A failed experiment: How LG screwed up its webOS acquisition

Re:A failed experiment: How LG screwed up its webOS acquisition by aeturnum on Wednesday September 03, 2014 @06:53PM (#8265881)

I used to work in the "smart device" space at a small company called "Orb Networks" (since acquired by Qualcomm). All the CE makers we talked to were both terrified of being left behind by the pace of change and extremely resistant to changing anything. Everyone we talked to would readily admit that the current streaming media options (DLNA, service-specific "apps" or Airplay) were limiting for them and for customers. DLNA suck, the apps were expensive to develop and would often cover only a few TVs and Airplay was extremely expensive BOM-wise and restricted you on hardware partners. They would also agree that their interface was cumbersome and old-fashioned.

However, when push came to shove, no one was really interested in changing anything. The systems that exist are there due to a complex interaction between the various stakeholders in the product, least of which are the actual customers. There are huge challenges in sourcing components that: run as advertised, are priced competitively and will continue to be available into the future. Software is generally an after-thought, even if it's what the public sees.

The story of the WebOS team fighting tooth and nail to avoid the awful old menu system rings very true. Good luck to the people to stayed.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A failed experiment: How LG screwed up its webOS acquisition by pjc50 on Thursday September 04, 2014 @06:52AM (#8267501)

DLNA is everywhere but seems never to have taken off. Anyone want to elaborate on how or why it's so terrible? Has it been tripped up by DRM or is it just bad UI?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A failed experiment: How LG screwed up its webOS acquisition by aeturnum on Thursday September 04, 2014 @11:05AM (#8268654)

There are a whole host of issues. DLNA was defined back in 2003 and makes some choices that don't make a lot of sense now. It was designed to be used by set top boxes and computers in a mostly static environment - it doesn't really take mobile use cases into account. For example, the concept of streaming media does not exist in DLNA (it assumes that you'll always have the full file at the start). It also imposes a lot of UI choices (all DLNA devices are presented as a hierarchy of folders).

It's a standard that all DLNA providers implement and everyone does a little bit differently. Between devices from the same company it can work alright, but any time you need to connect up devices between manufacturers it's a crap shoot.

It's not really a bad standard, it's just an old standard, designed for use cases that already have pretty ok solutions (plug your computer into your TV, copy the files to whatever device you want them on, etc). It doesn't address the use cases most people have for their media now (i.e. can I play spotify on my TV).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A failed experiment: How LG screwed up its webOS acquisition by canadev on Thursday September 04, 2014 @01:53AM (#8266961)

I don't know what: CE, DLNA, and BOM mean. I think Airplay is some Apple streaming thing?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A failed experiment: How LG screwed up its webOS acquisition by soebbing on Thursday September 04, 2014 @04:55AM (#8267274)

Airplay: Some Apple streaming thing

BOM: Bill of material

CE: Consumer Electronic

DLNA: "Digital Living Network Alliance", some cumbersome standard for finding and accessing media content in local networks

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A failed experiment: How LG screwed up its webOS acquisition by canadev on Thursday September 04, 2014 @11:18AM (#8268742)

Thank you!

[ Parent | on HN ]