Forums

Topic: No apps? Who cares.

Posts 61 to 73 of 73

BigBadJohn

How about an app that counts down till the next big Switch game? Knew I should of held off before going after Ganon.

SW-5512-0541-9236

Name the movie quote "Toolshed!"

BigBadJohn

@Masurao Played, Completed, and traded. It was a great game and had this fantastic feature that allowed you to go away and make a coffee and bacon sandwich whilst it loaded the next part of the map. I think more games should have insane loading times so we can ponder the meaning of life in the down time.

SW-5512-0541-9236

Name the movie quote "Toolshed!"

Octane

@Masurao That is how it works though. If they wanted those apps to be there day one, they could've arranged that.

Octane

skywake

Masurao wrote:

I've never ever said anything about the difference between a HQ mp3 and flac, nor did I promote buying anything. Do not get yourself worked up on something that only exists in your head. Also note that HQ audio playback is not about gaining extra frequencies but about the separation of sound. It is like pixel perfect vs. a blurry picture.

You did do a bit about how dedicated music players were better than phones as a point of comparison for why the Switch shouldn't be used for Netflix. Specifically that you tried to listen to flac files on your smartphone but the sound wasn't as good as it was on your $600 mp3 player. Which you then linked to. So yeah, I'm going to call that out as being snake oil because that's what it is.

And again, your general point? I agree with that. I agree that dedicated devices are generally a better way to go. I've never liked the idea of my home console being a BluRay player. I don't like those all-in-one routers that have WiFi, modem, router, Switch all in the one thing. If I want a decent photo I'd rather use a camera over a phone. But for audio? Phones are good enough that higher end gear has to be super expensive to be "better" at which point it's mostly snake oil. For the Switch and Netflix? I can't think of a better device for it than the Switch.... other than devices that are bigger and generally more expensive.

Some playlists: Top All Time Songs, Top Last Year
"Don't stir the pot" is a nice way of saying "they're too dumb to reason with"

BigBadJohn

None of us really know what obstacles are in the way to get these streaming apps on the Switch and I'm sure if it was straightforward they'd be there given the reviews and feedback. I remember reading once that there was a licensing fee to put BBC iplayer native on a device but how accurate that is and whether it applies to other streaming apps. I don't really want them myself but I suppose the more options the better.

SW-5512-0541-9236

Name the movie quote "Toolshed!"

StuTwo

I think it demonstrates a particular strength of Nintendo's marketing approach with the Switch that the lack of streaming apps at launch - something that could be seen as a weakness - has been projected as a strength. It's enabled them to project a clearer market positioning.

Switch is a dedicated gaming platform. It doesn't want to be your media hub, Nintendo doesn't want to sell you TV box sets or rent you films. It doesn't want to be your browser or the device you use to update Facebook and it definitely, DEFINITELY, doesn't want to be your camera. Nothing about the Switch has been compromised or watered down in any way to facilitate browsing the internet, watching films or listening to music at the expense of playing games (even if it would obviously be a great and convenient device for doing some of those other things!).

I actually think it was the right call. The Xbox One did everything and I think everyone is agreed that it created a confused messaging that contributed towards its troubled start.

If Nintendo had included a web browser it would have been compared to the iPad. Digital Foundry would have carried out an investigation to find out that it takes a second longer to load web pages than the latest iPad (no surprise since it's much cheaper). It's stupid because a device like the Switch should be judged on the overall package not single specs isolated out of context but the haters on the internet would have lapped it up - "performance as a console: not in the same class as the market leader, performance as a tablet: not in the same class as the market leader".

When they add the functionality in later it won't be under the microscope in the same way.

StuTwo

Switch Friend Code: SW-6338-4534-2507

spizzamarozzi

skywake wrote:

Masurao wrote:

I've never ever said anything about the difference between a HQ mp3 and flac, nor did I promote buying anything. Do not get yourself worked up on something that only exists in your head. Also note that HQ audio playback is not about gaining extra frequencies but about the separation of sound. It is like pixel perfect vs. a blurry picture.

You did do a bit about how dedicated music players were better than phones as a point of comparison for why the Switch shouldn't be used for Netflix. Specifically that you tried to listen to flac files on your smartphone but the sound wasn't as good as it was on your $600 mp3 player. Which you then linked to. So yeah, I'm going to call that out as being snake oil because that's what it is.

Just to add my 2 cents, music depends so much on the quality of the recording itself that it's almost pointless to speak about this or that mp3 player. The device mentioned above, which sells for approx. $800 over here, is no doubt terrific but a) you have to pair it with headphones that are AS terrific to appreciate the nuances and b) most of the records most music fans would listen to are simply not good enough for these players, making them just expensive toys in my opinion.

Just to mention an example, you're a big shoegaze fan yourself - and shoegaze is a genre based on hypnotic guitar riffs blended together with noise - if you listen to it on a device that separates sounds and reduces noise, you're basically tampering with the original sound of the record. A couple of years ago Neil Young released the first volume of his "Archives" in crystal-clear blue ray sound quality remastered from the master tapes and they sound AWFUL and SOULLESS because that music wasn't supposed to sound like this and certainly wasn't recorded with crystal-clear sound in mind.

So, music really depends on an infinite number of factors (including one's ear).

Top-10 games I played in 2017: The Legend of Zelda Breath of the Wild (WiiU) - Rogue Legacy (PS3) - Fallout 3 (PS3) - Red Dead Redemption (PS3) - Guns of Boom (MP) - Sky Force Reloaded (MP) - ...

3DS Friend Code: 0104-0649-7464 | Nintendo Network ID: spizzamarozzi

erv

BigBadJohn wrote:

How about an app that counts down till the next big Switch game? Knew I should of held off before going after Ganon.

I like that idea. That would be a fun thing.

Nintendo news is bigger than most people think as of now. Nintendo will soon own their own content feed. Countdown would be a cool addition.

Switch code: SW-0397-5211-6428
PlayStation: genetic-eternal

Nintendo Network ID: genet1c

skywake

spizzamarozzi wrote:

Just to mention an example, you're a big shoegaze fan yourself - and shoegaze is a genre based on hypnotic guitar riffs blended together with noise - if you listen to it on a device that separates sounds and reduces noise, you're basically tampering with the original sound of the record. So, music really depends on an infinite number of factors (including one's ear).

I agree with what you're getting at but I'm not sure shoegaze is the best example. If anything that kind of music is the sort of music that benefits the most from accurate reproduction of sound. Of course the nonsense expensive music players are still a waste of money. But I for one would be pretty disappointed if there was a new My Bloody Valentine album and it was mastered like a pop record. If you distorted Loveless by, for example, clipping the recording like they do with some pop music? You'd lose all of the dynamic range that makes that noise interesting

Edited on by skywake

Some playlists: Top All Time Songs, Top Last Year
"Don't stir the pot" is a nice way of saying "they're too dumb to reason with"

Lethal

The fact that I only touch my Switch to play Zelda shows that it needs apps. Nintendo wants consumers to use their product. The more you are on the Switch, the more likely you are to buy something for it. So it is essential that Nintendo gives consumers more reasons to be on the Switch.

It is a simple as that....

Switch Friend Code - SW-1147-4867-6886

skywake

Masurao wrote:

You are perfectly right about that. You do need a set of headphones, proper cables, player and music that was properly mastered to bring to get the full experience. None of which would do much magic without the others.

If I had thousands of dollars to burn I'd set up a double blind test. With well mastered music with a decent set of headphones, 320kbps mp3s and something like a $50 portable headphone AMP and a smartphone on the one side. The same music in FLAC with the same set of headphones and something like that "dedicated" high end audio player on the other. Try to match the colour of the sound on both as close as possible by fiddling with the EQ. I'd wager that people wouldn't be able to say which one was "better".

There's a use for "HQ Audio" and a decent argument for why it should exist. But only for recording and mastering because, to a point, that process needs as much quality as you can get. There's no need for it when it comes to playback. If anything attempts to play those higher frequencies may actually result in a LESS clear sound because of distortions that will always occur in analogue circuits. You may end up hearing stuff outside of the range of human hearing that the person who mastered the track didn't hear on their gear. Purely because your "HQ audio" player played back that sound and your headphones handled that frequency incorrectly and dropped it down to 12khz or something.

Masurao wrote:

I was not promoting that certain DAP either. All I said was that dedicated hardware will always be better. And therefore I prefer that

Isn't that the same thing? You weren't promoting that product specifically you were just simply saying that a device like that was better. Because it's built specifically for that task. All I was saying was that in this particular case? That's nonsense. And that in general dedicated devices aren't always better just because they're built for that reason.

As a general rule of thumb? Yes, sure. If you buy an access point and router separately rather than as a combo device you'll generally get more features and better performance on both. If you buy a DSLR or even a basic compact camera you'll get a camera that isn't held back by the space limitations of a phone. If you buy a BluRay player rather than just trusting your console to do it you'll get a lower power consumption and generally quieter device that never needs to download large software updates if you haven't used it for a month.

But there are times when dedicated devices aren't better. The music players you talk about? I hate to say it again because it clearly hits a nerve but they're a money making scheme. They exist to take your money. And in the same vein there is no such thing as a dedicated device for portable netflix and youtube. If someone came out with one claiming to do it better than any other device? Well maybe they'd charge a premium for it. But I can't see any way someone could make a device that would do a better job of it than the Switch.... short of having a bigger screen (which would add bulk)

Edited on by skywake

Some playlists: Top All Time Songs, Top Last Year
"Don't stir the pot" is a nice way of saying "they're too dumb to reason with"

spizzamarozzi

@skywake I think there was an audio test floating around on YouTube where they compared Neil Young's PONO player and other cheaper music players. The test sprung from the fact that a lot of people simply couldn't get the difference in sound quality Neil Young was talking about when promoting PONO. I'm sure there's a ton of tests on audio quality - audiophiles can be a pain in the arse.
I don't remember the outcome of that particular test though. I have no opinion about the thing itself.

I would like to listen to some properly recorded music, like "Have a Cigar" by Pink Floyd, on that 800 buck device though. I'm sure it would fry my brain ehe.

Top-10 games I played in 2017: The Legend of Zelda Breath of the Wild (WiiU) - Rogue Legacy (PS3) - Fallout 3 (PS3) - Red Dead Redemption (PS3) - Guns of Boom (MP) - Sky Force Reloaded (MP) - ...

3DS Friend Code: 0104-0649-7464 | Nintendo Network ID: spizzamarozzi

skywake

@spizzamarozzi
The thing is I don't really doubt that people can hear a difference. I just doubt the claims that it's "clearer", "accurate" or "better". Because if you throw frequencies at an amp or set of headphones outside of their specs who knows how they'll respond. And if your headphones respond at all to those frequencies outside of the range of human hearing? Audiophiles are going to call it "better" and "clearer" because that's what they expect to hear.

Do a test where you ask people which one is better? They won't be able to pick. Do a test where you ask them if there's a difference? They may pick up a difference if some of the gear is behaving strangely to frequencies they weren't designed for. And they may then interpret that as "better"

Edited on by skywake

Some playlists: Top All Time Songs, Top Last Year
"Don't stir the pot" is a nice way of saying "they're too dumb to reason with"

This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.