Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google Television Technology

Google TV Next Month, Boxee In November 132

Posted by samzenpus
from the surf-and-search dept.
itwbennett writes "In a WSJ interview, Intel CEO Paul Otellini said that 'Google TV starts shipping this month.' Although, as blogger Peter Smith notes, 'Exactly which devices he means isn't clear. Sony TVs and the Logitech Revue will be the first out so if he is referring to a finished consumer project, he's referring to one or the other of those, but as CNET points out, he might be referring to product shipping to retail rather than being on sale to consumers this month. Either way, it looks like you'll be able to have Google TV in your living room by sometime in October at the latest.' What, if anything does this mean for the Boxee Box, which is still due in November? 'If Google is out there first, and puts marketing muscle behind Google TV (and of course they're including it built into some televisions) it might be hard for Boxee to find its niche,' says Smith. 'Particularly with that bizarre form factor that won't fit anywhere.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google TV Next Month, Boxee In November

Comments Filter:
  • by mathmatt (851301) on Saturday September 11, 2010 @09:13AM (#33544390) Homepage
    Why do I have to wait until next month to google "TV"?
  • I want the google TV stuff to be IN my next television. This sort of thing is not uncommon today and many televisions will play DivX and similar from a USB stick. The only thing my TV's USB port is good for is firmware upgrades, but it's not meant to provide the entertainment, only to display it. As long as they leave a little headroom in there for upgrades I don't see why it would be a bad idea. Just prevent writes to the program area any time but during firmware update...

    • by WrongSizeGlass (838941) on Saturday September 11, 2010 @09:24AM (#33544458)
      I don't want anyone's 'TV stuff' to be IN my TV. I want the option of buying any TV, TV related hardware and TV services I want separately. Bundling seems like a nice feature when it's not available from anyone but when you can only get TV-X with company-Y's TV stuff then the complaints will start streaming in.

      Game console resellers are notorious for screwing customers with 'bundling' and I'd hate to see it end up *inside* the TV hardware so I'm forced to use it if I want that particular product.
      • by drinkypoo (153816)

        Game console resellers are notorious for screwing customers with 'bundling' and I'd hate to see it end up *inside* the TV hardware so I'm forced to use it if I want that particular product.

        Why would you be forced to use it? Just don't switch to that input, or whatever mechanism they provide to activate it. It's a TV, I'm not buying one without many and varied inputs.

        • Why would you be forced to use it? Just don't switch to that input, or whatever mechanism they provide to activate it. It's a TV, I'm not buying one without many and varied inputs.

          But then you paying for hardware that you don't actually use, where if the hardware wasn't included in the TV the base price could be lower. I hate paying for things that I don't use. My cell phone is a prime example, because I don't/can't use half the features it has. But I still had to pay for the hardware/software to support said features, because they just don't offer basic phones anymore.

          • http://www.jitterbug.com/ [jitterbug.com]

            There you go.
          • by drinkypoo (153816)

            But then you paying for hardware that you don't actually use,

            If it runs Android and there's much install base then it will eventually be hacked and I can use it for my own purposes. I don't want my TV to run just anything. WinCE will not do for example because so often the only replacement is Angstrom which on many devices is not a good solution.

          • "they just don't offer basic phones anymore."

            Turn in your nerd license please. In fact that was so bad /. might have to evict you.
          • > ...they just don't offer basic phones anymore.

            My wife's Tracphone seems pretty basic.

          • by Lumpy (12016)

            All manufacturers of phones still offer a basic "I just want a phone dammit" phone.

            did you even look?

      • by commodore64_love (1445365) on Saturday September 11, 2010 @10:16AM (#33544778) Journal

        I agree. I never buy TVs with built-in VCRs or DVDs, because I like to buy a separate player with the specific features I desire (like the ability to record HD on SVHS tape) (or the ability to play DVDs at 1.4x speed with sound). Same with a DVR or NetTV device.

        I have to wonder how successful these things will be long term?

        In 2009 Comcast, Cox, Time-Warner and other companies met with one another, and agreed to set up a new CATV portal site that would only be accessible to cable customers. Next they laid pressure on Cable Channels by telling them they need to stop providing the programs for free (syfy.com, abcfamily.com, etc), because it was the cable companies that PAID for these programs via subscriber fees and they have first rights to distribution. Virtually all the channels agreed. In 2011 this "cable subscribers only" website will go live and the free net viewing disappears.

        While we've not been paying attention, the cable companies quietly signed deals to lock-up these shows behind their own subscriber website. And what's worse: Because they are government-created monopolies, there's not a damn thing we can do to stop them. We have as little choice as deciding which electric, phone, or natural gas company we want. :-|

        Aside -

        I wonder why Microsoft does not try to revive WebTV? I had one of them in the late 90s, and it was crap because lo-definition analog sets made reading the internet difficult (color blur), but now we have high-definition sets that can produce images as clear as a Super VGA monitor. WebTV could succeed this time.

        • by Curtman (556920) *

          I wonder why Microsoft does not try to revive WebTV?

          Because the people who worked on WebTV at Microsoft work at Google now.

      • by Lumpy (12016)

        Like sticking a tiny little AppleTV box to the back of it...

        I agree with you 100%. The good thing is most TV's that have all that integrated are the low end junk sets that dont even have Discreet IR codes for On/OFF or source selection.

    • I just want something to win the war. And that something has to be standard across brands and writable by third parties. So it can run the stock media streamer, a 3rd party commercial one, or a FOSS one. Just pick a hardware set, and let the market choose the software.
  • I run Boxee for watching content. It's alright, but the biggest annoyance is a lack of keyboard shortcut for toggling between aspect ratios or a default setting to always override aspect ratio.

    Mythtv was better in this sense, just lacked the "slick" interface.

    • I like my DTVpal. It's not perfect either, but it has two tuners inside of it so that I can record two channels at the same time (say Big Bang Theory and Vampire Diaries). And it's totally free... no annoying subscription fee... just add a ~70 dollar CM4228 antenna and go.

      That plus syfy.com on my PC, and I can tell the Comcast Monopoly to go ____ themselves.

    • by Lumpy (12016)

      Boxee is messed up if those features are missing. switch to XBMC and get all the features you have been wanting.

      P.S. XBMC has a much "slicker" interface than boxee and none of the useless sharing junk.

  • XBMC - Now! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by luckytroll (68214) on Saturday September 11, 2010 @09:26AM (#33544470) Homepage

    I dont see the point of either of these "services" when we already have a decent and open solution that solves most of the issues I had with "TV" - advertising contaminating my content.

    XBMC with a few plugins (Which is basically what Boxee is) and a well stocked media library from the torrents/usenet gives me all the television I could want, all the web content I can chew - and NO fscking adverts!

    What are Google and Boxee except that, plus advertising put back in? What value can they possibly insert that would make it worth my while to get screaming mad ad annoying ads again? None.

    • Re:XBMC - Now! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Jon_S (15368) on Saturday September 11, 2010 @09:32AM (#33544508)

      What are Google and Boxee except that, plus advertising put back in?

      Maybe the fact that they provide content legally as opposed to illegally from torrents/usenet? Debate all you want whether US Copyright laws make sense, but downloading from torrents/usenet is still illegal. Boxee provides a great way to watch TV on my own schedule, and at least currently with much much fewer commercials.

      • Re:XBMC - Now! (Score:5, Informative)

        by 0100010001010011 (652467) on Saturday September 11, 2010 @09:57AM (#33544674)

        WRONG. Downloading is NOT ILLEGAL. No one has ever been sued for downloading a single thing. You are not breaking copyright laws by downloading.

        Uploading, such as in torrents, is illegal. You are the one breaking copyright because you don't have the right to distribute the work.

        Semantics, yes. But there is a difference.

        I can't wait for the Boxee Box just because it'll be a prepackaged XBMC box. I'm really hoping D-Link is good with releasing the drivers and such.

        SickBeard [sickbeard.com] + SABnzbd + Server in the closet ... It's like having my own Awesome 12.5TB PVR. I'm so far behind on most shows I don't really care if I watch them the night they come out. The automation is amazing. Much better than the manual or RSS only feed I was doing earlier.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          >>>Uploading, such as in torrents, is illegal.

          Okay. Show me a bittorrent client that lets me disable uploading (or sets the upload speed to 0.0 KB/s). Or provide another solution that would make us users legal and untouchable by RIAA/MPAA.

          • P.S.

            Another question about torrenting: Why is it my DSL connection download speed varies with my upload speed? i.e. If I set my upload to 1/3rd maximum, the download speed maxes out but if I change the upload to 2/3rd maximum the download speed slows to half. Why would one interfere the other? (I've never noticed the problem on my old dialup line.)

          • Megaupload and the other dozens of uploading services, combined with JDownloader. No "forced" uploading whatsoever.

            Alternatively, renting a seedbox in another country? Don't know if that would work, but it's possible.

        • WRONG. Downloading is NOT ILLEGAL. No one has ever been sued for downloading a single thing. You are not breaking copyright laws by downloading.

          [Citation Needed]. So you're saying there's absolutely nothing illegal about downloading copyrighted media such as television broadcasts, movies, and music from p2p? As long as I don't enable seeding and make the files available for download FROM me, it's perfectly legal? If you're being serious, you have changed my life, because I will leave right now and purchase a laptop to use as a media center for the living room.

        • Re:XBMC - Now! (Score:4, Insightful)

          by John Hasler (414242) on Saturday September 11, 2010 @10:43AM (#33544958) Homepage

          Downloading is NOT ILLEGAL.

          Downloading creates a copy. If done in the USA without the permission of the copyright owner it infringes the copyright in the downloaded work.

          No one has ever been sued for downloading a single thing.

          True, so far as I know. Suing people who only download is impractical.

          You are not breaking copyright laws by downloading.

          If you do it without the permission of the copyright owner you are infringing her copyright by creating an unauthorized copy.

          Uploading, such as in torrents, is illegal. You are the one breaking copyright because you don't have the right to distribute the work.

          True, and this is where publishers concentrate their efforts for obvious reasons.

          • >>>Suing people who only download is impractical...... Uploading is where publishers concentrate their efforts for obvious reasons.

            It isn't obvious to me. Why would they go after uploaders and not downloaders? Why is the latter impractical. Please explain.

            • by Stray7Xi (698337)

              The problem is gathering the evidence to say they actually did download:
              To demonstrate uploading you request to download from people already in the swarm.
              To demonstrate downloading you have to first offer, wait for a request then upload. Can you help someone infringe your copyrights and then sue them for it.

              The subpoena would be "These 100 John Does downloaded my art from me, causing me damages, I demand their ISP records" then the obvious response would be "Well stop giving it to them numbskull".

              Which is

            • Probably impractical. There is the issue of how much money they can extort. if you upload they sue for ten trillion dollars (approximate) a song, but downloading they could only sue you over the one copy and the damages claimed would have to be much smaller and probably not worth the lawyers it would take.
            • It isn't obvious to me. Why would they go after uploaders and not downloaders? Why is the latter impractical. Please explain.

              First of all, as others have noted, it's much easier to prove. You only need to download one file from a seeder, and record that process, to conclusively prove that they're distributing.

              The second reason has to do with damages. The infringement of the downloader is limited to that single copy they've downloaded. You can still sue for that, but the nature of download is such that you cannot reasonably claim that they've downloaded "much other stuff"; so if you win, you only get damages proportional to that s

            • Let's scale back the file sharing community and focus on one uploader and a hundred downloaders. (We'll also, for the moment, ignore that, with BitTorrent, downloaders can also be uploaders.) Now, the uploader rips a new CD release and uploads it. The downloaders swarm to the torrent, downloading copies of it from the uploader. Unfortunately, for all involved, the RIAA has been watching.

              Does the RIAA:

              1) File a lawsuit against the uploader? They will need to deal with one ISP to get the uploader's name.

          • by nschubach (922175)

            Downloading is NOT ILLEGAL.

            Downloading creates a copy. If done in the USA without the permission of the copyright owner it infringes the copyright in the downloaded work.

            If you want to get technical, viewing a streamed video via netflix also creates a copy (in memory.) DVRing a TV Show creates a copy. Heck, one could argue that playing a BluRay disc anymore creates a bunch of tiny copies as it pulls the content off the disc into RAM.

            • If you want to get technical, viewing a streamed video via netflix also creates a copy (in memory.)

              Done with permission.

              DVRing a TV Show creates a copy.

              Permitted by law.

              Heck, one could argue that playing a BluRay disc anymore creates a bunch of tiny copies as it pulls the content off the disc into RAM.

              Done with permission.

          • by Abcd1234 (188840)

            Downloading creates a copy. If done in the USA without the permission of the copyright owner it infringes the copyright in the downloaded work.

            Well, no, to be very technical, copyright covers the act of distributing unauthorized copies. So it's the uploader that's infringing, not the downloader.

            'course, either way, it's still unethical (and yes, I download content all the time... I just try to assuage my guilt by purchasing the content I like :).

            • Well, no, to be very technical, copyright covers the act of distributing unauthorized copies.

              Under USA law the creation of copies (modulo specific exceptions) is an exclusive right of the copyright owner. Creating copies without permission is the very essence of copyright infringement.

        • SickBeard [sickbeard.com] + SABnzbd + Server in the closet ... It's like having my own Awesome 12.5TB PVR. I'm so far behind on most shows I don't really care if I watch them the night they come out. The automation is amazing. Much better than the manual or RSS only feed I was doing earlier.

          This is what I use as well. In fact, I just had to move files around to make room for the new seasons of shows starting.

          I really need to invest in a dedicated server since I plan on setting xbmc+TV in the bed room once we get a new TV (our old tv doesn't have a pc or hdmi connection.) I have 4.5TB and am down to 500GB left and am out of room in my case for more hardrives (not to mention how hot it already is with the hardrives currently in there.)

          I could free up some space by deleting shows as I buy the p

        • by Lumpy (12016)

          I just hope it's easy to blow the Boxee off it and install a nice proper XBMC on it.

      • by jedidiah (1196)

        Whether or not Boxee is fed by illegal content is entirely up to the end user.

        The same goes for GoogleTV or the old AppleTV.

        The new AppleTV will be less likely to be playing "pirated" content because it's so poor at playing anything non-Apple.

        Most of the stuff out there that people actually want to bother with is still being handled by the likes of Tivo, MythTV and MCE.

        • The new AppleTV and the old have the same potential for playing pirated content because they both have the ability to stream video from your computer to your TV. The new AppleTV just eliminates the often time-consuming "sync" option.
    • by klingens (147173)

      GoogleTV and Boxee are integrated software, ready for the masses who want to buy it all in one at the store so that it "just works". Yes it is the same essentially as XBMC, but preinstalled so they don't have to do anything. And yes, one price consumers will pay for it are ads. You had to know quite a lot about TV compatible hardware, connectors, codecs, software installation issues and so on to have a working DVR in the end. This is not something you can assume the average consumer has or wants. They want

    • by Snaller (147050)

      XMBC is for minority nerds, this is for everybody else.

      • by jedidiah (1196)

        > XMBC is for minority nerds, this is for everybody else.

        Boxee is nothing more than XBMC with a little window dressing.

    • by DCstewieG (824956)

      Nothing that requires a full computer hooked up to the TV will ever be popular outside of geeks.

      Plex, which started as a simple port of XBMC for Mac, has morphed into a much more impressive architecture. They separated the media management into a server component allowing different clients to consume it, including Mac (seems a Windows port is coming), iOS, and soon, LG TVs and Blu-ray players. You can read the developer's vision for it here:

      http://elan.plexapp.com/2010/09/02/plex-and-the-future-of-televisio [plexapp.com]

      • by Tacvek (948259)

        Well that is fine. It should be easy enough to make a specialty HTPC-system in a set top form factor.

        Take a notebook CPU for its low power utilization. You can use a realatively weak CPU, since it won't need to do much computation. Use a rather low end GPU, but that is capable of hardware acceleration. You don't need anything too powerful, since you won't be running games or anything on it, and you want to keep costs low.

        Use a sound-card capable of souround sound output, so people don't need a surround rece

        • by Lumpy (12016)

          Why? They are $250.00 right now. (with shipping)

          ASUS nettop with ION chipset
          Microsoft Media Center remote
          XBMC live.

          All done. Insert the disc, press a key for install. when done remove the disc and you are all done. Even a salad bar can do this.

          • by Tacvek (948259)

            The ASUS has no TV tuner, and most models have no optical drive. Those that do have an optical drive only have DVD-R not blu-ray.

            If there is a similar box with a tuner and blu-ray drive, that ships for around $300 including the cost of the romote, I would be very interested in hearing about it.

      • by jedidiah (1196)

        > Nothing that requires a full computer hooked up to the TV will ever be popular outside of geeks. ...except Tivo already took the world by storm.

        The idea that a PC-a-appliance can't be successful is not supported by the facts.

        Forcing the average n00b to build their own box is the problem. Although that was solved in the PC a long long long time ago.

    • by Joe Tie. (567096)
      In theory, the ability, finally, for actual viewership of a tv show to count against whether it's canceled or not. Not yet, but it's at least a step in that direction. Going along with that, the ability to get away from the network decay life support.
  • Where will I put it? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by 605dave (722736) on Saturday September 11, 2010 @09:31AM (#33544500) Homepage
    "'Particularly with that bizarre form factor that won't fit anywhere"

    Bingo. That was my first thought when I saw the shape. It won't fit in anyone's stereo cabinet with the other components.
    • by Yvan256 (722131)

      What shape? I view the three pages linked and all I saw was a Sony television with a crappy videogame-like screenshot...

    • by Dzimas (547818)
      The Boxee Box is actually quite small - about 5" wide and 5" high. It'll fit on a shelf in my A/V unit next to my son's Wii and still leave room to store remotes. It's not stackable, true, but then neither is Logitech's GooTV or the minuscule new Apple TV.
  • The end of cable.. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by iONiUM (530420) on Saturday September 11, 2010 @09:38AM (#33544540) Homepage Journal

    I'm pretty happy about this. I think it's time for cable tv (non on-demand) to go away. I also think Netflix is a great way to get movies and tv as you want it. Isn't this how it should be, what you want when you want it?

    • The ironic part is that "cable TV" is how most people get the Internet. As they realize this, and cable companies start reducing channels (that no one is watching) but delivering service for the same price, profits will go up.

      Unless someone tries to "legislate a solution" to a problem that does not have to exist...
      • Question:

        How would cable channels like Syfy and TNT fund their original programs? If the channels disappear so too do the ~50 cent per channel per home fee that funds about half the cost of making Stargate, Eureka, the Closer, and so on.

        • by Yvan256 (722131)

          Sell the shows directly to the viewers. I would have paid to keep Better Off Ted "on the air".

          • Each cable tv episode costs 2-3 million to produce, and is only watched by an average of 1 million households (according to Nielsen). So you're talking about $2-3 per episode per person, or $40-60 for a whole season, just to break even. Times however many shows you watch each year.

            Let's say 50. So ~$40-60 times 50 == $2000-3000 each year you'd be shelling out towards shows that used to come "free" with your current CATV or Satellite or FiOS internet subscription.

            • by Yvan256 (722131)

              Does Nielsen counts people outside of the USA? Just because a show is not popular in the USA doesn't mean people in other countries don't enjoy it. Seeing as most USA channels show crappy reality TV shows and the like, maybe most people with half a brain already stopped paying to get access to TV content.

              As for being "free", I don't have cable or satellite. I think FiOS is USA-only. There's also no TV channels available over-the-air where I live either.

              The last problem that I see is: why the hell does it co

              • I believe that Neilson has a branch or subsidiary or something that counts viewers in certain other countries, though on a more limited basis.

                But in terms of funding a television show, it's the American market that counts most. The rest of the world is considered gravy.

                Explaining why is beyond the scope of a simple Slashdot comment. People spend their lives learning this sort of thing. There are entire college courses and six-figure seminars that teach the intracacies of why this is. Google is a good star

            • by Lumpy (12016)

              Only because the Actors are overpaid, and honestly a lot of money is utterly wasted on useless management fees.

              You can make a high quality TV show for far FAR less if the actors were not greedy (Give them a living wage not a disgusting high wage) and the production company and everyone else except for the Grips and electricians were not trying to milk a money tree.

              Go look for and download Pioneer ONE. it's an indy TV pilot that is getting a ton of cash from viewers by donation only to film with. They al

        • by Lumpy (12016)

          Direct subscriptions....

          Want proof this works?

          HBO. Subscription TV, they made their money from charging people that owned 10' dishes a monthly charge to subscribe directly.

    • by antdude (79039)

      For me, I want on demand payment without subscription with no DRM (to play anywhere like in Mac OS X, Linux, Windows, mobile devices, etc.), no time limits (don't mind paying extras for late fees), low costs (e.g., RedBox's 99 cents + 99 cents for extra days if late), and high definition (HD) legally.

  • Thank GOD (Score:5, Funny)

    by mayberry42 (1604077) on Saturday September 11, 2010 @09:54AM (#33544648)

    'If Google is out there first, and puts marketing muscle behind Google TV (and of course they're including it built into some televisions) it might be hard for Boxee to find its niche

    See, may people complain about Google being evil corporate overlords, but I say - you go Google! I mean, do you really want to see this [youtube.com] on your TV!?

  • Could this be an antitrust issue having it built into a TV? I mean, seriously.

    • No, I don't think your TV will trust you any less because you like Google. Unless it's a Sony model.

  • boxee? (Score:1, Redundant)

    by FudRucker (866063)
    OMG! is this the future of television? [youtube.com]
  • Didn't they try this back in the 90s? As I recall, no one really wanted it. I also recall Java basically being invented for use in digital tv streaming interactive content boxes, which never really came to market, but we got stuck with Java anyway. But whatever, at least no one is being forced to buy these, or buy TV at all, so its OK.

  • This will most probably go the way Netflix, Hulu, Pandora, Amazon MP3 Store, the Kindle and ALL others go. US Only. So all other people outside the US still have no way of seeing anything they see because of useless copyright annoyances. And I say useless because I (and several others) wanted to pay for Pandora, for Amazon MP3s, for Hulu, for the Kindle and it's books. So, it's definitely news for nerds, but, other than the US, it doesn't matter much for us, or me, at least.
  • I already have a HTPC, which means hulu among others does not make me pay to see shows on my tv. If this does not run on the android emulator, it seems really useless. I do not need more hardware.

  • Google TV versus AppleTV (2nd version coming in about two weeks) versus WD TV Mini / WD TV HD / WD TV Live / WD TV Live Plus.

    Discuss.

    • by jack2000 (1178961)
      Nothing, it's just a damned tvtuner with a remote. a hard disk and connector ports. It's a DVR for those that want to just buy a box and hook it up and have it work.
      • by jedidiah (1196)

        It remains to be seen whether or not it is complete enough to be a DVR or if it is good enough to encourage anyone to stop what they're already using.

        It might be more popular as something that can be hacked and used with some other solution (MythTV or MCE).

  • Is it me, are /. articles more and more making wild assumptions about the knowledge level of us nerd news readers? Here's a story that mentions "Google TV" and "Boxee Box" with no context and not even a few-sentence description. I guess I'm a retard, but I have no idea what a Google TV is or what a Boxxee Box is. Absolutely none. You have to start navigating through the linked articles if you even want a hope of finding out what the /. article is even about. Indeed, only the second linked article comes clo

    • by Joe Tie. (567096)
      Is it me, are /. articles more and more making wild assumptions about the knowledge level of us nerd news readers?

      I'm trying to think of a polite way of saying this. I suspect you're getting older/getting more of a non-geek centered life. Boxxee's obscure to the average consumer, and it's not the most amazingly well known thing in the world as far as geeky news. But it's still very high profile among the low profile of geek things. And google tv? It's from google. They can literally announce work on somet
  • by Yvan256 (722131) on Saturday September 11, 2010 @11:29AM (#33545284) Homepage Journal

    I just viewed their video (www.google.com/tv/) and frankly, it's just a fancy DVR+Web browser box. The so-called online content is via the channel websites which means it's still limited to the USA. You still need, in a way, to have cable or satellite for Google TV to be of any use, otherwise it's just a browser box for your TV (which I don't mind since it's WebKit, meaning it's not yet another weird browser to take into account).

    AppleTV, on the other hand, bypasses the cable and satellite companies (the TV side, anyway) and gives you the opportunity to get only the shows and movies you want. I'm not crazy about the rental pricing, but for some people even at those prices it's cheaper than a monthly bill depending on how many shows you watch.

    But for a lot of people, it's still "option 3", driving around in their Pontiac Torrent to get their content.

    I just wish media companies would stop with this region-locked and country-based contracts nonsense and go with worldwide releases already. They don't need local distribution networks anymore.

    • I just wish media companies would stop with this region-locked and country-based contracts nonsense and go with worldwide releases already. They don't need local distribution networks anymore.

      What makes you think the problem is strictly corporate? [arstechnica.com]

    • by MikeFM (12491)

      I like my Roku but with the price drop I'm thinking of getting an Apple TV. Despite an official thumbs up they've set the new device to be able to run iOS apps. It's only a matter of time until that happens and that'll kill Roku and the game consoles for me. I have little interest in Google TV or Boxee right now but might be interested if they can top the new Apple TV.

      I'm interested to see how the big consoles respond to these new threats.

      • by jedidiah (1196)

        > I'm interested to see how the big consoles respond to these new threats.

        By continuing to create games that the overhyped and oversold hardware in these glorified ipods can't hope to compete with.

        Nintendo already gets flack for being a bit of of a technology throwback and it's got something else innovative going for it.

        Succeeding as a device of convenience and going head to head with specialized devices are two different things entirely.

      • by Lumpy (12016)

        Microsoft responded by Increasing the cost of your Xbox live Gold that is required to watch Netflix and all the other content.

        Microsoft seems to be ran by a bunch of idiots.

    • Apple TV is also severely limited in the number of available countries.

      In europe, you have to wait sometimes years before you can watch the show on TV. If it is broadcasted at all.

      DVD's also arrive with a time delay and is at this moment an outdated technology.

      Bluray is not supported by Apple. My iMac has the biggest screen in house.

      and even so, after having bought a few hundred dvd's I am getting tired of the space it occupies and even more so that I have to play DJ every time I want to see a mo
    • I just wish media companies would stop with this region-locked and country-based contracts nonsense and go with worldwide releases already. They don't need local distribution networks anymore.

      While your outrage is justified, in many ways it is misplaced. Most media companies would like nothing more than to push their content to screens around the world. But the world is a complex place. Often there are local artists' societies, unions, actors'/writers/producers/directors/etc contracts, even national laws

  • How does advertising and user tracking/profiling fit into the grand scheme of things?
  • by Lysol (11150) on Saturday September 11, 2010 @01:17PM (#33546148)

    I'm over all this geek complexity crap. Yah, I used to compile all my own Linux OS stuff in the past (read: *everything* so I could get the most performant, tailored install), but now it's boring and a waste of my time - I could be out enjoying life or compiling my os; hmmm... GTV reminds me of the same thing - nerd solutions for nerds that wanna screw around with stuff. I watched the IO demo live for the GTV announcement and was mortified. Honestly, that killed 'Google as great' for me. Felt like it was Bill Gates and co on stage - it was like an episode of the 10 stooges. I'm not an Apple fanboy, but you gotta hand it to them - less is usually more (cept for iTunes) when they're designing and making products. While everyone else is going super complex, with ATV you get 1 remote control with the minimal amount of buttons to control it. Just like the Google search box - minimal, to the point, excellent results; when engineering at Google was used to hide the complexity.

    What strikes me as odd most nowadays is the sense of awe at Google's sheer 'engineering prowess'. Sure, they've done a kick as job in search, maps, and email - they're still the best in my mind. But it's like they inherited this M$ sorta view of the widest distribution of some whacky complex idea with some sort of specification and then leave it up to everyone else to implement it. This is great for the implementers, but not for the end user. Why? Because Google more and more seems to be not looking at things as a complete product and end users don't have all day to figure complex shit out - they're not some protocol engineers that think things are neat 'just because'.
    Kindle and the iPhone are good examples of how Google is not approaching product design & development. The stupidest thing on the planet - to me - is wanting to watch tv and using a keyboard, trackpad, and remote control to do it. If anything, the tv should be voice controlled or at least controlled by some sort of cool iPad device - something that gives the end user some eye candy/techno lust. Making it into a computer that sits in the living room is a joke and keeps the nerds forever 'teh d0rx'.

    Google's whole 'open' sthick and whats starting to happen with Android (carriers own that now) will probably bleed over into GTV. Set, box, and hardware manufacturers will eventually fill everything up with some sort of ad/crapware. This, I think, is the ultimate destination for Google's corporate vision of 'open'. 'Open' if your a corporate partner, suck if you're an end user (I'm not fooled by their plea that they're open as we developers like to think of 'open'). If you need any proof of this, just look at the various Android devices on AT&T or Verizon that don't allow you to uninstall apps and come preloaded with crapware (just like the whole Windows 'experience').

    Just like WebTV and Wave, I think this one's gonna go down in flames.

    • I'm not an Apple fanboy, but you gotta hand it to them - less is usually more (cept for iTunes) when they're designing and making products. While everyone else is going super complex, with ATV you get 1 remote control with the minimal amount of buttons to control it.

      That's fair enough (but certainly not unique to Apple), but it becomes a problem when the design and software restrictions start to specifically limit functionality of the device and we're left with a dumb machine with none of the upgradability, compatibility, choice and freedom that these computers can give us. This means that people have to buy a whole new device if they want extra functionality, but that of course suits Apple who envision iSheeple going out and buying iDevices every couple of upgrade cyc

  • I want my GTV

    Now look at them yo-yo's that's the way you do it
    You goof around on GTV
    That ain't workin' that's the way you do it
    Money ain't for nothin' and your chicks for free
    Now that ain't workin' that's the way you do it
    Let me tell ya them guys ain't dumb
    Maybe get a blister on your little finger
    Maybe get a blister on your thumb

    We got to install android phones
    Custom content deliveries
    We got to move these search queries
    We got to move these advertising inquiries

    See the little nerd with the pr
  • it is too bad the HTPC doesn't get more traction as it is an ideal setup for us

    radio reception basically sucks monkey balls here so internet radio streams fulfill our radio requirements (NPR, KEXP, ..etc....yes we drive a Volvo =p)
    with a 3rd party plug in we have hulu desktop integrated w/ Windows 7 Media Center (well we can launch it from our remote... Harmony)

    every set-top box solution i've seen falls way short of the flexibility and usefulness of my HTPC... except for to some extent price (but i built mi

"It is better to have tried and failed than to have failed to try, but the result's the same." - Mike Dennison

Working...