> 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.
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.
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.
The beauty is, volume buttons don't turn the screen back on either, so it truly becomes a connected speaker.
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.