




Google TV Details Revealed 180
Today Google provided new information about their upcoming Google TV platform for set-top boxes. Using a video and a demonstration site, they show how apps will look and function, and stressed that users wouldn't be limited in their ability to browse the web on their TV. Google also announced content partners, which include Turner Broadcasting, NBC Universal, HBO, Netflix and Amazon Video. "We have also been working with some leading technology and media companies to optimize their content for Google TV, including news sites like The New York Times and USA Today; music sites like VEVO, Pandora and Napster; information networks like Twitter; and online networks like blip.tv. And with YouTube Leanback, we can offer the best experience for you to watch your favorite viral videos and personalized channels on the television." For developers, they put up a guide to optimize websites for Google TV.
Settle In Sweetheart (Score:4, Funny)
Spouse: Great, I just love watching my favorite viral videos!
You: Me too!
Spouse: I love you honey.
Re:Settle In Sweetheart (Score:5, Funny)
You: Put the kids to bed and make some popcorn. It's viral video night!
Spouse: Great, I just love watching my favorite viral videos!
You: Me too!
Spouse: I love you honey.
You: I sent you a link to a really awesome viral video, let's watch that, ok?
Spouse: Great idea, my lovey-dov...
Google TV: NEVER GONNA GIVE YOU UP / NEVER GONNA...
Spouse: I'm filing for divorce.
Re: (Score:2)
You: Put the kids to bed and make some popcorn. It's viral video night! Spouse: Great, I just love watching my favorite viral videos! You: Me too! Spouse: I love you honey.
You: I sent you a link to a really awesome viral video, let's watch that, ok? Spouse: Great idea, my lovey-dov... Google TV: NEVER GONNA GIVE YOU UP / NEVER GONNA... Spouse: I'm filing for divorce.
You: I thought that song seemed romantic. It was about a guy never giving up, never letting down, never running around and hurting, never making you cry, and never saying good bye.
Re: (Score:2)
I know you jest, but I would imagine that the perfect match for someone who would rickroll their spouse would be someone who would get up and sing it with them too.... Darn you for getting that song stuck back in my head. :)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
[puts on pornTube]
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like America's Funniest Home Videos? That's more or less what viral videos are. Me and my girlfriend watched Censored Count last night along with numerous other similar videos for a half an hour.
Roku + media streaming (Score:4, Interesting)
give me this and i'll buy one for every room with a TV.
Re:Roku + media streaming (Score:5, Informative)
Have you tried Roksbox [roksbox.com] yet? See also the link [rokulabs.com] from the Roku forums.
It's a bit limited in terms of media formats relative to your average PC, but should handle well-formed MP4, MOV, M4V, or WMV files. So you may need to convert some of your existing video files to get everything working properly.
Re:Roku + media streaming (Score:4, Interesting)
It's called the Boxee Box [boxee.tv]. I know, I know, Google TV et al will eat its lunch eventually, but it basically does everything you claim to want. At $200, it's cheaper than upgrading my home media player (though I don't know about "one for every room").
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Roku + media streaming (Score:4, Informative)
Google TV is supposedly going to be even more. Logitech Revue - $299.
http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/16/logitech-revue-with-google-tv-coming-9-29-for-299-dish-network/ [engadget.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have an LG blu ray player that does netflix streaming as well as a couple of streaming pay-per-view places (vudu and cinemanow). It does pandora and some other things (like a low res verison of youtube - why can't they get HD when it's available???), AND plays from DLNA local network shares. And, of course, is a blu ray player. It sells for right around $150 on Amazon now. Why would anyone by a Boxee box for $50 more?
That said, I've actually been holding off on a new TV purchase to see what the new So
Re: (Score:2)
Its one shortcoming for me has been that I can't use it to access media that's NOT on the internet.
That's a rather large shortcoming...
DLNA is coming for Roku (Score:4, Informative)
According to this article on Engadget: http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/22/roku-xds-review/ [engadget.com]
Roku tells us it'll be adding additional support for DLNA streaming in the future, and with various DLNA-compatible devices like the Samsung Galaxy Tab, the Motorola Droid X, and LG Optimus Windows Phone 7 handset either out or on their way to market, it could present a solid alternative to Apple's AirPlay. We weren't able to test any DLNA features, though, since they're not currently available -- the potential is there, but Roku has to execute.
I wish for the same. The Roku is where it's at right now in terms of an internet TV set-top box. The Google TV could also be interesting, but let's wait to see it working and how much the set-top boxes are going to cost.
Re:Roku + media streaming + Only for americans (Score:2)
The roku is just in america from a little tin pot company.
Google TV is for the world - with huge company and millions of dollars behind it - plus millions of Android developers just waiting to get their hands on it.
Its not about you. Its about everybody else.
Re: (Score:2)
Hulu is easy to fix, just have a computer in your living room that is either hooked to the tv via hdmi or using one of the many applications that can forward to your player of choice.
Then you don't even need hulu premium.
Re: (Score:2)
just have a computer in your living room
So now you have to buy a computer for your living room, and that can get more expensive than even a Boxee Box.
Re: (Score:2)
While I understand that the stereotype of a Slashdotter is someone with a couple of desktop machines, a couple of laptops and a rack of servers in the basement/spare room, there are people/families with only one computer that isn't a laptop.
Used laptops (Score:2)
Parents today buy better laptops for their kids.
In my experience, working-class parents buy sub-$400 laptops for their kids. This means either a netbook or a used laptop. They probably won't be fast enough for gaming or high-definition H.264, but they're fast enough for LibreOffice (for homework) and Facebook.
Re: (Score:2)
Hulu is easy to fix, just have a computer in your living room that is either hooked to the tv via hdmi or using one of the many applications that can forward to your player of choice.
Then you don't even need hulu premium.
If you're going to have a computer, why have anything else? A computer will run Boxee, XBMC, or whatever else you want to run.
Re: (Score:2)
But I believe having this "computer" in the living room defeats the purpose of these small, lightweight boxes that do media. Sure we can all invest in a 300-400 pc that will do all that but it's UI won't be as polished and it costs more than a PS3
But a real PC does so much more! And I think the Win 7 Media Center interface is quite good. I speak from experience here: about a year ago I added a small format PC to my media stack, and it replaced everything else: cable box, TIVO and DVD/Blu Ray player. The on
Is it going to have a TV tuner built-in? (Score:2)
Or is it just DishTV users? Because otherwise how is it different from my old desktop running Boxee? :\
Look, I'm usually an unabashed Google fanboy, and even I think this is silly.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, just read on Logitech's website about a sort of "Harmony remote," that will send commands simultaneously to both whatever you're using for tuning AND the GoogleTV at the same time. That might work.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How is it different from your desktop w/Boxee? It's going to have a power plug, a video/audio plug, and an Ethernet plug. My grand mama can plug it in and watch dancing babies on Youtube. No OS to install, no drivers to load, just grab the remote and surf for brain-numbing "entertainment."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Switch to DSL.
DSL how fast? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
DSL? I thought Verizon just announced they are putting caps?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Data caps are a separat
Re:Is it going to have a TV tuner built-in? (Score:4, Informative)
Why not do what I do...just get a "business" connection. I do this with my local cable co...is only $70/mo, no caps, no limitations, I can run all the servers I please...AND as a bonus, they can't filter the line (would mess with my contracted throughput amounts)...so, you can get all the free extended basic tv channels, and can scan with QAM tuner for all free (local) HD channels.
At least...that's what I hear one can do.
But really, get a business connection, the fees aren't that much more, and I get a low level SLA and have had no problems getting them to call ME back after leaving a service call when I've had a problem here or there.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>"business" connection. I do this with my local cable co..
>>>At least...that's what I hear one can do.
So which is it?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
>>>how long until the caps bite grandma in the ass?
That's grandpa's job, but I see your point. Verizon doesn't cap me (yet) but I'm sure it's only a matter of time. For what it's worth: There's no cap on broadcast television. My DVR can record 2 channels 24 hours a day without limit. Cost: $0.00 monthly
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, this is what I don't get about all these streaming based services from netflix to roku to Apple TV to Google TV, or even Pandora for that matter. They are all based on unlimited bandwidth which is really just a temporary abberation of the broadband market in the US where for a short time it made sense to offer people "all you can eat" plans on basis that almost nobody would use it. The minute even 10 per cent of people start using more than a 20GB / month you're going to see caps all over the pl
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Please tell me how I can watch shows like Mad Men and Trueblood, when they air, using a completely legal method via the interwebs.
I'm waiting. :P
Until then, I'm going to need a TV tuner so I can use my existing cable connection.
Re: (Score:2)
It appears to basically do video pass-through with an IR blaster to your satellite box. So it doesn't need a tuner, it just uses your satellite box for tuning. But it can do picture-in-picture type stuff with video and internet as the video passes through it.
At least, that's what it looks like.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you described a perfectly reasonable reason to pay for cable.
Likewise, being willing to abandon one of those (for me it's the "when they air" clause) things to lose the cable bill is also perfectly reasonable.
Alone? (Score:4, Informative)
Though I like to think that I'm very, very different in my viewing preferences than the millions of other folks in the country, this is probably not the case.
My favorite genre is science fiction and fantasy, some documentaries, occasional thrillers. Bonus if it's a sci-fi/fantasy thriller.
I got rid of my cable feed because I found that I was only watching a couple channels -- Discovery and Sci-Fi. My daughter watched Disney on occasion but I would pay not to have Zack and Cody's voice ever heard in my household again.
I want to watch Doctor Who, but it's not available. So I catch it on Netflix instant. I wanted to catch Dual Survival and the new Les Stroud series, but it's on at either Monday or Friday but I can't tell because it's switched around all the time. And on Fridays, believe it or not, I'm usually at the movies for my weekly movie night with the family (this week it will be Let Me In). I wanted to catch True Blood because I heard it's great. Alas, to get HBO requires that I get some Premiere package which would cost another $30/month and even then I'm not about to make a television show dictate when I'm home.
I get the distinct feeling that the networks are actively trying to make viewing television a painful experience.
Anyhoo, I'm hoping that Google TV will provide on-demand, current shows. I think viewership will skyrocket if viewers can determine where and when they want to watch a movie. Heck, the ability to choose a target demographic for advertising purposes should make the network execs salivate.
Choices now are:
Netflix instant, but their selection is pretty atrocious.
AppleTV - but it's more expensive than I am willing to pay
Miro - content is of varying quality
torrents - great content, great price, great picture quality, not legal and risk of malware sites
Re: (Score:2)
If you think the Netflix selection is atrocious (assuming you live in the USA) then never look at what they offer us up north (Canada).
I'll have watched everything worth watching before my free month is over. And at the rate they're adding worthwhile things to watch, I should be able to pay a single month in about one year to catch up on their list.
To be fair, the licensing rights in Canada are even worst than in the USA. I bet Netflix isn't to blame for the poor selections in either countries.
Re: (Score:2)
Huh?
They have thousands of old movies and tv shows. I am watching my way through all of Stargate recently. Unless you must have only new material, how in the heck would you get through it in your lifetime much less a month?
Re: (Score:2)
I think you missed the "worth watching" and "Canada" part of my reply.
www.netflix.ca
Go ahead, search for Stargate all you want. In fact, search Stargate, Seinfeld or even older shows like Cheers. I think Netflix Canada only has 10% of what you get in the USA. And not the good 10% either.
Re: (Score:2)
Netflix has the trueblood dvds, my girl friend is currently eating up all 3 dvds by mail that way.
Re:Alone? (Score:4, Interesting)
AppleTV - but it's more expensive than I am willing to pay
Is it really? I paid $100 for my 1st gen appletv, threw in $40 for the broadcom crystalhd chip, installed linux with XBMC on it and it works great. It took few hours of tinkering but now it plays 1080p smoothly.
Re: (Score:2)
not the hardware, the content...
Re: (Score:2)
>>>I got rid of my cable feed because I found that I was only watching a couple channels --
Ditto. I used to like history and animal planet, but neither is as good as they used to be (History isn't history anymore). So the only channel I was still watching was Sci-Fi and I could stream those shows off hulu, or buy on DVD for much cheaper, so why pay ~$800/year to Comsucks?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This past weekend I got to see all kinds of baseball and football games over Free TV. The cable channels haven't locked them all up
.
Supported codecs (Score:2)
Oh, and how metadata for my videos will be handled. MetaX for tagging in my iTunes library and Boxee's backwards method both work. What does Google do?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm curious for a similar reason. MythTV, despite supporting multiple tuner types, doesn't fully support multiple tuner types at once (you can't create recording profiles for anything but the first device), so my HD-PVR is stuck recording at the default: 1080i with about 9Mbps average data rate, baseline profile. It is right up against the bounds of what is practical to play back without GPU acceleration, and even then, it sucks up between 1.25 and 1.5 cores of a 2.25 GHz Core 2 Duo.
BTW, if anybody knows
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Google TV API? (Score:2)
Wow, back to the future (Score:5, Interesting)
For so long we've longed for the use of vector graphics in websites because it reduces size so much. We finally have major browsers that fully support SVG. Flash also gives you vector graphics. Now the second to last suggestion... Avoid vector graphics. Use bitmapps because they're easier on the CPU.
Before all we worried about was load time. There was no 'processing' past the intial page load, or at least nothing substantial. Everyone was optimizing the hell out of their gif's and jpgs. Low bandwidth was our enemy. Now Vector images are bad, we have plenty of bandwidth, but ironically they're worried about a weak CPU...
So weird.
Re:Wow, back to the future (Score:4, Interesting)
Now Vector images are bad, we have plenty of bandwidth
Not necessarily. How big would Strong Bad's emails get if they were converted from SWF vector animation to H.264 compressed bitmaps? I've done tests on other SWF animations, and conversion to video bloated them by a factor of ten.
Re: (Score:2)
How do vector graphics reduce space?
GIFs and JPGS can be squeezed to just a few K. I'm confused why you'd say vectors are simpler.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
strong bad is unfunny garbage.
Would you go further to claim that all animated works created in Adobe Flash and distributed in SWF format are likewise unfunny garbage, including Weebl and Bob and everything on Newgrounds and Albino Blacksheep?
Thank you for clearing this up (Score:2)
nothing i said even implied everything made with flash is bad.
Thank you for clearing this up. I used Homestar Runner as an example with which enough readers would be familiar. I initially confused you with other Slashdot users who claim that everything they've seen that was made with Flash is crud and forget Theodore Sturgeon's revelation that 90 percent of everything is crud [wikipedia.org]. So please allow me to rephrase:
How big would (insert Flash animations that are not bad) get if they were converted from SWF vector animation to H.264 compressed bitmaps? Your answer was "They
Re: (Score:2)
Comparing vector to raster is like apples and oranges, but that's an interesting observation... the choke point for graphics has shifted way up. it's because vectors are like blueprints (and the cpu cycles are like fantastic builders) whereas raster is a less-dimensional structure that can be easily displayed and copied, but not easily manipulated.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyway...
As for line art type things, logos, illustrations, interface elements simple vector graphics can be superior because there is no need to send every pixel, when just the coordinates will suffice.
For example, say, for some weird reason, I wanted to use one image a box with a solid color, rounded corners and an alpha channel so the rounded part will show the background through. (reference w3c image below) And lets say I wanted to use it as a background image to 10 different sized divs on a page. (com
TiVo (Score:2)
So I can't use it as a DVR unless I am on Dish? It says it integrates with my existing cable box? What is it talking about there?
I think I'll stick to my TiVo if this is the case. TiVo paired up with pyTivo gives me everything I need and has for years.
No content (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't want a web browser on my TV. I do want a way to ditch my cable TV and still get access to shows on demand. So far, at least, this doesn't get us any closer than Apple TV, Roku, Boxee or anyone else.
Re: (Score:2)
The one thing it does beyond the others is put 3rd party apps on the TV. It's an open question whether this turns out to be useful, but it does open the way for, for example, content producers to make apps which they control to give you content on demand. We'll see.
Re: (Score:2)
"I don't want a web browser on my TV."
Its not about you.
"I do want a way to ditch my cable TV and still get access to shows on demand."
There are bittorrent programs for Android. Run them on your TV and have it download torrents - can't be more on demand than that.
Re: (Score:2)
See... opinions can differ
Price (Score:2)
The best part is it plays every single format with no start-up time (even a DVD takes a while to load, skip commercials, etc
Re: (Score:2)
In most cases it's probably the "non geek family member doesn't want non aesthetically pleasing cables stretched across the living room." Don't tell me you haven't ever heard the "do we really need all those things and cabled hooked up to the TV? It looks messy"
TV appliance vs. nettop: same cabling (Score:2)
Open Source? From Sony and Logitech??? (Score:2)
What gives?
Hulu? (Score:2)
But the real question is... will I be able to use Google TV to watch Hulu on my TV?
I already have a Tivo, so I already have a way to record live TV, access Netflix, watch Amazon VOD, YouTube, etc. And with pyTivo I can watch videos that I downloaded to my PC from the web. All that is missing is Hulu.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah yeah, I know this will do a lot more than be a TV based browser.
So . . . basically you admit that your premise is wrong and was just an opportunity to throw out a lame joke.
Good to know.
The same wisecracks come out every time a new device comes out. They always point to some failed device in the past and laugh, never realizing that the first device of a particular type is almost never the one that becomes the commercial success. For nearly any successful product there is a long string of failures ahead of it that "did the same thing".
Re: (Score:2)
Reminds me of the Sega TV. Downloading video games right to your console? Crazy talk. That failed.
Then, XBox Marketplace, it's common.
Or Dreamcast with it's built in modem...
etc etc etc
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Or Dreamcast with it's built in modem...
You mean "its".
Re:1995 called... (Score:5, Funny)
I *know*!
The perfect example of this is how TV was actually invented in Russia in the twenties, but wasn't a big time commercial hit back then. The main reason being just a slight difference in operation compared to our later western TV:s: Instead of you watching the TV, the TV was watching you.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For nearly any successful product there is a long string of failures ahead of it that "did the same thing".
True, but still the point remains that this device is quite poorly conceived, and the target audience is even less understood.
We all know there is not enough bandwidth for every person to be pulling TV across the internet. All of these have to stream on discrete IPs and you can't take advantage of multicast and still provide people with on-demand start times for every program in your video vault.
There is even less demand to browse the web while watching TV unless you live alone in your parents basement. C
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think they stream the TV, or the on-demand programming. That's probably still a function of the cable/satellite carrier and won't change. But now you can search everything, surf the web with flash, and...run a few apps. For a cost of several hundred dollars.
The only thing I really like is the searchable DVR/channel guide/content. Other than that, AppleTV already has it beat. Well, maybe except for the true multi-tasking ie actually watching & surfing at the same time.
Re: (Score:2)
maybe it's because allowing someone to browse the web from their tv isn't particularly innovative, even back in 1995?
Re: (Score:2)
>>>throw out a lame joke.
I thought it was rather funny myself. Loosen up. WebTV probably would have made it, but it was hampered by the ~440x480 resolution of the Composite analog TV set, and therefore could never display the full pages of the day (almost double that width). Today's televisions don't have that same limitation.
.
>>>never realizing that the first device of a particular type is almost never the one that becomes the commercial success
Yep. Like Betamax. Or video-records.
O
Re:1995 called... (Score:4, Funny)
1970 called. They want their joke back.
Re:1995 called... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:1995 called... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. Tech support for communications systems (including the telegraph) was invented in 1860: http://news.cnet.com/2300-1035_3-10004616.html?tag=mncol [cnet.com]
Re:1995 called... (Score:4, Funny)
Oh yeah, he said to send you a DMCA takedown request too.
Re:1995 called... (Score:5, Interesting)
Former WebTV user here. I've always considered WebTV an idea before it's time. One of the big problems with it is that from 95-2000 the web grew in capability faster than the little black boxes did. And thanks to the plethora of mobile devices with non-x86 CPU's and lower resolution screens website developers and plugin makers are a little more willing to work with the makers to work with the makers of them. For example Macromedia didn't try very hard to keep WebTV's shockwave plugin up to date, but now with all sorts of Flash devices out there they have more incentive.
U also wonder if Google talked with Iacta (a company that created WebTV oriented websites and did consulting), since their guidelines are similar to Iacta's.
But.....Google TV doesn't do much that a PS3 already can't.
Users per TV? (Score:3, Funny)
Google TV doesn't do much that a PS3 already can't.
In addition, how many remote controls can you use with a Google TV at one time? PS3 supports up to four controllers.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that's a moot point, since Google TV is not a multiplayer gaming device. It's a device to bring the "Web" (meaning facebook youtube, twiiter, netflix, pandora) to one's TV.
Also the actual limit on PS3 controllers is 7, not 4.
Re: (Score:2)
"But.....Google TV doesn't do much that a PS3 already can't."
It does 500% more than a PS3 - the PS3 can't show most sites because it uses and outdated version of flash - on GTV they just need to update the application which runs in. Its hardware isn't good enough for Sony to upgrade it to have google tv on it either for one.
You can't run any programs on the PS3 you are stuck with the crap they give you (yeah, you can buy games, but that's for kids).
Anybody can make android programs and run on GTV.
Google dem
Parent is not a troll (Score:2)
He just doesn't have any sense of humor (nor vision probably)
Re: (Score:2)
Information network? Seriously? This must be a different Twitter that the one my kids use.
I don't know what your average person tweets about but there are some institutions worth following on Twitter (e.g. NASA [twitter.com]).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
O'BRIEN, CUE THE TELESCREEN [wikipedia.org]
It's "Two Minutes Hate", My Favourite Reality Series!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I bet you're a blast at parties.
Re: (Score:2)
you need to get laid, and fast
i've noticed that most of the people that are worried about the end of the world and all these problems don't have a gf, wife, and/or kids. the rest of us are too busy with life
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We've got some serious problems to solve! Global Warming, The end of fossil fuels, the looming threat of water shortages, population pressures
Ah, but all these problems take care of each other.
End of fossil fuels? No more global warming.
Global warming? More rain and thus no water shortage.
Water shortages? No more population pressures.
And of course, when there are no people left, who cares about fossil fuels?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wii Supporting Netflix is a little more significant though.
All of those grannies that have Wii's in their house because of the grandkids can now stream Netflix.
Spongebob and John Wayne are a little more significant that whatever it is that people watch on YouTube.
Re: (Score:2)
Correction: after trolling like a sociopath you have trouble using /. from your own IP.
The fix: stop trolling, and participate in the discussion like a rational human being - even if you have to fake it! ;)