iTV Standard v1.1 Released

mbstone writes "The iTV Standards Initiative this week announced the release of version 1.1 of its proposed iTV Production Standards, an open XML-schema-based scheme for interactive TV. In other words your set-top box or PC TV card would use the proposed standard to let you click on something displayed on your TV screen, for example, to answer a poll or buy the product featured in a commercial."

Comments

Fascinating

[jimmy_dean]

This is pretty cool stuff...would this kind of be like the HTML of TV? :)

Pop-Up Ads

[lordkuri]

And the Popup ads begin to multiply... quick! get the raid!

doughboy

[BarrettAnderson]

does this mean i can make the Pilsbury Doughboy laugh when i click on his bellybutton? what is this thing?

It will fail.

[Spazntwich]

Notice how easy it is to just change the channel when commercials come on? Now notice how few people actually change the channel when commercials come on.

People watch TV to be totally passive. They don't WANT to interact with the news channel. They just want to sit there and absorb information.

Re:It will fail.

[Anonymous Coward]

IMO, iTV only makes sense if the TV show itself is set up to be interactive. Think, for example, reality TV type shows where you could vote for certain things to happen, or where the audience could vote off contestants, rather than having the producers make the decision.

Otherwise, iTV simply gets in the way of TV viewing. If I want to talk to others or answer polls about my favorite TV show, I will do it on my computer after watching the show, not on my TV during the show.

Re:It will fail.

[stratjakt]

Something was built into MS's WebTV... I cant remember what it was called, but I had it back when I was using my all-in-wonder card under 95 or 98. It would basically embed URL's into broadcasts, when one appeared, a little icon would pop up next to the channel number. It'd take you to, say, the Jeapordy home page (thats the only show I remember clicking it on).

Mostly the URLs would accompany commercials. But it wasnt really intrusive or anything. Just a handy way to get more info on a product or whatever. I remember following one to the local Ford mega-dealership to get some info on one of their sales.

Not a bad idea. Didnt add much, didnt take away anything either. I could see how it could be enhanced to allow voting for stuff like American Idol or the other rash of 'reality' shows.

Precognition

[Anonymous Coward]

My cat has been pointing and clicking on the screen for years. Now I finally know what she was getting at.

Bring on the Lawyers!

[TechyImmigrant]

So how long until ITV (The TV channel) in the UK decides to let their lawyers loose?

How about....

[Zeinfeld]

How about developing a standard for TV remote controls instead, and a standard way of connecting a set top box to a tv so that they can actually work together competently?

I have a $200 sony all in one remote that tries to provide a single interface to all my stuff. Problem is that it does not quite cut it, the Onkyo receiver does not quite do what it should.

Result is that only I can get the home theatre to work properly so I leave it turned off most of the time because I don;t want to spend all my time being sysop for the home entertainment system. Wish the wife would buy a Mac, then I could tell her she is absolutely on her own for service calls as I don't do Macs.

All I want is for a bunch of high end but still mainstream stuff to work together - we are not talking about obscure audiophile $25,000 turntables here. But there is no reason that a $2,000 TV and a $500 satelite receiver and $1,000 home theater box should not talk to each other either. We are not talking about big ticket changes, just an RFC822 or maybe a USB port.

Interactive TV leaves me cold, the stuff is real weak when you try the canned demos with oodles of thought gone into the interactive parts. Run of the mill content that will be seen mostly on non-interactive tv sets will be a bust.

There is no middle ground worth exploring between TV and videogames. Tombraider and such are lightyears beyond what iTV could hope to be. Why fight it trying to do interactive lite?

Re:How about....

[MeanMF]

I have a $200 sony all in one remote that tries to provide a single interface to all my stuff. Problem is that it does not quite cut it, the Onkyo receiver does not quite do what it should.

Try this. I have everything programmed into one $30 Radio Shack remote, including an Onkyo receiver. It takes a little work, but it's definitely worth the effort.

Re:How about....

[Null_Packet]

Look into the TheaterMaster remotes. I have the MX500 and it's a superb remote, and has numerous macro/learning features. I personally like it because it has learnable lcd/soft buttons as well has hard ones.

iTV...

[euxneks]

Interacting with things by clicking on it, voting in polls, isn't that called slashdot?

Re:iTV...

[dubiousmike]

But can interactive TV bring major corporation's websites down?

ITV - 0
Slashdot - 1

this could change forever...

[mrpuffypants]

the way that we watch porno...

I truly can't wait

What about Microsoft?

[$$$$$exyGal]

Does anyone know what Microsoft TV thinks of this standard? Are they part of the committee? I couldn't find any info.

--sex

Re:What about Microsoft?

[chilledchaos]

as far as I know they are not involved. though you never know who lurks behind some of the members...

Check out the members here.

Glowing Blue LivingRooms

[PhreakOfTime]

In other words your set-top box or PC TV card would use the proposed standard to let you click on something displayed on your TV screen, for example, to answer a poll or buy the product featured in a commercial

Yea...TV nation. Move along, nothing to see here.

Of all the "comming in 2 years" vapor

[sammyo]

Interactive Television is the granddaddy of vapor. It has been in the works in one form or another since long before the internet. Before computers probably. It just is never going to happen.

Re:Of all the "comming in 2 years" vapor

[stratjakt]

It has happened, MS's WebTV was attaching URLs to my broadcast (regular VHF in the air style) TV years ago. Back before the bubble burst. You also might notice this is iTV 1.1, this implies there was an iTV 1.0.

Its no big whoop, or selling point for consumers.

Just when the ford commercial comes on you can go look for a little icon to link you to fords website. Probably doesnt add jack to the cost of a commercial, and can get info to someone while their interest is piqued. That's the theory at least. TV is and will no doubt always remain a passive medium for the most part.

Are you kidding? Soon enough

[djupedal]

There is a primetime war right around the corner and you can't think of anything to tune in to? These folks are working hard to bring us sound bites and live flaming footage and streaming laser-guided-bomb nose camera content and fluctuation infantry biometrics during night raids and collateral damage spreadsheets and body count projections and you're not excited?

Click on the little landmine at the bottom of your screen to see the 'Explosion of the Week [TM]! Direct from the battlefield. A CNN exclusive!!

Oh great

[gatesh8r]

Another Mac product... oh wait... *hears Switch commercial music playing in the background* "And like, I was watching this great show on TV, and suddenly the TV was like going *beep beep beep beeeppp beep* That's when I switched to iTV."

is it just me...?

[pizza_milkshake]

or is interactive TV something like videophones that although we've seen it in sci-fi forever, would really not be that useful? it's one of those things we're *supposed* to want, and while it sounds cool, it doesn't really sound useful.

if you want to do surfing-type stuff, the web is much better (there's more content out there, pc monitors have much higher resolution, etc.), if you want sports highlights then watch ESPN, and if you want to learn something either go to the library, use the web or watch The Discovery Channel :)

it seems that many parties are pushing for interactive TV, but that the closest thing that seems to be successful is TiVo.

i just don't think people want to *think* and watch tv at the same time, that's kind of the point.

It will fail? I hope not ...

[JMZorko]

This is seriously cool stuff -- the IEC-13818-x spec (MPEG2) is fascinating stuff, and set-top boxes are very cool platforms to code to. There are lots of ways to enable interactivity in television -- the XML-based trigger info can be snarfed from an ethernet network (I used to code to the PowerTV API, and it had a version of BSD sockets on it to receive data from the set-top's ethernet port). It could be another elementary stream encoded in the MPEG PS itself. it doesn't even need to be a digital signal -- it could live in the VBI with closed-captioning and other stuff (this is how WebTV, Wink and others work). It could even be on a sideband-type thing, i.e. transmitted on a different frequency than the picture. This isn't even touching on the services that could be enabled with the DSM-CC portion of the MPEG spec.

... and yes, it will be used for advertising, but it also enables much cooler things. Imagine interactive children's programs -- that big black box so often used as an electronic babysitter has some truly awesome education potential, and interactivity only makes that better. Technology doesn't always have to be seen as some sort of Orwellian or Matrix-type enabler for the pot-planting of humankind ... it can be a window to a great and vast world.

Regards,

John

Interactive?

[Cruciform]

Can't wait for advertisers to distort the hell out of this. In the middle of your favorite show's climax, oops, popup!

Grrr.

Who'll be running this thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Cable companies, networks? Sometimes I wonder if there will be a day when one company will be the only source of information for any given person.

They'll define his world. Everything in his life would be viewed from some context he learned from that company. It would innescable because everyone else around him would have personalities derived from the same source.

More likely, society will split between two groups. Those who favor homogenous information, lifestyles, entertainment. And those who don't.

The homogenous society will dress more or less the same, listen to the same music, watch the same shows. A large chunk of society will fall into this category, and you could identify them right away.

The heterogenous society will do whatever suits them.

Maybe things are like this already. Do people dress/think/act more similarly in large cities than in smaller ones?

Re:Who'll be running this thing?

[stratjakt]

>> Do people dress/think/act more similarly in large cities than in smaller ones?

I'd say its just the opposite. You go out to the small rural towns and everyone knows each other, looks and acts the same, and for the most part still shun ousiders to a degree.

In an urban setting you have more of a clash of all different cultures and whatnot, and a general aura of diversity that lets people feel more comfortable doing what they want.

The 'freak' with the goofy clothes, piercings, crazy music or whathaveyou looks out of place in the tiny towns, but noone bats an eye to see him in New York.

I think the smaller towns are more under the thumbs of the big media corps. I couldnt name the characters on "friends" or know who sings the mallcore ballad to the latest comic book turned into a feature film. But I bet everyone in this suburban neighbourhood I live in can.

Re:It will fail? I hope not ...

[Wumpus]

I used to code to the PowerTV API

I'm sincerely sorry to hear that. If I ever see preprocessor macro based exception handling again, I'm going to strangle something. Probably a kitten.

Where's the demand for this?

[mbrubeck]

Why are they wasting time and money on this? Are customers lining up to tell them, "We want interactive TV"? Maybe it's just me, but I don't see any real desire being addressed. I feel like I'm suddenly back in 1993, when technologists could throw around buzzwords like "interactive" and convince businesses to push new technology on their customers for no good reason.

Why doesn't the TV industry spend more effort figuring out what people actually like, instead of trying to convince us we want something that we really don't?

Accurate, Active Schedules would be nice

[philipsblows]

How about a way to have my PVR determine when a program really starts and ends, so that a preempted or delayed show won't cause me to record 20 minutes of a news cast or the show that was on before the one I wanted. A particluar network may slip a few seconds per hour, causing a missed lead-in for a particular show (eg for CSI this can be disappointing), and there is a trend lately on broadcast networks to run shows together by a minute or two either way with little or no break between them, which also throws off recording.

It should be relatively easy to send this information, per channel in the overscan area (close caption area) in the current scheme of things, but with interactive television on the way, I would love to see the broadcast be able to interact with automation devices as well as people, if only for this one feature.

Unless they completely disable our ability to record by the time this stuff is in use...

Re:Accurate, Active Schedules would be nice

[jjon]

In the UK, we already have this feature - even for analog VCRs. It's called PDC (Programme Delivery Control).

A google turned up this explanation of how it works.

The actual standard is also available (free registration required).

Of course, this is only for analog TV. Digital TV already has some information which could be used for this (Event Information Tables - EIT) but I don't know if any integrated digital reciever/PVR combos use it.

MHEG

[albino eatpod]

The UK digital systems have been using MHEG for the past 5 years for our interactive service, and although slow at first (mainly due to STB problems) it's getting pretty fast now. BBC's BBCi is superb, and offers everything our our teletext system used to.

Some of the interactive services are a bit naff, but some are pretty interesting.

Oh my, another DTV standard!

[derekb]

Well we got excited about ATVEF, then MHEG, then MHP, somewhere in there OpenTV developed their own proprietary system, as did Liberate. And that's not even including the TV over ADSL guys...

iMagicTV, one of those TV over ADSL middleware providers uses HTML with 'tv in the browser' as does others like Minerva and Orca...

Don't forget about hardware vendors who are already shipping and this includes the big boys like Thomson/RCA

So why yet another dtv standard.. I'm getting dizzy...

Re:Oh my, another DTV standard!

[freek254]

I had the same feeling. I've been developing digital TV apps and boxes for five years and every month there's a new "standard". However, these guys seem to try to address a need. From their FAQ:

Q: Do the standards work with ATVEF or MHP?

A: The standards are agnostic to the distribution platform. Thus, they can be used with both ATVEF and MHP.

Q: Why is there a need for production standards when there are so many standards on the distribution side?

A: The content community made up of studios, networks, producers and others has struggled over the past few years with a multitude of changing distribution methodologies. There is tremendous work taking place throughout the industry to create distribution standards. In order to facilitate economically viable production of interactive content today, the content community has proactively created this committee to provide a standard method for creating interactive content. This standard will benefit all involved, including the work in progress for various other standards forums in the industry.

However, for it to make a difference, it needs to be "compiled" on the distribution side to MHP/ATVEF/*Fad_Of_The_Month*/OpenTV... or packaged and interpreted on the terminal. Hence, someone needs to develop and deploy that software.

If you ask me, this is way premature. If someone comes up with ORIGINAL programming utilizing interactive TV (not commercials...) that is so fun and/or useful that every ITV network and user wants it, then the cost of implementing that on different distribution networks will exceed the cost of implementing and deploying the needed general software. Maybe then it will happen. Otherwise... Naaah! Get's my vote for fad of the month.

Fredrik

Interactive TV is happening *outside* America

[fiddlesticks]

> [Interactive TV] just is never going to happen.

Maybe iTV is never going to happen in the States, but just as with cellphones, DAB and many technologies that gain momentum through standards and cross-border co-operation , the US is being left behind, as Interactive TV is thriving in Europe, especially in the UK, and I'm amazed that many tech-savvy Americans don't seem to realise this

~45-50% of UK households *with a TV* have digital TV, and of them 65 percent of have access to ITV

In simple numbers ,that's about 8 million households have Interactive TV in the UK. As a comparison, there are about 10 million Uk households with access to the Net.

There are about 6.25 million households with digital satelite alone. All of them have access to very, very advanced interactive services. There are about 2 million households with digital cable, using Liberate middleware

The new Free to air DTT boxes are selling like hot cakes, and there are many Interactive services available through the BBC and others

Here's a wide range of iTV screenshots

In europe as a whole 'interactive TV was estimated to be available in 31 million European households at the end of 2002, creating a potential audience of 72 million viewers'