You can already automatically remove commercials from recordings with Channels. It does it pretty well actually. All you have to do is select the option to remove commercials on your DVR’s settings.
That would be awesome! I see detect commercials but not remove. Do you happen to have a screenshot?
1 Like
Ahhhhhh, I think I misunderstood your dilemma! You actually want the commercial data completely removed? If that’s the case, then Channels doesn’t do that at the moment. It simply “detects” the commercials, and if you have your client setup to automatically skip commercials it’ll do that for you. But, Channels doesn’t completely remove the commercial data. That would be awesome as it would save users a ton of space.
I think part of the problem is with differing expectations. From your description of missing features, it sounds like you want a media-center application like Kodi or Plex. Unfortunately for your situation, Channels is not a media-center application.
Channels is first and foremost a live TV viewer. Second to that, Channels offers a subscription service to also provide excellent DVR software. Since many other media-center applications offer DVR service, you're expecting the converse to be true: that DVR software should behave like media-center applications. But Channels is not a media-center, it is simply a DVR and live TV application.
In the future, this may change. But presently, that's what Channels is. To judge software based upon what it doesn't do instead of its current features seems a little odd.
It would only seem odd to a fanboy. Like I clearly stated in my last message, for what they’re charging, it simply isn’t worth it for me or many others. Plex offers Live TV/DVR, so what are they classified as? Offering Live TV/DVR is Media no? Am I missing something here? Channels is a DVR/ Live TV player, that’s MEDIA no? So like the poster, I agree they’re overpriced for what they offer. Not here to debate what the software does or supposed to do, we were talking about pricing and what this software offers when compared to others that do the same. Fanboys like you jump on these posts to offer your opinions on how everyone else’s opinion is wrong. We know what Channels is and we know what their competitors are. If you’re ok with the pricing of their software GREAT, but Your opinion means the same to me as my opinion to you. Take that for what it is. I’ve always said this software was good at what it does. Just doesn’t do enough for the pricing. That opinion isn’t going to change because of fanboys or other’s opinions. And I call you a fanboy because many of your posts are debating other people’s opinions, as if yours carries more weight or something. No matter how you cut it, this is MEDIA SOFTWARE...MEDIA SERVER! It isn’t doing anything else that I know of. Correct me if I’m wrong.
I apologize if my response seemed to saying: "That's your opinion, but your opinion is wrong." That wasn't my intention.
However, I was trying to make the case for adjusting expectations. The OP seemed to be looking for a full function media-center application, and was dissatisfied that the price was too high because of missing features. I simply wanted to point out that if one were looking for a media-center application, Channels does seem feature-deficient.
But, since Channels is not a full media-center application, it's not really fair to say it's missing features. Channels was originally for viewing the live TV streams from HDHomeRun tuners. Eventually, a DVR component was added. Along with DVR functionality came increased guide data, top-notch remote access, and commercial detection for recordings.
Taken in that view, it's a bit difficult to see how it's fair to compare a full media-center experience like WMC, Kodi or Plex to Channels. While Channels may someday become such an application, it currently isn't. Conflating Channels as a TV-orientated application as a generic media player is a false equivalency. While TV is media, not all media is TV; just as all squares are rectangles, not all rectangles are squares.
Channels is indeed a niche application. But, it should be evaluated on those qualities it has, not on what it doesn't. If Channels doesn't have a feature that one needs (such as full personal media library support), then it probably isn't the right fit.
I'm not saying that Channels is a perfect application. There are several shortcomings and "papercuts" remaining; but each is a tradeoff. I started using Channels because it offered superior remote DVR functionality; in turn I lost my preferred UI/frontend, more sophisticated recording rules, better integration with my existing media, etc. While some of those features may come later, they aren't here now.
If one feels that $8/mo or $80/yr is too much to pay for the offered features, that's fully understandable. There are less expensive options that offer most or all of the same features, and they are valid choices; I personally feel that Channels does better, and is worth the cost. But to claim that Channels isn't worth its cost because of features it never had, and may never actually gain, is the wrong comparison to make.
2 Likes
I whole-heartedly agree with the fact that there’s no better software for Live TV/DVR. When I made the switch from Plex there were already talks about the personal media offering so I made a CAUTIOUS switch; meaning I didn’t pay for a yearly plan in case things didn’t pan out. I wanted to see how the software progressed. If you look at some of my previous posts, I was also a staunch defender of Channels when people complained about the pricing. For what was offered, and SOON to be offered, I thought it was a great deal. But, then I noticed how things were slowly progressing the Apple way. And as someone who’s owned Apple devices for many many years, I can tell you that this slow progression isn’t a mistake or happenstance. It’s a business model. One that I honestly don’t agree with. You might disagree, but that’s how I see it. Just the other day I went to a friend’s house to setup his network, adblocking, etc etc, and I recommended this software to him! I have nothing negative to say about this software other than, if they’re only going to offer live tv/DVR, then their pricing is a bit high. They need to do tier pricing, or make it a solution that’s worth the extra money when compared to others. My friend isn’t tech savvy, so I told him that Channel’s support is TOP NOTCH, and if he wants a set-it and forget-it solution, Channels was it. But, he immediately asked about his personal media, and if he would have to keep Kodi. I told him he would, and he was immediately put off by that. And I understand why, although Kodi is free, there’s no point in adding complexities and more software for every little use case. I have a Plex lifetime pass, so I can handle my personal media that way, but why? Why have two servers? Two Apps? Two softwares for the wife and kids to complain about instead of one. At the end of the day, all most users want as a all in one media solution. I understand what you’re saying, Channels was introduced and still is basically just a Live TV/DVR application, but at the end of the day, it’s a Media Server just like Plex and Emby. I would never criticize this sodtware’s quality or their support, as I haven’t experienced anything like their support in my 20+ years of tinkering with tech. Great support and great software, just a tad bit overpriced in my humble opinion.
1 Like
This is the disconnect. Channels is not a media server, it is a TV server. Media servers may offer TV, but TV servers don't offer full media.
- Channels:TV::Plex/Kodi:media
- TV:media::square:rectangle
Things ought to be evaluated by what is, not what might be. While support for user-supplied media may become a full feature, it presently isn't. (Imported media is clearly stated as unsupported pre-alpha status; fine to tinker with, but not something you'd probably count on for general household use.)
At the end of the day my friend, you can try to surgically define TV, movies, and music as different somehow, but they’re all media. Channels is a media player no matter how you cut it. You’re basically saying that watching a Live Movie and the same recorded Movie, makes it a totally different Movie or that the platforms used to play the movie are different. They might be different in the way they play the movie, under the hood, but at the end of the day, they BOTH play media.A movie is a movie and media is media. If your server plays media, it’s a media server no matter how you cut it my friend. Channels is a media application just like Plex and Emby. You can’t change that no matter how you cut it. The fact that you tried to even differentiate a “TV server”, whatever that is, as something different than a media server clearly stated that there is a disconnect. A disconnect in logic on YOUR behalf. I’ll kindly have to refer this disconnect of logic as fanboy behavior. Sorry, but it is what it is.
Edit: I would certainly love to hear some clarification on the differences between a “TV Server” and a Media Server. I don’t have software or servers that serve “TV’s” per se, I do have servers that offer media though. Music, Movies, TV Shows....it’s all media. Never heard of TV Servers. Your disconnect in logic is beyond irrational and just made this discussion null. Have a good day sir.
Wow this thread seriously went off the rails 
1 Like
Indeed it did. I’m just now learning that there are “TV Servers” out there in the wild. Wondering if these servers offer 75” Samsung QLED TV’s, as I’m on the market for one.
I genuinely do not understand the point of contention here. You may consider Channels and Plex as the same thing, and compare them as such, but ultimately they are not trying to do the same thing. It's like comparing a car and a truck. You can argue they are both automobiles, but a car is not designed to do the things a truck does, and vice versa.
1 Like
At the end of the day, they’re both media players and media servers. They’re not doing the same? More disconnect in logic? That doesn’t change no matter how the fanboys cut it. Let me guess “ClubChannels”, one is a “TV Server”, and one is a “Media Server”?!? Ok! Gotcha!!!
Edit: Not gonna continue this convo with fanboys. Sorry, but there’s an OBVIOUS disconnect on what Media Applications and Media servers are. Have a good day guys!!
Heh, we don’t, and have never, advertised ourselves as media center software in the same way the other software mentioned in the thread serves its fans.
¯(°_o)/¯
We’re a DVR that records broadcasted TV. We might play with the other features mentioned for the exact reasons mentioned. But we definitely don’t pitch ourselves with solutions like that.
Value is in the eye of the beholder so saying our subscription price is not worth it it for you because it doesn’t do X is fair. But insinuating we’re not fulfilling our promises isn’t fair either.
Either way this thread has been great and informative. Thanks fans!
6 Likes
I kinda gave up thinking that Channels DVR was going to have a true media server, basically agreeing with what maddox just said. Instead, I've embraced all the greatness of SageTV (which has always been the best at live TV, DVR and as a media server, supporting more devices than you can shake a stick at, but does not have a TVE tuner), and Channels DVR, which is really great at a few things, too!
Very true. Honestly, for live and recorded TV, Channels DVR is killing it with their remote access.
2 Likes
Agree about SageTV hard to believe that it is the oldest one out there but the most advanced still. For LiveTV and setting up favorite recordings it just cannot be beat.
Indeed!
It was my impression, when I first signed us up, that what the Channels team created and was selling was a networked DVR for OTA TV. No more. No less. It is that. It does that, and it does it well. Perfect? No. But pretty damn good and the dev team is probably the most responsive of any maker of any product we own, bar none.
Personally, my wife and I regard the $6.67/month for the DVR subscription to be a good value.
4 Likes
I thank you all for your feedback.
Ideally, what I want is a single interface for my less-tech-savvy users to watch video programs, regardless of the origin. Plex does a lot of things well (including locally stored content), and their DVR feature is [slowly] getting there, but it doesn't have the TV Everywhere piece. Channels Plus has the DVR and the TV Everywhere piece, but not the local content. They both have two-thirds of the wonderful video server application that I'm looking for. They have their own clients, each with its own interface, need two different server installs (the least of the issues) and both have an ongoing fee.
Was I not already invested in time and funds in the Plex universe, and was using the HDHomeRun DVR (or no DVR at all), moving to Channels Plus for $80/year would seem like a bargain. But I am Plex-invested, and have a Video provider subscription which includes a DVR... but there are times I need either more tuners, more capacity or more flexibility (like when I was away from home and wanted to watch the hometown news; can't watch the locals on a TV or from the DVR using the provider's software).
Anyway, thanks again all. I'll keep my eye over here to see if Channels Plus' value proposition gets to the point I can take a serious look-see.
Check out the local content support we have in beta right now. It only supports Movies right now. You can add a folder of movies to be indexed in the Settings portion of Channels DVR Server's web admin.
The movies will be imported and available in your Movies section of your app. If you're using Apple TV, the 4.0 beta includes much better library browsing for larger libraries.
We're getting there with local content, but we're just taking it a bit slow. But our ultimate goal is in fact to give you a single app and experience for both live tv and your local content.