New Lightbox website

Forums › Sky, Neon, Lightbox › New Lightbox website

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

348 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1303357 13-May-2015 10:08

Can I just say that it seems a bit odd to have released a "new website" for lightbox without having resolved the vexing issue of using Silverlight at all!?! Surely that should have been the number one thing to sort out...

GoodSync

GoodSync. Easily back up and sync your files with GoodSync. Simple and secure file backup and synchronisation software will ensure that your files are never lost (affiliate link).

garvani

1873 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1303362 13-May-2015 10:16

markl: Can I just say that it seems a bit odd to have released a "new website" for lightbox without having resolved the vexing issue of using Silverlight at all!?! Surely that should have been the number one thing to sort out...

If its good enough for the biggest VOD service its good enough for Lightbox. I havn't had one issue with silverlight, it might not be compatible with linux etc but for 90% of the population thats not an issue

reven

3736 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1303363 13-May-2015 10:19

garvani:
markl: Can I just say that it seems a bit odd to have released a "new website" for lightbox without having resolved the vexing issue of using Silverlight at all!?! Surely that should have been the number one thing to sort out...

If its good enough for the biggest VOD service its good enough for Lightbox. I havn't had one issue with silverlight, it might not be compatible with linux etc but for 90% of the population thats not an issue

Netflix (if thats what youre referring to) uses HTML5 now. So obviously silverlight isn't good enough for them :P

But agree, those users who cant use silverlight on computer to view would be such a small target of lightbox, theyre better off spending their resources on other platforms.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79061 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#1303364 13-May-2015 10:19

Except that now Google Chrome doesn't support Silverlight anymore...

The biggest services are moving to HTML5 video - even Firefox 38, released today supports DRM streaming on HTML5 video tags now.

markl

348 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1303365 13-May-2015 10:20

garvani:
markl: Can I just say that it seems a bit odd to have released a "new website" for lightbox without having resolved the vexing issue of using Silverlight at all!?! Surely that should have been the number one thing to sort out...

If its good enough for the biggest VOD service its good enough for Lightbox. I havn't had one issue with silverlight, it might not be compatible with linux etc but for 90% of the population thats not an issue

It uses an NPAPI plugin. NPAPI plugins have been deprecated in Chrome by Google - support for them is disabled by default already, and come September, support will be removed completely.

So whilst technically Silverlight might be good enough (and even that is questionable - Microsoft have effectively set it to one side until support runs out in 2021), it's not a long term solution, and anyone using it should be thinking about alternatives ASAP.

garvani

1873 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1303380 13-May-2015 10:26

reven: Netflix (if thats what youre referring to) uses HTML5 now. So obviously silverlight isn't good enough for them :P

Not on my computer its not, just checked right now and silverlight is still running the show. (i am using waterfox 37.1 however)

I didn't realise chrome had dropped support for Silverlight so i stand corrected :).

wasabi2k

2094 posts

Uber Geek

#1303381 13-May-2015 10:28

garvani:
reven: Netflix (if thats what youre referring to) uses HTML5 now. So obviously silverlight isn't good enough for them :P

I didn't realise chrome had dropped support for Silverlight so i stand corrected :).

Not just silverlight - all NPAPI plugins.

markl

348 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1303387 13-May-2015 10:35

reven: But agree, those users who cant use silverlight on computer to view would be such a small target of lightbox, theyre better off spending their resources on other platforms.

Well so it's "ok" now, but they have 'til September AT THE LATEST before they lose ~35% of their audience. Given that September is only a few months away, and they need to build an completely new player, they should have been looking at it already.

*Edit: I stand corrected on current support in Chrome - Google have temporarily whitelisted the Silverlight plugin as it is apparently used regularly by 15% of chrome users - the most used NPAPI plugin for Chrome), but all NPAPI support in Chrome will still end in September. *

reven

3736 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1303391 13-May-2015 10:42

markl:
reven: But agree, those users who cant use silverlight on computer to view would be such a small target of lightbox, theyre better off spending their resources on other platforms.

Well so it's "ok" now, but they have 'til September AT THE LATEST before they lose ~35% of their audience. As it stands, anyone using Chrome right now needs to a) work out why it's not working for them and b) work out what they need to do to reenable NPAPI support in Chrome.

So given that September is only a few months away, and they need to build an completely new player, they should have been looking at it already.

they wont lose ~35% of their audience. Silverlight will continue to work on IE (and I assume Safari).

Yes they have to do something about it, but I would expect they would rather spend their money developing other solutions, more smart tv apps (smart tvs are very common now), android/ios/chromecast/xbox one/360/ps3/4 etc.

If they take until end of 2015/beginning of 2016 to switch to HTML5 they should be alright. Yes I would prefer HTML5, but I understand why theyre still on silverlight. Really they should of gone with HTML5 to begin with but silverlight is still acceptable.

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#1303394 13-May-2015 10:45

markl:
reven: But agree, those users who cant use silverlight on computer to view would be such a small target of lightbox, theyre better off spending their resources on other platforms.

Well so it's "ok" now, but they have 'til September AT THE LATEST before they lose ~35% of their audience. Given that September is only a few months away, and they need to build an completely new player, they should have been looking at it already.

*Edit: I stand corrected on current support in Chrome - Google have temporarily whitelisted the Silverlight plugin as it is apparently used regularly by 15% of chrome users - the most used NPAPI plugin for Chrome), but all NPAPI support in Chrome will still end in September. *

why 35%?

I would think most people would be watching via devices (game consoles, smart TVs etc) rather than via browser.

Browser is literally the worst way to watch.

also, even if you do watch via a browser, it's super-trivial to switch browsers. Most people already have more than one installed I would think.

I have IE, Firefox and Chrome on my windows PC. It's a single click to open firefox and after that it's really no different to using chrome.

markl

348 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1303405 13-May-2015 10:53

reven:

they wont lose ~35% of their audience. Silverlight will continue to work on IE (and I assume Safari).

Yes they have to do something about it, but I would expect they would rather spend their money developing other solutions, more smart tv apps (smart tvs are very common now), android/ios/chromecast/xbox one/360/ps3/4 etc.

If they take until end of 2015/beginning of 2016 to switch to HTML5 they should be alright. Yes I would prefer HTML5, but I understand why theyre still on silverlight. Really they should of gone with HTML5 to begin with but silverlight is still acceptable.

Why do people use an alternative browser like chrome? Usually it's because they prefer it, and don't want to use the default - IE or Safari, for example. So ok, many of those will grudgingly switch to the system default for their OS, Lightbox will still lose some customers. And p#@! off ALL of them.

It's a bad look, and given that there is actually competition in this space, I don't think they can afford to annoy customers this way.

Also, and perhaps more importantly for me as a "geek" and a web/software dev myself, this shows a lack of adept technical leadership in their organisation. On top of the lack of decent device support, this really doesn't inspire confidence in their solutions. I cancelled my lightbox sub after a couple of months because it was clear that they weren't going to natively support Chromecast, or have broad Android device support quickly.

Now they have a hard limit on the only option that is even remotely usable to someone who isn't a hard core tv nut and isn't an Apple fanboi? What is their end game? They just don't seem interested in building their customer base beyond a niche of Roku and Apple TV owning geeks. That's a very small and, as I've said, competitive market. Good luck to them, but they better pick their game up.

markl

348 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1303407 13-May-2015 10:59

NonprayingMantis:

why 35%?

I would think most people would be watching via devices (game consoles, smart TVs etc) rather than via browser.

Browser is literally the worst way to watch.

also, even if you do watch via a browser, it's super-trivial to switch browsers. Most people already have more than one installed I would think.

I have IE, Firefox and Chrome on my windows PC. It's a single click to open firefox and after that it's really no different to using chrome.

The 35% was quoted by someone earlier in the thread as being a Trademe-supplied browser usage figure...I haven't been bothered to fact check it. It's irrelevant anyway - the point is that a significant chunk of their audience use Chrome.

Re: the rest of your post, see my last reply. If you are just a "casual" tv watcher - you don't have all the gear - Roku, Apple, whatever, then you're watching through a browser. And I shouldn't HAVE to switch away from my browser of choice. Netflix doesn't make me do that, so I'll just go there instead. You forget that most of those here are geeks, and dont mind, even ENJOY, the pain of having to jump through hoops to get around technical limitations with things.

But the majority of Lightbox's audience is not like that. If they can't get it to work first time, they will go away.

reven

3736 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1303409 13-May-2015 11:01

markl:
Why do people use an alternative browser like chrome? Usually it's because they prefer it, and don't want to use the default - IE or Safari, for example. So ok, many of those will grudgingly switch to the system default for their OS, they'll still lose some. And p#@! off ALL of them.

It's a bad look, and given that there is actually competition in this space, I don't think they can afford to annoy customers this way.

Also, and perhaps more importantly for me as a "geek" and a web/software dev myself, this shows a lack of adept technical leadership in their organisation. On top of the lack of decent device support, this really doesn't inspire confidence in their solutions. I cancelled my lightbox sub after a couple of months because it was clear that they weren't going to natively support Chromecast, or have broad Android device support quickly.

Now they have a hard limit on the only option that is even remotely usable to someone who isn't a hard core tv nut and isn't an Apple fanboi? What is their end game? They just don't seem interested in building their customer base beyond a niche of Roku and Apple TV owning geeks. That's a very small and, as I've said, competitive market. Good luck to them, but they better pick their game up.

I've had to switch browsers for things in the past, configuring some devices requires IE, its not a biggie. I'm not pissed off by it, takes 2 seconds. So no they wont piss them all off, sure some, but a very small percentage of their overall users.

In an ideal world yes, they would have HTML5, but this will cost A LOT OF MONEY. Developers arent cheap. If they spend all their money now making everybody happy across all platforms theyll probably go bust quickly.

They need to do things in stages, currently for the next year they have a PC/Mac solution, so they can focus on other areas.

They will switch to HTML5, it will become a must, but not a must right now.

simple as that really.

1101

3121 posts

Uber Geek

#1303436 13-May-2015 11:14

reven:

they wont lose ~35% of their audience. Silverlight will continue to work on IE (and I assume Safari).

They will loose more than that when the 1 year free subscription expires . They need to look at content/programs more than anything else.
:-)

I use IE for lightbox , thats all I use IE for.
Its really no big deal to do that , most who really want lightbox on a PC can/will do the same.

Killerkiwi2005

374 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#1303443 13-May-2015 11:24

Does "spartan" support silverlight? I know activeX/java has been booted, I assume flash gets an exception

http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/insider/forum/insider_internet-insider_spartan/support-for-npapi-in-project-spartan/560163b9-0611-42f0-ba44-fc5731b34894

Gives no real answer...

https://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/silverlight/en-US/287c002c-56a4-4801-b60a-9f7dd84bbb35/will-silverlight-be-available-in-spartan-?forum=silverlightstart

Indicates not at the moment

so I guess its possible lightbox on win10 wont work in the default browser either?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4