Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Hardware Google Television Technology

I Want My GTV 198

Posted by samzenpus from the have-some-google-with-your-google dept.
theodp writes "The NY Times reports that Google and Intel have teamed with Sony to develop a platform called Google TV to bring the Web into the living room through a new generation of TVs and set-top boxes. The three companies have tapped Logitech for peripheral devices, including a remote with a tiny keyboard. Based on Google's Android operating system, the TV technology runs on Intel's Atom chips. Google is expected to deliver a toolkit to outside programmers within the next couple of months, and products based on the software could appear as soon as this summer."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

I Want My GTV More

I Want My GTV

Comments Filter:

  • GTV on PS3? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by blankoboy ( 719577 ) on Thursday March 18, 2010 @08:32AM (#31521890)
    So does this mean we'll be seeing GTV coming to PS3? No, of course not, SONY will want to sell us another set top box for extra $$$ and we'll want to work extra hard to pay for it too!

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by sopssa ( 1498795 ) *

      It seems to be based on Android, so if you have one of the older non-slim versions of PS3 (I do), changes are that you can actually install it on your PS3.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Intel just wants to sell chips, google wants to sell ads, and sony wants to rent movies from their existing store, but who actually has an interest in the device itself? It sounds to me like the companies involved only care how they can leverage the device, not making it something that consumers actually want

      • In an ideal world, I would blithly respond: "Well, the device will only sell chips, ads, and movies if consumers want it, so anybody with an interest in leveraging it will infer the need to make it desirable."

        This being the real world, I just think about what Sony did to the PSP slim and eat those words....

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by FlyingBishop ( 1293238 )

        This is real convergence. A PC that is also a TV. I want that. I don't know if this is going to be the perfect expression of that, but if they can build a set-top box for $50 (and that sounds like it could be coming soon) I'd pick one up in a heartbeat.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Kelbear ( 870538 )

          This is more of a TV that is also a PC really. PCs have had TV cards for quite some time, and the experience with them is very uneven, it depends on how knowledgeable you are in setting them up, and the quality of the TV card you buy, casual attempts often end up with horrendously fuzzy SDTV.

          But really, they are offering is a streamlining of the process of using a PC on a TV, which is always nice, but the process is far simpler to begin with.

          All you need is the Logitech Dinovo Mini (which is the wireless mi

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Orange Crush ( 934731 )

          Another one? I already have six. Roku player (Netflix, Amazon), Vudu player (Bought before I got Netflix and the box, waste of money), DVR/Cable Box, D-link media lounge (also a waste of money, but streams video from my computer to the living room reasonably well), Wii, Netbook . . . Every damn one of them duplicates the same essential functionality, most run Linux variants, and all could be easily combined into a single device that does it all (this is happening with newer TVs and BluRay players).

          Screw

    • Why would Sony be getting on board the project if they objected to the centrepiece device's very existence?

  • Oh great, Sony (Score:5, Insightful)

    by elrous0 ( 869638 ) * on Thursday March 18, 2010 @08:33AM (#31521894)
    If Sony's consistent behavior in the past is any indication, it will be encrypted, region-locked, proprietary, and it will only work with some weird storage or media type that only Sony makes. It will also require you to install a rootkit on your TV and let them search all your media files for pirated songs and movies before you can use it. And you'll have to submit a DNA sample and retina scan to buy one, of course.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by rotide ( 1015173 )

      Was going to post something just like this. It was good news until I read "SONY". I make it a point to not support their business and now...

      ugg...

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      Share the HD fun too, the 'cam' might have the letters H and D and 720p ready in big print on the box.
      The fine print will note at 15fps.

    • Re:Oh great, Sony (Score:5, Interesting)

      by 140Mandak262Jamuna ( 970587 ) on Thursday March 18, 2010 @08:39AM (#31521966) Journal
      But it has Google as partner. I can make fun of Google Not Evil(tm) all I want. But if that company is willing to walk away from China, instead of compromising, I figure it is going to be Sony's arm that is going to be twisted, and not the other way around. Further, I think at some point, even the dumbest of the dumbos finally get the message and it is well past time Sony got the message. Betamax, memory stick, rootkits etc are futile battles to fight, leading to at best, Pyrrhic victories.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by nine-times ( 778537 )
        Well... it's willing to walk away from China rather than being hacked.

      • Re:Oh great, Sony (Score:5, Insightful)

        by DerekLyons ( 302214 ) <fairwater.gmail@com> on Thursday March 18, 2010 @09:00AM (#31522240) Homepage

        But if that company is willing to walk away from China, instead of compromising

        Let's wait until they actually do walk away from China before making grandiose claims about them walking away from China, k?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by khchung ( 462899 )

          But if that company is willing to walk away from China, instead of compromising

          Let's wait until they actually do walk away from China before making grandiose claims about them walking away from China, k?

          I suspect this is exactly the effect Google intended to have, and if true, their PR dept is awesome.

          So, they just made some noise about walking away from China, keep talking about it but actually did nothing, yet they collected tons of goodwill in the US already. In the end, even if they "reached some agreement" and stayed, they will be remembered as the company that is "willing to walk away from China" even though they never really did anything!

      • Maybe they're hanging around with Sony to make them look even more Not Evil in comparison.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by cbope ( 130292 )

      2005 called and wants it's memory back.

      You do realize that Sony has been moving _away_ from proprietary formats for the last couple years? Honestly, Sony bashing on /. has become almost as much of an art as Apple and MS bashing.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by elrous0 ( 869638 ) *
        That must be why they developed blu-ray with TWO levels of encryption and region-locking, because they're moving to be more open.
        • If by "they" you mean the Blu-ray Disk Association [wikipedia.org], then you'd be right. Sony is only a member. If you're going to tar them for the encryption, you also have to tar Intel, LG, Mitsubishi and 15 other members with the same brush.
          • If all those other companies had a history of trying to lock users into a proprietary media format then that might carry more weight. Just because they agreed to it, doesn't necessarily mean they were the driving force behind it. Of course, it doesn't mean it was Sony driving it either, but I know where my money is (especially considering they're the member who also have huge music and movie strings to their bow).

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by elrous0 ( 869638 ) *
            The BDA was created and is still largely controlled by Sony and everyone knows it. Sony were the ones behind blu-ray--they developed the technology, they pushed it, they championed it. They only established the BDA because the DVD Forum was chaired by Toshiba (who were developing the competing HD-DVD standard), and so they needed a competing forum to give some legitimacy to their chosen format in a format war.

      • You do realize that Sony has been moving _away_ from proprietary formats for the last couple years? Honestly, Sony bashing on /. has become almost as much of an art as Apple and MS bashing.

        So when they introduced the new PSP which requires you to utilize a singular SONY site as a gateway to acquire your games, that wasn't a move to push for more proprietary control?

    • Re:Oh great, Sony (Score:4, Informative)

      by Andy Dodd ( 701 ) <atd7@@@cornell...edu> on Thursday March 18, 2010 @08:57AM (#31522208) Homepage

      It depends on exactly which business unit within Sony they are teaming up with.

      I recently broke down and bought a PS3 for two reasons: Blu-Ray, and Final Fantasy XIII. I made some interesting discoveries:
      1) Compatible with any USB storage device. Compare to "no third party" locking of Xbox360 proprietary memory. (Wii uses SDHC I think?)
      2) You don't have to buy an Eye Toy for the camera. Supposedly any UVC compliant USB camera will work.
      3) Same for USB headsets
      4) Same for Bluetooth headsets
      5) Same for keyboards/mice for browsing and chat
      6) Want a bigger hard drive? Put in any 2.5" SATA drive
      7) Media playback is UPnP based and supports quite a few formats (MKV being the most notable exception). I can use the PS3 as a MythTV frontend!

      That said, TFA talks about Hulu. Knowing Hulu, they will actively take measures to block out this new effort. See their intentional blocking of the PS3 as an example. (Now to view Hulu video on PS3, you need PlayOn or rtmpdump 2.x + ffmpeg + MediaTomb).

      • You are right mostly about all that. I can clarify a few.

        1) Compatible with any USB storage device. Compare to "no third party" locking of Xbox360 proprietary memory. (Wii uses SDHC I think?)

        Correct, though there are some limits (multi partition devices are not supported well, possible size limits). Though these limits seem more technology oriented, and may be fixed by firmware.

        2) You don't have to buy an Eye Toy for the camera. Supposedly any UVC compliant USB camera will work.

        Correct to a point. Any UVC compliant camera should work (I have used various logitech, and MS webcams with it). However, you will not be able to access any special features of the camera beyond the UVC spec, unless a special driver is made for it. However, most we

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Andy Dodd ( 701 )

          Thanks for the info. Yeah, most of the restrictions seem to be technical "niche stuff we haven't bothered to implement support for" as opposed to "we're explicitly blocking X to sell our own stuff".

          Hulu is notorious for their anti-set-top-box stance. BBC iPlayer seems a bit more open in their attitudes.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mcgrew ( 92797 ) *

        It depends on exactly which business unit within Sony they are teaming up with.

        That's like saying it matters which hand the guy raping you is holding the knife with.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Lumpy ( 12016 )

      Well sony is going to disable HD on component out for ALL bluray players in a year or so anyways.

      No encrypted content will go out of a Bluray player if it is not protected from the scumbag consumer by the precious HDCP.

      It's why I wont be buying a newer Bluray player and my current is for sale on ebay. I'll just rip the disks and bypass all their BS. Bluray -> mpeg4 and played on a XBMC dedicated box looks wonderful and you dont have any of the crap. ripbot264 + anyDVDHD so far has ripped any Bluray I

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

        Well sony is going to disable HD on component out for ALL bluray players in a year or so anyways.

        No encrypted content will go out of a Bluray player if it is not protected from the scumbag consumer by the precious HDCP.

        Or ... just buy an HDFury [hdfury.com] already.

        HDMI to component adapter. Supports HDCP too. Hell, does 1080p over component (though I doubt there are many 1080p TVs that *don't* have HDCP compliant HDMI or DVI inputs).

        The future is already here - many A/V receivers don't support non-HDCP compliant HDMI o

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by elrous0 ( 869638 ) *
          It's a great solution until the FBI kicks down the doors at the company that makes it and arrests them for violating the DMCA.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Nikker ( 749551 )
      Ahh common Sony will never make you install the rootkit for their own device, they will install it for you at the factory!

  • Internet on TV? Really? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Pojut ( 1027544 ) on Thursday March 18, 2010 @08:37AM (#31521928) Homepage

    We're seriously doing this again? Aside from video services like YouTube, Hulu, Netflix, etc, haven't we learned that Internet on our TV is kind of...lame? Most of us have at least one computer nowadays, and many people have at least a netbook or laptop if they don't have a desktop computer. Internet + TV just seems like a waste of time and money...would anyone be interested in what they are offering here?

    • Re:Internet on TV? Really? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by elhondo ( 545224 ) on Thursday March 18, 2010 @08:46AM (#31522058)
      Think of it as having an Apple TV or Popcorn Hour device embedded in your TV and I think you'll see there's something of a market there. In addition to TV, you get Hulu, YouTube, Pandora (maybe), and the ability to play recorded media from either a local hard drive or an hdna server. I have a Popcorn hour that I use to stream Hulu and Netflix to (via PlayOn), when watching on my living room TV. It's pretty handy.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mdwh2 ( 535323 )

        Think of it as having an Apple TV... and I think you'll see there's something of a market there.

        AppleTV? Yes I think that was his point about the lack of market :)

        • AppleTV? Yes I think that was his point about the lack of market :)

          Apple TV proves there's not a large market for an expensive set-top box designed only to facilitate credit card transactions. Google is more likely to use the traditional paid-for-by-ad-revenue, plus of course datamining. The market is nearly unlimited for the right device at the right price point.

      • It'd better be cheaper than a separate TV and PCH then, and even then I can't imagine why someone would want to couple these two into a signle device. Both streams of technology are advancing pretty quickly, far better to decouple the devices so that they can be independently upgraded (not to mention portability, I love the fact that I can grab my PCH when I head off to my parents for a few days and take all my media with me in one bag, couldn't do that if it was integrated into a 42"+ TV screen). Having sa

    • Aside from video services like YouTube, Hulu, Netflix, etc, haven't we learned that Internet on our TV is kind of...lame?

      So you're saying that, aside from good Internet services which are good, the Internet on the TV is lame...?

      Prediction: the eventual plan is to get Hulu-like programming on YouTube, then release a YouTube set-top box that can replace cable TV.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by mdwh2 ( 535323 )

        The article is talking about "Internet on TV" in the sense of accessing webpages or applications on a TV, which for the most part doesn't seem to be taking off anytime soon.

        Things like Hulu are "TV on Internet" - so putting that on a TV is "TV (on Internet) on TV", so it's hardly surprising that that might have more of a market. It's pretty obvious that TV via the Internet ought to win long term, and there's a market for a TV/box that makes this easy for the living room TV, rather than just watching it on a

      • I can already do this by plugging in my phone, my netbook/laptop, not to mention my popcorn hour, why do I need yet another set top box to stream internet video?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Mashdar ( 876825 )
      I have an HTPC and watch internet television services (hulu and netflix, primarily) all the time. The HTPC will never penetrate the my-mother market (too much setup, cost), so a set top box which functions in such a way has great potential. Oh, and don't say the Wii already provides this functionality: my mother does not have one of those, either :)

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Lumpy ( 12016 )

        HUH?

        I can build your mom a HTPC for $250.00 RIGHT NOW that can do HD.

        XBMC + ASUS ION based nettop + Mediacenter remote. All done. That is dirt cheap for what you get plus it's more stable than Windows7media center. and 100% open. you can configure it easily to grab all of mommies video podcasts. If mom wants to broadcast her viewing habits then use Boxee instead.

        Very easy, plug and play. really stable and pretty much virus proof so you dont have to babysit it.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Mashdar ( 876825 )

          Which is more money than my mother will be spending on anything television related, and far more than a set top box would have to be.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Fishead ( 658061 )

          Acer Revo FTW!

          Sure its not a power house, but it plays media from the basement server great, it plays Shoutcast radio streams great, my TVtorrents.com account gets a'lot of upload time, and the kids are playing PBSkids.org on it right now. With HDMI and fiber optic audio, it plugs into my LCD TV and amplifier and the VESA mount hangs it off the back of the TV out of site and mind.

          If the Google TV can fill all these needs without breaking the bank, I think it will be a hit.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Pojut ( 1027544 )

        I have an HTPC and watch internet television services (hulu and netflix, primarily) all the time.

        As do I. My point is that things like Hulu and Netflix are ALL that I use it for. Do you browse the Internet on y our TV/ Because that is what this article is talking about.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Mashdar ( 876825 )
          Perhaps we are argueing the same thing :)

          IMO the only distinction between TV and a monitor at this point is the tuner. I do check e-mail on the HTPC, and sometimes even read the news or do some work, though I doubt this is a market to tap. I didn't read TFA until now, and thought the device was more of a boxee gateway for the tech impaired.

    • Yes, really (Score:5, Interesting)

      by RingDev ( 879105 ) on Thursday March 18, 2010 @09:10AM (#31522374) Homepage Journal

      I have a 48" big screen TV.

      I do not have Cable
      I do not have Satellite/Dish/DirectTV
      I do not have a DVD player
      I do not have decent OTA reception

      I do have DSL
      I do have Netflix
      I do have Boxee

      Pretty much the only thing that happens on my TV is the Internet. Now if the folks behind Boxee could improve the playback performance I would use nothing else. But as is I still jump out to a web browser for most Hulu content.

      -Rick

    • TV will need to evolve to include the internet in order to accommodate market changes. If TV can become a networked experience it will (along with smart phones) easily render a computer unnecessary in most households. Most people don't really want the wild and woolly, wide-open internet, nor do they want to use a keyboard and mouse -- they want a pre-masticated experience delivered through an appliance controlled with an idiot-proof remote.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Pojut ( 1027544 )

        TV will need to evolve to include the internet in order to accommodate market changes. If TV can become a networked experience it will (along with smart phones) easily render a computer unnecessary in most households

        Eh...I don't know about that. I can follow your logic and can understand how you came to that conclusion, but I'm still not sold.

        Most people don't really want the wild and woolly, wide-open internet, nor do they want to use a keyboard and mouse -- they want a pre-masticated experience delivered through an appliance controlled with an idiot-proof remote.

        Which is why the iPad will sell quite well :p

        (And yes, Apple fans, I know you can access the "whole" Internet with an iPad...I was just being a smartass.)

      • > TV will need to evolve to include the internet

        A "modern television" is a flatscreen monitor hooked up to an ATSC tuner (OTA) and a QAM tuner (cable).

        A "modern personal computer" is a flatscreen monitor hooked up to a box with CPU, audio, video, keyboard, etc.

        Run some cable from your your computer audio+video outputs to the TV's inputs (the same ones you use for DVD, BluRay, etc). You've now "evolved" your TV to include the internet. What's so difficult about it?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Rennt ( 582550 )
      Are you sure you are not confusing "internet" with "web browser"?

    • We're seriously doing this again? Aside from video services like YouTube, Hulu, Netflix, etc, haven't we learned that Internet on our TV is kind of...lame?

      That was my first thought, too -- I remembered the bad old days of having to design web pages to accommodate WebTV. But the vital difference between now and then is HDTV. The newer televisions actually have the resolution to do a decent job of displaying web pages. Add a Wii-style controller for positioning the pointer, and it might actually be usable.

      Mind you, *I* won't be one of their customers -- I don't even have a TV. But I suspect that there might actually be a market for this.

    • 3D movies again? Really? didn't that trend die out in 1955?

      Touch screen displays? Really? Those sucked in the early 1990s when they were all the rage.

      "cloud computing?" Oh brother... didn't we ditch the mainframe/terminal model in the 80s/90s?

      World of Warcraft? yeah, I remember when it was called everquest and it sucked, nobody wants an MMO

      Remember 1996 when FPS games got boring and old... why do we need Modern Warfare 2, nobody is gonna play it.

      (hint, there is nothing new, just better execut

    • >>>Internet + TV just seems like a waste of time and money...would anyone be interested in what they are offering here?

      My parents would be... or anyone else who doesn't know how to use a computer, but would like to watch videos on youtube or hulu.com. Or go to government websites to look-up information. PLUS this won't be as a bad as the old WebTV which was limited to NTSC connections (approximately 440x480 resolution) with analog blur.

      People today have ATSC sets that can show 1280x1080 or highe

    • Aside from video services like YouTube, Hulu, Netflix, etc, haven't we learned that Internet on our TV is kind of...lame?

      Don't you mean "because of services like YouTube, Hulu, Netflix, etc. haven't we learned that Internet on our TV is kind of lame?" (Ok, I haven't actually seen what Netflix looks like, but Hulu and Youtube utterly and completely suck beyond belief.) The only place I want to "stream" video from, is the file server / mythbackend on my own LAN. Nobody (currently) can stream video even rou

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Pojut ( 1027544 )

        You haven't watched any HD content from Netflix or Youtube, have you?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Sloppy ( 14984 )

          Yes, I have watched HD YouTube. Or rather, I have watched a few seconds, then paused to let it load more, watched another couple seconds, paused, then watched a little more. It's like the realaudio jokes of the 1990s. And if I'm patient enough and wait a few minutes to buffer a minute of video, then I can watch for a little over a minute, but with a choppy framerate and over 50% CPU use, because they use a Flash player that still can't even use VDPAU over a year after VDPAU came out.

          When I praise time sh

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Belial6 ( 794905 )
      I know many will hate me for this, but if it supports Flash, and they could get joystick support put into Flash, I would be all over it. The amount of free and legal games that my son plays that are Flash is huge.
    • Microsoft apparently claimed the WebTV [readwriteweb.com] branding why not have an offering by Google? It appears that from now on what Google does Microsoft will do and vice-versa.

    • We're seriously doing this again? Aside from video services like YouTube, Hulu, Netflix, etc...

      So - aside from video services that do rather well - haven't we learned its lame to do something that works?

      It always works out that either

      A) Your CableCo will offer you TV, landline, and internet through your Coax
      B) Your Telco will offer you TV, landline, and internet, all through DSL!

      So if the services are already digitally compatible, I don't see why we DON'T go this route. I'd much prefer my TV to be a networked device in my home - that way I can just pull up stuff off of a server, or plug in a flash dr

  • We already have web TV. Video on Demand has been talked about for years and years and tech skeptics have always scoffed about it being a decade out for decades. Well, we have it now. The internet has the carrying capacity. Netflix is doing it for a profit. And the part that really has me excited, small-time people are making money at it without giant corporate backing. Someone wants to be on national television, they're going to have to kiss the ass of a major corporation. There's barriers to entry like the

  • Ahh, set top boxes, payware... ok, now it makes sense. I thought for a minute that Sony - the king of DRM-infested crapware and hair-brained rootkit schemes was actually going to do something positive. Hey - if google goes along with this, does that make them an evil company yet?

  • Until it's integrated so that you can overlay or window the web over whatever you are watching currently I have no real desire for the web on my TV. It's nice to do in between innings in a ball game, but I don't want to have to go changing input sources to be able to do it. I nice windows system ala PiP without choosing the source, or even a way to control the transparency of the browser and plop it over whatever you have actually on TV would be great. To do this is has to be integrated in the TV, not as an

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Rennt ( 582550 )
      No reason this couldn't be accomplished with a set top box with pass-thu. Only one input source as far as the display is concerned - just press the "TV" (or "DVD" or "XBox" or "Internet") button on your GTV remote.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mcgrew ( 92797 ) *

      It's nice to do in between innings in a ball game, but I don't want to have to go changing input sources to be able to do it.

      Your TV must suck. Mine is five years old, and changing input sources on it is as easy as changing a channel. Just press a single button on the remote.

  • I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)

    by doti ( 966971 ) on Thursday March 18, 2010 @09:05AM (#31522316) Homepage

    Why not a computer with tv reception already?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by thijsh ( 910751 )
      We had that for decades already... but indeed: what about a computer with *good* TV reception... No analog tuner, no digital terrestial tuner which requires a card, no crappy web-video that is put online the day after broadcast... I just want a true online TV subscription and I would pay good money to get rid of regular TV completely and just use the internet for all my communication needs...

  • Apple already has a platform. Now they need to execute.

  • On the plus side that A4 powered Apple TV built on the iPhone OS sold at almost no margin code named "Frak Google" will be pretty cool.

    PS Palm, Nokia, MS you might want to step back from the mobile phone market. If you get caught in this crossfire you'll be dead in seconds.

  • MS v GOOG (Score:2, Insightful)

    by coaxial ( 28297 )

    And when Microsoft wanted to do this, everyone cried foul. Now that Google wants to do this, it must be good, because they're not Evil(tm).

    No thank you. I want a future not dominated by one company bent on tracking and selling me.

  • Android runs fine on Arm and something like the Beagle Board [beagleboard.org] can decode HD fine, has lower power consumption and costs less per chip. I wonder why they would choose to go with a higher cost higher power consumption chip.

  • First, it was lobbying for unlicenced devices to transmit on TV frequencies ("white spaces"), and then it was outright lobbying to shut down OTA altogether. I happen to be fortunate, living in greater Toronto, 6th-storey condo, clear SSE view. An indoor antenna gets me all of the Toronto digitals and most of the Buffalo digitals. That includes high-def... free... and legal.

    Google knows they can't charge for Youtube as long as there is high def free-TV OTA. So they're lobbying to shut down OTA television

  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freebox [wikipedia.org]

    But most people agree that browsing the web on your TV is less useful than having the TV through VLC.

Slashdot Top Deals

You are always doing something marginal when the boss drops by your desk.

Close