Hello Orholam, I can’t do it better! I can’t tell you how to make it better! But I can tell you and everyone else that I absolutely don’t like or like Swisscom’s entire Internet TV design! As I said, I find them confusing, not up-to-date and not comfortable or comfortable at all. I just wish for something better. That’s it!

Hi, something like that

It’s completely legitimate to say here in the forum that you like something or not. If you still have the why, it’s called constructive criticism. Otherwise this won’t help anyone, not even Swisscom. Then we’ll be curious to see how they’ll implement the design in the next web client.

In addition to all the pros and cons about the design, it would still be nice to know whether you could be helped “functionally”.

---

@Orholam wrote:

> “Why doesn’t Swisscom need the whole side of the screen?”

At the beginning you have to agree on a size that best suits your needs and screen sizes, because nothing is more annoying than only seeing part of the content and having to constantly scroll back and forth. This means that the current default size fits even the smallest screen.

> “I could make the font bigger and that way I would be able to identify which channel I’m looking for?”

Every browser today has a zoom function (in the Silverlight example it should be IE [up to 400%] or Mozilla [up to 300%]): Settings -> Zoom. You can easily scale up the entire content of the page to the size that suits you.

---

Fortunately, those days are long gone. Today you can design a website so that it is displayed correctly on a wide variety of screen sizes… You can’t be serious about using the zoom function. Even if you can actually help yourself with this disaster website…

At least something new is supposed to come out in the summer and there is enough competition.

---

@Orholam wrote:

>This is beyond HD
>…I get HD streams with 3Mbit…

That is correct. Online, the streams must be compressed otherwise you would have no chance on the mobile network. With LTE and eventually 5G, the bit rate may improve, but that will probably take a while. A “real” HD stream at home on the TV requires ₈-10Mbit/s. This would be data overkill for mobile devices and reception and would not be of any use given the size of the mobile screens.

---

At 3 MBit/s this is definitely not HD. The resolution alone doesn’t do it, with a low bandwidth there is no HD image worthy of the name.

Even with H.265, the legal requirement (3.6 according to ITU, see RTVG/TTVV) cannot be achieved with this bandwidth. Let alone with H.264. That’s a lot of label fraud.

5 MBit/s also works without any problems via mobile communications. See e.g. Zattoo.

By the way, there is 15 MBit/s via satellite.

Design:

Even with Autofit, there are limits to a website that uses players. Unfortunately, things aren’t that dynamic here yet. Of course you can always do better, but you can never please everyone. Compactness vs. clarity, opinions differ. If +90% can cope with the resolution/size, I think tools like Zoom are completely legitimate (the default font size is +/- the same size on all websites), even if they are just workarounds. But that’s what the forum is about. If the competition does better, great. Everyone has to know for themselves what is worth how much to them. I hope that you can count on help in their forums, if there is such a thing at all.

Bandwidth:

Yes, if it says HD on it, it should also have HD on it. I agree. But (unfortunately) they all package it the same. Since the bandwidths in the mobile network are still a long way from reaching a constant HD bit rate, dynamic profiles are needed that can adapt to the conditions of the current network (2-4G) and reception strength. The download limitations of the respective subscriptions also come into play here (i.e. the smallest ones start at 2Mbit/s [max]).

“Real HD” would be desirable for home use with WiFi and laptop/PC. This is overkill on mobile devices with a 5-6 inch display. At what diagonal HD should be available is debatable.

> “Even 5 MBit/s works without any problems via mobile communications. See, for example, Zattoo”

With 100% LTE network coverage and subscriptions with no download limits, maybe yes. The whole thing just has to work for all possible scenarios. Try streaming HD content somewhere in the middle of nowhere with a subscription that is limited to 2Mbit/s. Good luck…

> “By the way, there is 15 MBit/s via satellite”

This is sure to please all satellite phone users. Certainly an alternative for TV at home. Unfortunately not for the SC-TV in the mobile sector.

Well, Swisscom packs a 3 MBit/s stream, Zattoo at least has 5 MBit/s.

Of course, the data rate can be adjusted, but if there is enough it should be a little more than 3 MBit/s, even on a smartphone. If you want to receive 3 MBit/s, you need a subscription with 20 MBit/s from Swisscom anyway… And you often also have WiFi.

On my 5.2″ smartphone, the difference between Swisscom and Zattoo is quite big. And if I compare the whole thing with a 1440p60 stream from YouTube… It’s like night and day. Of course the TV channels don’t broadcast with high resolution (yet), I would like to just say that you can see the difference very clearly.

By the way, a 1440p60 stream from YouTube also works pretty well on the mobile network.