Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

TV Garden

tv.garden

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 133 posts

Re: TV Garden

#81

Post by genewitch »

dkh wrote: post #78
emmelaich wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's missing a few major channels, Seven and Nine afaics. Maybe they don't offer free iptv.

Most of these are being "offered" in a way not intended or desired by the broadcaster

So let's link it to a site that can ddos sites, and probably has employees of media companies in it!

I'm all for sharing, but I was hoping this bit of awesome joy would not be linked here.

I wonder if OP heard about it from the NA podcast or from someone who does listen to it. It was mentioned last week Thursday to the tune of a million people, so, I guess "yes".

Re: TV Garden

#82

Post by dkh »

cadamsdotcom wrote: post #39
lxgr wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Non-public streams wouldn’t be published without DRM, or at least not as publicly retrievable (i.e. without any authentication) M3U playlists, would they?

Yes - for some of these you can stream if you know the URL, but you're only able to discover the URL after making an account.

I think a number of these are also public rebroadcasts piggybacking off a less-public source.

Definitely a lot of these are also [re]broadcasts from vendors, probably for a specific platform or distribution target, that people found the URLs for and that the original source isn't super aware of the details of

Re: TV Garden

#84

Post by dkh »

hsuduebc2 wrote: post #48
hombre_fatal wrote: post #46

Can someone explain the economics of this? So, there are a bunch of open http endpoints serving free video feeds and they don't care about bandwidth? It's not like radio where you broadcast it and people passively receive the signal. This is a great service for language practice, though. Wish it had a login + favorites system.

I wouldn't they don't care. It just wasn't problem for them. But basically yes. I blindly checked few of the TV's listed for my country and every one of them had live stream on Google publicly available somewhere. But is this really a concern for them? If they are making money from advertisement this just add them justification for higher price of an ad.

They aren't making money from this, but they are likely operating at a scale where they either don't notice if 1000 nerds on the internet are piggybacking their feeds, or don't care all that much.

It is not likely useful to them in negotiating ad rates, at least not with how advertising is usually bought/sold, because the broadcaster has almost no information (if any) about anyone watching these streams, including if it's even a person. It's possible they could fold it into a more general ad package that places a lot of weight on total view/viewers numbers, but that is a lot less common these days, and when it is done, the rates tend to be much lower

Re: TV Garden

#85

Post by dkh »

trompetenaccoun wrote: post #58
financetechbro wrote: post #33

TIL There’s a Mr. Beast channel in the US

Is there? Or is that just his Youtube channel on a loop?

It's both. It's a FAST channel being used by I think Pluto.TV and Roku to give them another "live 24/7" "channel" for their catalogs, but underneath is just looping playlist of YouTube content.

That's actually what a huge number of the channels on this site are, and I do wish they were labeled and filterable that way.

Re: TV Garden

#86

Post by dkh »

DecentShoes wrote: post #43

It's cool, but are you not worried about a huge lawsuit from rebroadcasting copyrighted content without a licence?

My guess is this was launched to get some attention or as some sort of proof-of-concept or whatever, and that it perhaps is not intended to be a sustainable platform, at least not in this form. And they probably assume if there's a problem, they'll just get a cease & desist notice and have to take the channel down (which is probably true).

Definitely has to be a bit of a #yolo project launch though. Other concerns as well including GDPR compliance

Re: TV Garden

#88

Post by dkh »

genewitch wrote: post #81
dkh wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of these are being "offered" in a way not intended or desired by the broadcaster

So let's link it to a site that can ddos sites, and probably has employees of media companies in it! I'm all for sharing, but I was hoping this bit of awesome joy would not be linked here. I wonder if OP heard about it from the NA podcast or from someone who does listen to it. It was mentioned last week Thursday to the tune of a million people, so, I guess "yes".

Oh the irony of wanting such a site to exist but to keep it a bit of a secret.

There are a zillion streams on this site, so unclear if enough additional traffic will be going to any particular one of them to be noticed by the sources. Certainly some number of media company employees will be aware of it due to it hitting HN, but I have my doubts that there are many media employees who read HN who didn't already know these things existed and/or would do anything about it

Re: TV Garden

#89

Post by morsch »

genewitch wrote: post #83
morsch wrote: post #76

An option to sort stations by (some reasonable measure of) popularity instead of alphabetically would be nice.

So, all China and India for 16 pages?

I was thinking within a country. But sure, that would make more sense than only alphabetical sorting for the global listings as well. Hadn't even noticed those.

If you wanted -- and you had the data, which you probably don't -- you could make the sorting criteria the share of viewers (ie. percentage as opposed to absolute numbers), that way countries with unusually large audiences wouldn't always appear at the top. Though that comes with its own issues.

Re: TV Garden

#90

Post by hsuduebc2 »

dkh wrote: post #84
hsuduebc2 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't they don't care. It just wasn't problem for them. But basically yes. I blindly checked few of the TV's listed for my country and every one of them had live stream on Google publicly available somewhere. But is this really a concern for them? If they are making money from advertisement this just add them justification for higher price of an ad.

They aren't making money from this, but they are likely operating at a scale where they either don't notice if 1000 nerds on the internet are piggybacking their feeds, or don't care all that much. It is not likely useful to them in negotiating ad rates, at least not with how advertising is usually bought/sold, because the broadcaster has almost no information (if any) about anyone watching these streams, including if…

Yea I meant it is an argument they can use but not a good metric at all. I agree that mostly they just do not care. This tool only means that they'll get more international views from curious people but in the end it means nothing.
Post reply on HN