Google TV Suffers Setback 202
An anonymous reader writes "Google TV has now been around long enough for the geeks to play around with it. And they have come back with disappointing reviews. While most were excited at the concept of wedlock between the TV and Internet, the marriage itself looks destined to be challenging."
Geeky devices (Score:5, Insightful)
Now I also just want devices that work great. I don't really have any desire to play around with them, apart from the occasional configuration to make things smoother for me. But there is a limit for that, and I'm not gonna spend hours and days coding something to accomplish it. This is also why general population will never turn to use Linux if something doesn't change, and can you really blame them?
Re:Geeky devices (Score:5, Insightful)
When all the major networks ban your TV product, it's pretty much destined to fail.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. "Google does not support iTunes, and the top video networks such as NBC, CBS, ABC and Hulu have blocked it out."
So basically GoogleTV can't let me view any of the networks I view most often. :-| Rather than spend $250 for this, I'd rather get a DTVpal DVR which pulls television off the air and records it. Then when I come home, I just playback whatever I missed from last night (primetime) or while at work (mostly movies and international programs). ~40 channels free of charge.
Re: (Score:2)
Does knowing this "subtle but important" distinction somehow make the unavailable networks available? Because if it doesn't, I don't see how it's particularly important here.
Re: (Score:2)
It does if you can spoof the identity of the box.
That's kind of the point.
If the Dinosaur Networks don't know that you are using a Google Appliance, they don't know to block you.
This is a bit different than say the total lack of a Netflix client for Linux.
Re: (Score:2)
> When all the major networks ban your TV product, it's pretty much destined to fail. ...sure, if all you ever watch are major network TV shows. BUT, if you really don't care for network TV in your home (i.e. I got to a pub to watch baseball/football), then Google TV might just be right for you. I dumped cable TV in November, and am still loving my Google TV. My favorite apps are Netflix, Youtube (Gadget Show, Fifth Gear, Rocketboom*, Zadi, etc), Revision3, Cartoon Channel, Adult Swim, and Daily Moti
Re: (Score:2)
sure, if all you ever watch are major network TV shows.
In order to know what everyone else is talking about around the water cooler...
I got to a pub to watch baseball/football
Due to alcohol control laws in the United States, students don't have that option unless they're college seniors.
Re: (Score:2)
> Due to alcohol control laws in the United States,
> students don't have that option unless they're
> college seniors.
Good point. I personally believe that if you are in college, or the armed services, you should be able to legally drink. Old enough to vote, old enough to puke. ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Due to alcohol control laws in the United States, students don't have that option unless they're college seniors.
I suppose that depends on how you define a "pub" or "bar". Most "bars" (in the US) that restrict entry to 21 and up aren't ideal places to watch a sports game anyway (1 or 2 small TVs placed in bad viewing areas). Most "sports bars" I am aware of have no age restrictions and have dozens (depending on size of establishment) of TVs scattered throughout. Heck, most chain restaurants have plenty of TVs in their bar areas and no age restrictions. I am not sure where you are getting your information from.
Re: (Score:2)
Google TV goes no where. At minimum stackable external hard disk and dvd drives, for ripping and media serving. More useful software like firewall and internet serving. While they are at it why not an IPv6 mail and web server. They basically went nowhere with it. The apple product is of course just another outlet for limited licence content with a low entry price to trap the unwary.
The idiot box is so last century, to kick it into this century it becomes nothing but a display for home media centre that s
Re: (Score:2)
....as well as complete control of the TV remote. ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
When all the major networks ban a TV product I would think an anti-competitive FTC investigation should be something worth looking into. Basically they banned a browser with a specific user agent string based on the company that provides the device. Can you imagine if all the networks decided to ban Dell computers but not HP?
Re: (Score:2)
This is analogous to buying an HD FM radio and complaining that it can not receive shortwave signals.
There's no reason to appeal to the government. Just get a device that receives the media streams you want.
Re: (Score:2)
Bad analogy, there is no technical reason the Google TV can't receive these channels (AFAIK)
Re: (Score:3)
That's what I use. Works great. The bits missing from the Google TV stuff is integrating the current TV listing / viewing with internet content. Say you're watching Lost and there's an obvious cameo. You hit pause, get the list of actors for the episode, and load an IMDB page for the person in about 3 seconds. In a non-integrated solution you have to do a lot of extra manual switching and searching to get the data together.
Re: (Score:3)
Personally, I just turn to my wife and say, "Honey, who's that guy?"
Re:Geeky devices (Score:5, Funny)
Personally, I just turn to my wife and say, "Honey, who's that guy?"
He meant when watching TV, not when you come home from work early. -rimshot-
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, even the stillborn AOLTV had some integration between TV listings and internet content.
Why do I want a Google TV when I have a TiVo, anyway?
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't the simplest idea a cheap hdmi-out computer with a remote keyboard and scroll wheel?
Geek: Here's a simple idea. ...
Consumer: HDwha? [Consumer wanders off cross-eyed.]
[Consumer seen a half hour later happily leaving the Apple store with an Apple TV in hand.]
Re: (Score:2)
Why on God's green earth is "apps" an acceptable abbreviation for "appetizer" but not for "applications"? I've heard and used the latter far earlier and far more often than the former.
Re: (Score:2)
Its inability to run the software people want to use is what needs to change, nothing else.
Re: (Score:2)
And in other news, Apple TV is selling like hot cakes [techcrunch.com]. It just shows, like always before, that casual people don't really care about the geeky things those devices can offer. The older I get the more I can side with them too - when I was a teenager I had lots of energy and motivation to play around with computers and other technical stuff I had. Then I got a job, a girlfriend, went to travel the world and saw how much you're giving up by spending so much time with that. In the end, it's not really even that interesting.
Now I also just want devices that work great. I don't really have any desire to play around with them, apart from the occasional configuration to make things smoother for me. But there is a limit for that, and I'm not gonna spend hours and days coding something to accomplish it. This is also why general population will never turn to use Linux if something doesn't change, and can you really blame them?
Apple TV selling a million times over the course of 4 months sounds very disappointing to me.
Re:Geeky devices (Score:4, Insightful)
> Apple TV selling a million times over the course of 4 months sounds very disappointing to me.
Really? What is your frame of reference for being disappointed?
I would doubt you would say the same thing if Tivo, Boxee, Roku or any other drv/media box company announced a similar number.
And I would be they would all be EXTREMELY pleased to have a number like that for that period of time.
Re: (Score:2)
Most news articles comenting on the 1 million units milestone have made a point of comparing it to the 74 days it took for the original iPhone to reach the same milestone. That is a phenominal achievement by anyone's yard sti
Re: (Score:2)
It would not be the first time that an inferior offering sold more units due to a number of factors besides actual product quality (including marketing).
One could point out the whole Macintosh vs MS-DOS paradox if one were so inclined.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing like the growth of apathy as a rationalization for closed, hacker-unfriendly systems!
Re:Geeky devices (Score:4, Insightful)
Nothing like the growth of apathy as a rationalization for closed, hacker-unfriendly systems!
Come off it and get out of the basement. On a population basis, the number of people interested in 'hacker friendly, open systems' is a rounding error. THERE IS NO MONEY IN IT. There IS money in simple. There is money in just works.
Re:Geeky devices (Score:4)
I dunno about that. Roku's super simple to set up and use (it "just works"), but has an open SDK and a fantastic (open) private channel system for those interested in doing more. It's the best of both worlds (plus very inexpensive as well).
Re: (Score:2)
Great. Thanks for letting us know that you've succumbed to the notion that the world revolves around nothing but money. I haven't stooped to that level yet, and I hope I never do, but let me at least say this: no matter how great your product may be, there's never any justification for closing it off in order to prevent your customers for actually harnessing it to its full potential. Just because it doesn't harm _you_ doesn't mean it's okay to support it when its limiting the potential of real users who wan
Re: (Score:2)
It can't be both. Anything configurable and hacker friendly enough to make geeks happy will (a) be he opposite of what major content creators and distributors want and (b) likely to get accidentally screwed up by a clueless user.
One of the reasons Apple products fare well is because there are almost no settings to change. Without that expectation, if it doesn't do something automatically, people assume it won't do it at all and will live with it as is. There's a lot of CS dollars saved with that model. Sup
Re: (Score:2)
There was ever a time when 99% of the population cared that their device was open source and hacker-friendly outside of your mind?
Re: (Score:2)
Hacker friendly devices lead to other side effects that apathetic consumers actually care about even if they are not directly aware of any notion of "open-ness".
Re: (Score:2)
And in other news, Apple TV is selling like hot cakes [techcrunch.com]
Selling a million devices versus the sum total of TVs sold is actually very disappointing.
Re:Geeky devices (Score:4, Informative)
Except you don't need to play around with it to work. It does what Apple TV does, plays more.
It's just not the global plug to free crap some people want.
And Apples TV s not selling like hot cakes. They've sold a total, since inception, of 1 million units.
Re: (Score:3)
It's 1 million units of the new Apple TV. If you count the older generation, it's way more than that. Don't let facts get in the way of your rant though.
Re: (Score:2)
And it certainly took Apple more than enough iterations for them to finally hit on a winning formula. I mean, Apple TV has been around since 2006.... although it may be the $99 price point now...
The older I get, however, I don't want devices that just work great. I want less. Of everything. Today, in media overload, I find it a relief to have the TV off (thinking of getting rid of all service altogether and using the screen to watch Redbox, maybe Netflix). I listen to some music, but never the radio.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that it seems like everyone is trying to stuff more internet in my television, when what I really want is more television in my internet. There is a difference.
Re: (Score:2)
> that casual people don't really care about the geeky things those devices can offer
Yeah. "Geeky" things like playing your own videos.
A device that "just works" is something that doesn't force you to futz with Handbrake.
Just point your girlfriend/wife to the local media server and let her drag & drop stuff on it as she finds it.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty soon anything other than buying a trinket from an official app/media store is going to be considered "geeky hacker stuff"...in fact for certain devices we may already be at that point.
Summary = Article 1st Paragraph (Score:2)
Problem identified... (Score:3)
Sounds like they should have release Google TV beta first.
Joking aside, this is probably why Apple is taking such a cautious approach with Apple TV. They realise that there is potential, though it is not clear how it should manifest itself. Playing around with other solutions like XBMC and Plex it feels like there is certainly a future, but it may still be a few years down the road. Maybe devices like the Wii would be better, if it simply offered the missing components like being able to stream from a home media server?
Re:Problem identified... (Score:4, Informative)
Thats not a normal person solution. I have boxee on a home media server, used to do mythtv but I moved out of a place where I had provided cable and without cable it wasn't worth the hassle. Its certainly possible, and its great once its set up, but it requires active maintenance.
My personal desires are for a single, low-power, easy-setup box that can:
- Stream from Netflix
- Stream from Hulu/Hulu Plus (to be legit it probably requires hulu plus)
- Stream from Pandora
- Run local/LAN-shared video and audio with good codec support
- Extensible to help future proof it (i.e. easy to integrate some new streaming service)
Additionally, I'm sure there are those who would appreciate some kind of DVR functionality in it as well.
So far the Boxee Box is supposed to be that, but between the hideous hardware, and the fact that they screwed up the interface and that it doesn't work with Hulu or Netflix anymore., its just not quite there. Maybe the next iteration. The Wii with a few more apps would do a decent job too (although the resolution might annoy some).
Sadly, its impossible to have a good, easy to use solution at this point, not due to technological challenges, (I think Google TV, Apple TV and Boxee all have a lot of potential), but because the content providers are scared to death of us not tuning in 8 eastern/7 central with everyone else. I suppose in time it will turn around, but for now its very frustrating for those of us who dont want to have to hack together 'creative' solutions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Look into the Roku ( http://www.roku.com/ ). It streams Netflix, Hulu Plus and Pandora among others. (Total number of channels is over 100 now, though many of them, though many of them are niche.) They're constantly adding new channels. Thanks to the open SDK, anyone can write a channel (assuming the person knows how to code, of course).
There's no DVR functionality but there is a channel which supposedly streams from media servers on your LAN. (I say "supposedly" because I haven't tested this one out y
Re: (Score:2)
Thats not a normal person solution. I have boxee on a home media server, used to do mythtv but I moved out of a place where I had provided cable and without cable it wasn't worth the hassle. Its certainly possible, and its great once its set up, but it requires active maintenance.
My personal desires are for a single, low-power, easy-setup box that can:
- Stream from Netflix
- Stream from Hulu/Hulu Plus (to be legit it probably requires hulu plus)
- Stream from Pandora
The Roku does all of those, and more (like Amazon video).
- Run local/LAN-shared video and audio with good codec support
Roku has channels that say it will do LAN streaming, but I haven't tried because I don't really care to use it for that.
- Extensible to help future proof it (i.e. easy to integrate some new streaming service)
Roku has an open SDK, assuming you or someone else writes a channel for said new streaming service.
I've had mine since the early days when it was "the Netflix box" and they've released a whole lot of firmware upgrades since then. It was most certainly worth the $99 I spent on it, especially since its functionally continued to increas
Re: (Score:2)
My solution to all of those was to upgrade my TV to the LG 32LE5400 with a USB wireless stick. Plays Netflix, has many component and HDMI inputs, and plays my videos served from mediatomb.
Re: (Score:2)
It's there for you and me. What seems simple and intuitive for us often isn't for the average person though. I've lived with three people since I first tossed XBMC onto an xbox and went to just streaming. Of those, one person could use it with a cheat sheet I wrote out. And two others just refused to even try and would instead just find me to get their show playing.
Alternate Link (Score:2)
Since original article refuses to load anything but the Ad.
http://www.google.com/#q=Google+TV+Suffers+Setback [google.com]
ps3, 360, etc (Score:5, Insightful)
the internet has made it to my tv, i get it through my ps3. why would i want another device that basically does the same thing but less of it?
Absolutely Correct (Score:2)
The consoles have been the Trojan Horse for getting Internet video into the living room and onto the TV for years. I "cut the cord" to my cable a while back, and get all video on my TV screen via the 360. MS (and Sony) won this battle without even firing a shot, as best as I can see.
Re: (Score:2)
I also have a homebrew PVR, alth
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I get internet TV (Netflix, mostly) from my PlayStation. The search function for GoogleTV and its combination of internet-based video and traditional TV in results is a feature that I haven't seen anywhere else. OTOH, it seems from reviews that their are interface (particularly, controller) issues that need polish, and the major networks blocking it because they thoug
Re: (Score:2)
Nope
Will the PS3 search your network? stream content from a computer? Can you control it from your phone? ca you seamlessly show content from your phone to the TV? can you watch and browse at the same time? Can you be watching something from a site and send it to your DVR?
No, it won't. You have to buy 3rd party addins.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes and yes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
PS3 has a built in function to scan for media servers. I use a Mac (my primary HTPC) to stream content to my PS3 in the bedroom). It will also offer to convert any formats that PS3 doesn't understand on the fly. It really has turned into a very flexible piece of hardware. That said, I still use my HTPC for most needs.
For basic streaming like Netflix, a PS3 more than suffices, just as an Apple TV does. They've made it about as simple as you can get, which is what consumers want.
Re: (Score:2)
Customers aren't ready yet (Score:4, Insightful)
TV is a passive medium for the vast majority of people and that's how they like it. Plop on the couch, select your channel and let somebody else make the decisions about what you'd like to watch. Most people don't have a home media server and don't understand why you'd want one (because nobody has explained that your DVD cupboard is basically a sneakernet server, and having everything you want to watch a button click away like music just hasn't happened yet).
Actually that's a good analogy - we have a home media server and various cobbled together clients around the house, and it's interesting to watch the usage patterns: Music videos get shuffled like a giant video ipod on the main TV, it's like the best MTV that never was with the bonus you can skip stuff you don't want to listen to. Kids want to watch 3 or 4 episodes of iCarly in a row. Parents want to be able to consume a serial like Dexter without the annoying "wait a week for the next episode" that broadcast TV forces on you.
Most people will want this stuff, they just haven't seen it - so do Google a favour and invite your non-tech-savvy friends to a demonstration of your media serving rigs (assuming you've gone to the trouble of making it demo friendly and can resist the urge to fiddle with technical stuff while you're showing them). What is going to be a killer is pricing - if Google could negoatiate to broadcast a channel of cheap stuff so the "plop on the couch and watch" crew could enjoy another TV channel without having to think too much, they may be tempted to purchase premium content like first run serials without the hassle of torrents.
Re: (Score:2)
I really don't think using GoogleTV (at least for simple things like using Netflix) is any tougher than using the STB from the cable company to get programming on demand.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably not, but "on demand" is what's unproven, not the technology itself. If somebody came up with a hybrid service that basically shuffled a TV channel of stuff you like (you tell it how long you want to watch, it knows your preferences or you seed it), the Google people could queue up shows for you (with a few wildcards of things you haven't seen but might like, pilots for shows that you might be interested in etc).
That way you could still use your TV as a passive entertainment device without necessar
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not saying some people prefer strictly passive TV, but there are lots of examples of on demand content, in wide use and growing - Netflix, Hulu, cable STBs, TiVo, etc. I don't know why you think that's unproven. I'm sure YouTube will start looking more and more like what you describe, as an option on GoogleTV.
Re: (Score:2)
It's unproven as the take-up is low, especially outside of the US. Problem one is that because we have no effective micro-payment systems, these things are subscriber based or require the purchase of expensive dedicated hardware like a TiVo (a complete flop in Australia as it happens). Hulu, not available outside the US at all. Ditto for Netflix (I assume because rights to the shows are sold on a regional basis). The only companies at the moment who can afford to buy the rights here in Oz offer some of
This is a poor band-aid for "push TV" (Score:2)
Steve Jobs has it right on this one: The only way to empower users is to only offer programming via an on-demand model, whether it's $0.99 per show on iTunes or unlimited streaming on Netflix. The "push model" of television is incredibly inefficient and any DVR-style device (ie, think TiVo, not AppleTV or Roku) is just prolonging its death spiral and keeping consumers trapped in the past.
I refuse to install an antenna on my house to receive push TV programming and will certainly not subscribe to push TV ove
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm happy to put my money where my mouth is. That airwave bandwidth is better repurposed into a high speed national wireless network.
Re: (Score:2)
too little for too much (Score:4, Interesting)
I had looked at various "media" devices such as the Roku, but all came up way short. I was shocked to find that, apparently because of their business model, the Roku will not play the free Hulu content, even if you buy a Hulu Plus subscription (and there is a lot on regular Hulu that is unavailable on Hulu Plus). Google TV was about the only consumer oriented appliance that I found that gave me everything that a browser would have access to. But at the $300 price of the Logitech version it is way too much for too little. For that kind of money I might as well build a PC that I can dedicate to the living room. I could not only browse everything on the web, but I could also install and play web oriented games on the big screen, and run other applications that Web TV can't such as Skype, TeamSpeak, Google Earth and so on. And I've also found myself wanting a DVR that isn't dependent on my having a cable or satellite provider, and it looks like to get that done right I'll have to base it on a PC anyway. So it was obvious that Web TV as it is currently offered is too little for too high of a price. A cute toy, but only for those who have too much money and not enough imagination to see what they can do with a real computer instead.
One big downside is that somehow turning a case from the typical vertical design into a horizontal case that would better fit in a media center seems to be very expensive. In my shopping I've found horizontal form factor cases for as much as $200, and that is without a power supply. Obviously I can get much nicer vertical cases a lot cheaper. I'm still hoping to find a case maker that is making a decent case at a reasonable price (responses welcome).
Re:too little for too much (Score:4, Informative)
I was shocked to find that, apparently because of their business model, the Roku will not play the free Hulu content, even if you buy a Hulu Plus subscription (and there is a lot on regular Hulu that is unavailable on Hulu Plus).
This has absolutely nothing to do with Roku, and everything to do with Hulu's licensing agreements. Hulu has the rights to show their non-plus shows on the internet, but NOT on set-top boxes or via streaming (to Roku, Internet-enabled TVs, game systems, or anything else). Agree or disagree with the pay model that Hulu+ is using, but the "+" refers to the ability to watch it on your television via these devices. They can't show the non-plus material because they don't have the rights to do that.
Too much failures (Score:3)
It's just me, or Google is failing at everything that is not their core bussiness of search & ads?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Android apps funded by ads? I've known people who tried to do that, but saying it as a fact contradicts what I've heard. Every dev I know who's trying going with an ad support model with android has gotten pretty much nothing, even on very popular programs. People don't click ads on phones.
Make it unblockable (Score:2)
Google must be considering making it look like any Chrome browser out there. If they don't do that, it's probably come down to either:
- it's hard to do. maybe they'd need Adobe cooperation to disguise the Flash plugin for GoogleTV. Adobe may not want to upset content providers.
- they're afraid of confronting content providers, who may retaliate by blocking all Chrome browsers or switch to Silverlight, or...?
Hopefully some hacking will resolve the issues. I like the interface. A big plus with GoogleTV compar
Re: (Score:2)
So are all the reports of blocking despite user agent changes wrong? Aren't the sites looking at the Flash version now? I'd be glad to be corrected.
Oh great. More unwatchable crap. (Score:2)
200 Channels and nothing but cats...
CATS: How are you gentlemen !! (Score:2)
200 Channels and nothing but cats
Then perhaps you shouldn't have opted for the "All Your Base Are Belong To Us" programming package. (Mmm, what you say !! [youtube.com])
TV what's that? Haven't used one in years (Score:3)
TV is fairly dead and I (and I imagine many many others as well) have not owned a TV or payed for Cable TV service in years.
You can get all the relevant content online (podcasts and streaming mp4, youtube, download services, etc) or simply ordering/renting DVDs. I'd consider getting a Sony-GoogleTV, for the screen (I mean my Sun CRT is nice but..) and for Netflix (now I have to use an annoying Windows Virtualbox). Buyers beware it does not seem to have a VGA input only HDMI... The cheapest model I see is $600! Better wait until that CRT breaks :)
Cumbersome Keyboard? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No. Some things just work best with a proper keyboard.
Things like "search" is one of them.
"10 foot interfaces" really fall on their face here.
Given how well established PCs are, people should really be much less phobic when it comes to keyboards.
Lots o' alternatives including Tivo (Score:2)
Everybody and his brother is in this business. Our Tivo streams Netflix, Amazon, what have you - it doesn't support Hulu (yet), although with a DVR I'm not sure what the value of that would be. Plus thanks to free tools like Handbrake, pyTivo and streambaby we have streaming access to ripped versions of all our DVDs on it as well. Right now I can't think of anything it doesn't do that I wish it did.
Point is, as far as I can tell there's nothing particularly special Google TV offers that's not already availa
I wonder about their HD clips (Score:2)
The '90s called... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
STBs that do one thing and require minimal management are more accessible to the general market than an application that needs to run on an HTPC, which is idea that hasn't taken off with non-geeks as much as it once seemed it might.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you expect it to be obsolete? (Score:2)
Considering that it'll have third party apps on it, it's very close to that "plain old computer" you're asking about, though it's a bit limited for now. But since it has the power to do 1080p video output, it's probably good enough for most things for as long as the 1080p TV is not obsolete. What it won't do in its current implementation is keep up with the PS3 and the like on gaming. Maybe there'll be a PS4 w/GoogleTV though.
But who will be allowed to develop apps? (Score:2)
Considering that it'll have third party apps on it
A Wii console has third-party applications on it, but Nintendo is very selective about which third parties it will allow to develop for its platform. Will Google TV allow the development of applications by individuals in the same way that Android phones and tablets from everyone but AT&T allow for development of applications by individuals?
Re: (Score:2)
My TV gets app updates (netflix, youtube, etc) pushed to it all the time. I'm not worried about obsolescence. They are software, not hardware apps.
It appears HTPCs are for geeks (Score:2)
It seems to me the best approach is just to hook a computer up to your TV.
I'm working on an article about why connecting a PC to a TV isn't common [pineight.com]. The issues that I know of include build vs. buy (most dedicated HTPCs are built from parts by a PC-enthusiast end user, not ready-to-run), aesthetics (most PC cases would look out of place next to a TV), 10-foot usability, and the fact that there aren't a lot of PC games designed specifically for HTPCs.
Re: (Score:2)
Your article is about 5 years out of date based on a lot of false assumptions.
When you are done. 2001 will probably call and ask for their article back.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just buy a used one...they'll have those old ports. Lots of people sell older TVs to upgrade to get the biggest and best. Check craigslist.
Re: (Score:2)
Emulators. I love the old consoles, but there's really no reason to keep their bulky forms around when you can just emulate it on a newer one.
Re: (Score:2)
Up to the 4th generation, that's true. After that, things get more complicated.
How do I dumped ROM? (Score:2)
Emulators.
Now that Retrode [retrode.com] is sold out, how would you recommend making ROM files from one's cartridges?
Re: (Score:2)
Now that Retrode is sold out, how would you recommend making ROM files from one's cartridges?
I would recommend not making your own ROM files. Whatever cartridges you have, someone else has already ripped them and put them online, so just download them. You'll end up with exactly the same files as if you'd done it yourself, so there are no moral or ethical arguments to be made against it, and the legal risk is infinitesimal.
Re: (Score:2)
at the same time, pretty much all manufacturers have abandoned S-Video and SCART.
SCART never took off in my country, but I can still get S-Video inputs on most TVs. My Vizio VX32L has one on the left side. As I understand it, TV makers cut out SCART to make room for VGA to hook up netbooks and other non-HDMI PCs.
Since I have some classic game consoles that really could use something less shitty than composite
I take it you're referring to the Super NES and Nintendo 64. The NES directly generated its signal in the composite domain [nesdev.com] due to its hue-value palette arrangement [bobrost.com]. The PS2 and PS3 can play almost all PS1 games through a component cable, though some TVs can't take a 240p compone
Re: (Score:2)
No, I have a Sega Saturn (about impossible to emulate decently), a Gamecube (the more recent model, without component output), and a Dreamcast (with a VGA box). I keep toying with the idea of getting a PS2, but whenever I get to play on it... hell, that controller! That thing is simply unacceptable!
Re: (Score:2)
a Gamecube (the more recent model, without component output)
Wii plays all GameCube games except for Game Boy Player (and probably one or two that I forgot). Your VGA Dreamcast probably connects to the VGA port on your TV.
Roku has the best device in this market (Score:3, Informative)
We own both Apple TV and the identically priced Roku XD|S. The XD|S's far superior connectivity, huge advantage in variety and depth of content, and wider range of supported display modes over Apple TV make it a no-question win. The open source channel kit itself serves as incontrovertible evidence that the XD|S isn't intended as a port into a walled garden.
I wish we had found the XD|S first. Would have saved us $99. Oh well. The Apple TV, meanwhile, has found use here as a more-or-less dedicated Internet r