Blank turns your TV screen black until you press any button on a remote
furbo.org
furbo.org
The beauty is, volume buttons don't turn the screen back on either, so it truly becomes a connected speaker.
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.
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.
100% agree. But the OP is the highest rated comment, so clearly HN thinks this is important.
Which, while not hard, is fair to classify as confusing design.
> 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.
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.
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...
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.
stackoverflow: No you shouldn't do def.
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.
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.
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.
I have to agree. Thats why every single industry has their own term for "above the fold".
It is easy to understand. It could crucially be easier to understand, reaching more people, if it was faster to explain itself.
Keep your TV screen off while playing audio through your Apple TV.
Then the page can go into why they built this, the problem it solved, the benefits, challenges etc.
When I listen to a song I give it 3 - 7 seconds to see if I like it. Similar for books, 30 pages max. People move on quickly.
Simple solution! I’d lead with the problem though, had to think about why you might want this.
My understanding is that HDMI switches/receivers do the handshakes themselves, specifically to avoid this problem.
Use something other than a TV? Isn't the power consumption pretty high compared to devices like a smartphone especially if you only want audio without any video display?
> An additional benefit became apparent after we started using Blank: it significantly lowers the energy consumption of the screen.
> All modern TVs have circuits that detect a blank signal and turn off LEDs to reduce the power required by the device. If you’ve ever felt heat coming off your big screen, Blank makes that go away.
> So besides improving your sleep, you’re also helping out our ever warming planet.
There may not be many people who need this app, but it's appreciated by those of us who do.
It will definitely be appreciated around these parts. I use the sound bar to listen to music whilst pottering about (it's easier than headphones or carrying a speaker around with me) and I never need any visuals.
I understand why; it’s not exactly the most useful feature, but it used to be pretty ubiquitous: iTunes, Winamp, every DVD player, some CD players. We lost all the fun features! I want to hear the last 4 minutes of Freebird on repeat sometimes!
Quick solution to this is to save a 100% black image in your iCloud Photo Library , and set that image as your Apple TVs screen saver. I use that in both my Apple TVs and I can listen to music while the screen is completely black. Bonus points is that you get notifications of song changing on top!
Occasionally, I like to fall asleep on the couch with Spotify playing off the TV. Problem is Spotify can be really bright. This solves that issue.
Yes, I could play music a different way. However, this is really convenient.
I've found it far simpler than explaining remotes to people.
If you ever want to save the money on youtube premium, the Brave browser on iOS lets you listen to YouTube content in the background or with the screen off. Just make sure you enable that feature in it's settings. It also blocks all of the pre/mid/post ads.
This is probably precisely why this feature won't find its way into a lot of new smart tvs
I ultimately wanted to detect how loud my TV was and lower the volume automatically when I watched Avengers or something because I was constantly fiddling with the volume when some parts were excessively loud. I wanted to extend this to ads too so that when they came on my TV would mute automatically but I got the microphone and kinda lost passion for the project.
There might be a way to build a little HDMI CEC controller that could block certain control sequences, but I haven’t looked into that yet.
(Some also 'support' it accidentally of course!)
It was also handy to annoy my GF with, before she cottoned on to it.
I also airgap the TV and distrust any smartTV software.
From the project page:
"That second paragraph hints at why this is important, despite the app’s simplicity."
and the second paragraph on the simulated display:
"Use this app when you want to listen to a podcast or music without seeing artwork or a screensaver."
I had a contractor over the other day for an estimate and in our living room he said, "wow, no TV"
I hadn't really considered it would be a surprise. We consume lots of media, just on laptops and tablets instead.
It seems quite common in the US to have TVs in several rooms and have them run in the background for long stretches of day. This is far less common in the cultures I've lived in where sitting down to watch TV alone or together is more of an occasion and modal, and TVs have no place outside the living room.
This is to say the use case different folks have for TVs also varies widely. Now, when I do sit down at the TV, I generally appreciate the nice big screen.
From yesterday on Marketplace: Why streaming networks love a good background show https://www.marketplace.org/2023/04/11/why-streaming-network...
> Tomorrow Warner Bros. Discovery is supposed to reveal it’s new but not really new streaming service. What once was called HBO Max will now just be called Max, according to The New York Times.
> Beyond the name change, it could include more light reality TV shows like “Dr. Pimple Popper” and “House Hunters International” —you know, the shows you might put on in the background while you’re doing chores, paying bills or working.
> There’s a term for shows like that: ambient streaming.
And from a few years ago: “Emily in Paris” and the Rise of Ambient TV- https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/emily-in-...
> In this and other recent programming, Netflix is pioneering a genre that I’ve come to think of as ambient television. It’s “as ignorable as it is interesting,” as the musician Brian Eno wrote, when he coined the term “ambient music” in the liner notes to his 1978 album “Ambient 1: Music for Airports,” a wash of slow melodic synth compositions. Ambient denotes something that you don’t have to pay attention to in order to enjoy but which is still seductive enough to be compelling if you choose to do so momentarily. Like gentle New Age soundscapes, “Emily in Paris” is soothing, slow, and relatively monotonous, the dramatic moments too predetermined to really be dramatic.
However, in the time of streaming this has gone completely away in our household. The TV is only on for the time it takes to to watch a show and then is immediately turned off.
It even has crappy low budget local ads like old cable tv did. Unintentionally hilarious sometimes.
I especially find Marvel movies much better at home. I might find one entirely OK watched at home, but get frustrated and bored with the same film in the theater, and leave feeling pretty unhappy with it. This is because I can divide my attention at home, and most Marvel movies are kinda worse the more closely you're watching them. Poor filming and editing, interminable action scenes that have me wanting to take a nap rather than watch them by a certain point—all that's better if you can check out for chunks of the movie.
And this isn't a my-attention-span thing: I closely watch "boring" shit like silent films all the time, because they reward close watching far more than a lot of modern blockbusters do (older blockbusters often reward it better, too—at least, the ones we still remember)
There's a TV in my home, but if it died I probably wouldn't replace it, at least for a while. I barely need it. Only if I have someone over to entertain might I want to use it. For most people, TVs will still be around because watching a movie together with friends is simply a better experience in front of a TV than someone's 13" laptop.
Everytime I meet a no TV guy they have a laptop or a 37 inch monitor in the corner of a room somewhere with a comfy chair. It wasn't they had no TV, they just had a crappy TV.
Watching YouTube on a tablet you can drag it around the house as you do stuff and easily use the interface or do web searchers etc. With a larger screen you’re just stuck in that room and remotes suck for navigation.
There’s been several attempts to be able to seamlessly swap content from one screen to another, but their clunky.
For me personally it’s like reading a book, you just ignore outside stimulus.
>I’m happy to announce the release of a new tvOS app called Blank
This got me so confused, I didn't even know TVs have apps, I mean I knew there is AndroidTV and nvidia shield, but somehow concept of 3rd party apps on a TV didn't get to me.
All modern TVs have circuits that detect a blank signal and turn off LEDs to reduce the power required by the device. If you’ve ever felt heat coming off your big screen, Blank makes that go away."
Though it's especially true for an OLED TV, where a black pixel is a pixel drawing no power at all.
I use it all the time to turn the tv off via google assistant when I walk out of the house
Blackout curtains and put tape over any obnoxious LED light.
Note: neither were fancy models, both are the slightly above entry level grade stuff.
It makes sense. LG and Samsung want the TV to act as the media hub. You can even control smart home devices from the tv now.
Samsung - All Settings, General, Accessibility, then Picture Off; or Bixby "Picture Off On" (heh).
Sony - Remote button Quick Settings (gear), then Picture Off.
Vizio - Remote menu button, Timers, then Blank Screen.
LG - Full settings, Energy saving, then Turn screen off (I think?); or voice command "Turn screen off".
etc. But these are all atrociously unusable. I would say I don't even know what they were thinking, except I'm certain it's "if we give people a button to turn off the screen, they'll call tech support after they turn off the screen" — which, having worked in tech support, is completely valid.
It'd be nice if the HDMI CEC folks would add a command "turn screen off but maintain audio playback/passthrough", but as of HDMI CEC 1.4b, they assume that all streams are video, and so provide (and mandate) the Display On commands when a source is active.
Sometimes you want to see your TV, but without sound.
Your TV remote has a "MUTE" button, just for that.
Sometimes you want to listen to music or other audio from your AppleTV, but without the brightness or distraction of video.
Introducing the "BLANK" app, just for that. Hit any remote button to restore video.
http://files.iconfactory.net/archive/safetylight/
There are a large number of low-effort apps in this space that flood the App Review process and resulted in a policy that apps must have a minimum level of functionality.
"Screen off" should be a button on the remote. By law.
I don't remember how I dit it though.
We got a soundbar which mounts to the wall, and has detachable satellite speakers if we really want "surround." And it comes with a wireless subwoofer, so we still get the boomy sound for action movies.
The more common reason is still: it sounds better than your TVs built in speakers.