

> when theres nothing to be defensive about. All I was trying to say is that although your product seems fine, the attitude in your replies seem dismissive of the competition and the smartphone 'porter'. Why?

Absolutely not, I am not dismissive of the competition. I do have the latest PocketDivX on all my devices (many), and I know how stable it is and how it works. There has been a lot of work put in this program. Too bad most of the code was contributed by students or people that do not have the experience needed to make it work well. Optimizing by writing assembly code is not a good receipe, in general, for example. It makes things harder to debug and maintain.

> I mean youve only made a MPEG1 player, nothing more,nothing less, whereas the MVP player plays everthing and when completed will probably be a lot more useful than yours.

Maybe.

> Unless youve found a new way of decoding MPEG files there is no reason why POCKETMVP cannot playback these files the same.

Of course there is only one way to decode MPEG, but there are many ways to implement it, and implementation is critical. For example if there is a wrong bit in the file, we will still decode the file, whilePocketDivX will say goodbye. And there are many ways to implement faster and better algorithms when you decode MPEG. It's more than just optimizing the code.

> The fact you have thought about bundling your app means that on the ppc money drives you.

No, but it means that like everyone else, we want to make a living. Maybe you still live with mom and dad and they pay for your studies, but that won't last.

> Again from my experience PocketTV is not that good as can be shown by the files you provided.

I don't understand what you are saying. You can make high quality files if you want. You cannot juge a video player on a couple of small (and low quality) files that we have put on our website. If you think that, you think wrong, and it is even amusing that you could say that.

> I wasn't aware that anyone could distribute copyrighted materials.

Of course. For example the MPEG-1 video standard is copyrighted, but you can distribute implementation of it for free, because the copyright holder agree and allow that. There are many things like that. Copyright means that someone owns the right, but it does not mean that they don't let you use it for free.

> And if as you say that the animated short was advertising the larger film, does that mean that I can make a music player and bundle singles with it as these are used to promote the album?

You can do that if the copyright holder agrees (or if you are quite certain that he would).

> Maybe you should read your replies and think of what you have done. Not only can we bug test your app but we can help you with your customer services so that when/if your app is bundled you can deal with the customers with a friendly attitude.

PocketTV is already bundled with several devices (e.g. some Pocket PCs).

[Guest procalli]

Too bad most of the code was contributed by students or people that do not have the experience needed to make it work well.

mmm?

Again it seems you cannot see the wood for the trees.

[ME]

Not only can we bug test your app but we can help you with your customer services so that when/if your app is bundled you can deal with the customers with a friendly attitude.

[ANSWER]

PocketTV is already bundled with several devices (e.g. some Pocket PCs).

What about the customer services.???

The point I was making is that you only have made an MPEG player which given a small amount of time anyone, who can code, could make one as its code is open source. So why you need to be so defensive and make out youve made an amazing app, I dont understand. It does work, in a fashion, but thats all it does.

Yes maybe MVP is buggy but given the size of the program and the fact its non profit means over time it probably will be quite stable, even windows has taken 8 + years to become useable.

Im glad you have been able to bundle your app as it probably wont be long before others maybe will become avaliable.

No, but it means that like everyone else, we want to make a living.

We develop PocketTV because we have fun doing that. That's our number one motivation, before prestige and profits.  

Which one is it?

[Guest The PocketTV Team]

> Again it seems you cannot see the wood for the trees.

No, but we can see the code from the open-source! :-)

> PocketTV is already bundled with several devices (e.g. some Pocket PCs).

> What about the customer services.???

When an application is free (or appears to be free, i.e. when it is bundled) and works well for what it's supposed to do (in our case, play MPEG's), there is virtually no customer service to do. In case of bundling, basic customer service is contractually done by the OEM that bundles the app. We also have a Frequently Asked Questions page.

> The point I was making is that you only have made an MPEG player which given a small amount of time anyone, who can code, could make one as its code is open source.

It's true that you can take some open-source code and make a small MPEG player in a few days, but in our case, there are several years of development efforts because we did much more than "only" that. Most of the open-source MPEG code out there is not designed to be at the same time robust and very efficient. There is a big difference between an industry-grade product and "a little MPEG player that anyone can do a small amount of time using open source code".

> So why you need to be so defensive and make out youve made an amazing app, I dont understand. It does work, in a fashion, but thats all it does.

Why "in a fashion" ? It does exactly the job it's supposed to do, and it does it well.

> Yes maybe MVP is buggy but given the size of the program and the fact its non profit means over time it probably will be quite stable, even windows has taken 8 + years to become useable.

True, it's possible that it will get better. And if you want this to happen, hou can certainely help, since the project is (mostly) open-source. But there are some deep issues in the architecture of this app that cannot be solved easiely. When a bad decision about the software architecture is taken early in a development, it is often impossible to really fix it without a complete re-think and re-write.

> Im glad you have been able to bundle your app as it probably wont be long before others maybe will become avaliable.

It's possible. The biggest problems we had were related to the IP that is used in the app. The more IP you use, the more complicated it gets, especially with IP that are tied to non-royalty-free pattents (e.g. MP3, MPEG-4 etc) owned by third-parties.

> No, but it means that like everyone else, we want to make a living.

> We develop PocketTV because we have fun doing that. That's our number one motivation, before prestige and profits.

> Which one is it?

Read better! it is both:

Our number one motivation is to have fun.

Our number two and three motivations are prestige and profits.

When you get a job, some day, you'll be happy to get paid for your efforts. But I hope money will not be your first motivation, either.

[Guest Paul [MVP]]

Enough is enough - please continue via PM if necessary.

Topic locked.

P