GoogleTV, AppleTV and the Battle For The Living Room

An anonymous reader pointed us to an article talking about Google TV and AppleTV challenging the major networks and taking their place in your living room. It'll be a tough battle, amusingly waged on cable company wires in many major markets.

Comments

with net neutrality not going to happen

[Anonymous Coward]

they won't get far off the ground. when it takes money out of the cable company mouths (the ISPs), they will throttle down google tv and apple tv so that you will have to use their services instead and there will be nothing we can do about it because enforcing net neutrality is big government intervention - just go ask the tea party people - they are adamant against net neutrality

Re:with net neutrality not going to happen

[click2005]

As I've mentioned before, this will give the ISPs an excuse to switch to per Gb billing.

Re:with net neutrality not going to happen

[cynyr]

Fine, as long as it says that when i signup, great. Too bad i'm not about to be renewing a contract with an ISP any time soon.

Re:with net neutrality not going to happen

[click2005]

They'll gradually reduce the included allowance or just stop offering that package.
Its all part of their pay-twice-per-view plan.

Re:with net neutrality not going to happen

[misexistentialist]

My ISP seems to be taking the strategy of raising internet rates so that profit per customer stays the same (maybe even increases?) as customers drop cable. Of course some ISPs have a stake in creating content which complicates things.

Re:with net neutrality not going to happen

[sglewis100]

As I've mentioned before, this will give the ISPs an excuse to switch to per Gb billing.

If I could drop satellite TV, saving $90 but see my Internet bill go up $50, or even $90, and my flexibility in how, when and where I consume TV actually improved, I'd be ok with that. I doubt it's imminently happening, but I'd pay Apple, Google, my DSL provider, or really any provider who was willing to let me get TV I cared for on demand on any device I care for. I'm not interested (personally) in SAVING money so much as GETTING MORE OF WHAT I WANT.

Re:with net neutrality not going to happen

[Anonymous Coward]

You need to be careful with government intervention period.

Putting the government at the core of the internet as an authority over it could lead to some pretty terrible end results years down the road. You think Google is bad for your privacy? Trust me the Government will not be launching a 'dashboard' about what info they have on you any time soon.

I think we need a 'bill of rights' designed for the internet that is designed to restrict both the government AND big companies from violating certain core principles like discriminating against certain types of traffic, collecting private information, etc.

Re:with net neutrality not going to happen

[Gilmoure]

Exactly. My family'd be happy with 8 or 9 channels and streaming movie access and that's about it. Paying for 90% channels we don't watch is stupid.

Still can't beat a console.

[Anonymous Coward]

The AppleTV vs. GoogleTV doesn't fly well with my demographic (The coveted 18-34). I have a video game console. All my friends have video game consoles. They do the same crap. It applies to my mother who loves the Roku Box I got her. Until they're ready to amuse me. I don't care...but then again, I don't have cable because I'm a pirating bastard who hates commercials. So maybe no one wants me to use their device...

On a sidenote, UpNp/dlna ftw.

Re:Still can't beat a console.

[ThomasFlip]

This is why I think we may see Apple (even Google) move into the console gaming market. Apple probably won't create a console with bleeding edge hardware to compete with Sony and Microsoft, but what I do see them doing is throwing in decent 3d graphics capabilities into an AppleTV or something similar, and potentially competing with the Wii. I think with Apples app distribution network, it's too good of an opportunity to pass up. And as a side note, look at Gamespot.com. They already have a section for iPhone games.

Re:Still can't beat a console.

[HermMunster]

The fly in Apple's pie is that they can't get all the content brought together in a cohesive manner which allows the phobe to just watch what they want. Apple's walled garden is to blame. Apple would have to sign with everyone, and that's just not possible. As it stands it has two. ABC includes Disney, but two isn't enough to make a success.

Google on the other hand can partner with anyone without forcing them behind a walled garden. Google is about open access to all web video. Apple is about closed walled garden content that they can sell. In the long run Google wins. Google's TV and Apple TV are correlate directly to the Android's open nature vs. Apple's iOS which is closed and will never be opened.

Re:Still can't beat a console.

[Paracelcus]

A DOLLAR for a TV show? that's what Apple wants! If you ask me (and you won't) that's just stupid.

Re:Still can't beat a console.

[OldeTimeGeek]

Right. And when the content provider partner says that they will not to provide content that is not rights-managed what will Google do? Do you really think that Fair Play exists because Apple thought it was a good idea? Or that the "openness" of a distribution platform has anything to do with anything, so far as Disney/ABC/ESPN is concerned?

Re:Still can't beat a console.

[fandingo]

The problem for Apple doesn't have anything to do with their "walled garder." That's an issue for users, not content producers.

I do agree that Apple (and Google) won't get good content deals. The movie/TV industries have realized how badly the music industry got raped by iTMS. Digital downloads are way up, but they just aren't making very much money. Why on earth would movie/TV industries want any piece of that pie. Decreasing prices is certainly good from a consumer POV, but from a producer's view it's bad, unless you can make up the revenue in increased sales. I don't think the price-points exist to make ATV or GTV profitable enough to entice content producers to make "all" (or substantial parts) of their catalogs available.

Content industries are successful because they know how to segment markets. Slashdotters hate it, but that's the way the business is done.

Re:Still can't beat a console.

[Anonymous Coward]

Google is openly attempting to create a seamless transition from centralized big content producers to decentralized smaller web-only content producers. That's the point of their open platform.

Apple's closed platform is attempting to create a internet distribution model for the established content producers with a switch from advertising to a PPV revenue model. You can bet that if it catches on, ads will follow as they did when cable.

For established content producers, the choice between the two is obvious. Apple's main competition is the established distribution mechanisms, not Google.

Re:Still can't beat a console.

[HermMunster]

That's not the point. Content can be pulled in from anywhere. There are even web sites that list (like tv guide) what content is there and where. Google's TV will be regular TVs with Android installed, with a processor, with wifi, etc. That's not likely to happen with Apple. Apple's not going to partner with companies to have them add their Apple TV OS installed within. Besides, Android is free and easily customizable. I don't think Apple can compete with a TV with Android with storage, with massive partnerships. It just can't happen.

I'd only get a new Apple TV if it will play my stored content, and allow me to tie into many other systems that is unfettered by purchases. Let's say a show comes out weekly for 1/2 the year. If I rent each show at a $1.00 a pop, that could be $4 to $5 a month, just for one series. If I like to watch 3-5 series each week then you are talking $15.00 to $25.00 a month. This doesn't include any other TV programming I might want to visit. Renting those shows would be too costly for me. On top of that DVD rentals are also far too much through Apple. If I get a DVD I want to own the platter. Many people are the same. They don't want to pay to rent a DVD near the cost of owning the DVD.

With Google TV the sites themselves can offer content specifically for a TV designed with Android. They technically wouldn't have to even be in partnership. They could pick and choose the content they want aired in that fashion. If they want to be integrated into a system like the Android store then sure, that's where Google earns income or they do so by creating an ad system that can be overlayed on anyone's content, just like with their ad sense.

Google's model just wins.

Re:Still can't beat a console.

[nine-times]

I think you're missing something-- Apple can't get access to the content because, in their walled garden, the walls aren't high enough. Content owners have always demanded higher prices, more strict DRM, controls over what devices the content can be played on, etc.

Google isn't going to get all of the content owners to sign off on making everything available. Apple has the most content, but it's expensive. Netflix has the best terms, but their library for "Watch Instantly" is always fairly limited. Hulu has decent distribution, but they're purposefully trying to keep Hulu from being available on your TV. (Yes, Hulu has a pilot program that makes their content available on the TV, but it only makes *some* of their content available on *some* devices for *some* people, and it's for a subscription fee.)

The real problem is the content owners.

Google may be able to get other illegal content, but that's a different story. I can play illegal content on my Apple TV-- though admittedly I might have to transcode it first.

Re:Still can't beat a console.

[HermMunster]

Surely it does. Apple looses because of the walled garden. Not until you understand Google's model do you understand how it will be implemented in the TV set and how that content can and will be organized and presented on the TV. That walled garden will be the one thing that keeps it from growing but yet it will still be that one thing that keeps it alive.

Re:Still can't beat a console.

[HermMunster]

They aren't talking about providing you downloadable content. Streamed content can be done via whatever OS is installed IN THE TV. Netflix and hulu both have demonstrated that DRM streamed content can be done, even if the real technical guys can still get past it. DRM really targets the average user, those that would be tempted otherwise, not the guys that know how to break out of it already.

Re:Still can't beat a console.

[Karlt1]

Surely it does. Apple looses because of the walled garden.

Yep, that's why the iPod went from an 70%+ market share to the 5% is today, why iTunes isn't the number one music store, and why the vast majority of mobile apps are no longer sold through Apple's app store....

Oh wait...

Re:Still can't beat a console.

[HermMunster]

That's not the point with Google's system. Google's TV gives any disparate source the opportunity register with them and advertise their content without the centralized walled garden approach. And, at the time when iPods were gaining in popularity there was no "integration" offered by the competition. Apple provided that. What we know now is that it can be accomplished in other ways, that's the purpose behind Google TV.

It will provide the benefits of the ipod/itunes integration without the lock in that goes with it.

Think this: Google gets their OS installed in TV sets. Those sets have their own storage, wifi, etc. Then Google defines the structure of the data. If a user points his TV to your site the content is presentable and well formatted for the TV (meaning the menus, the structure, the video and sound formats, etc). Google benefits if that same website decides to list itself with Google in which case Google gets to advertise or partner in advertisement through ad sense.

In the long history of iPods and iTunes Apple hasn't significantly purposed itself in the sales part of it. They just haven't had the insight to bring it together. Music on the other hand has traditionally been purchased by individuals and the download/storage of such a device made that process a great synergy. Video on the other hand is much different. The codecs could be different depending on the source of the media, the aspect ratio could be different due to various devices (and Apple has no control over that).

The model that Apple used is well known and anyone entering this market such as Google with Google TV knows that model well. Google is due to release a music store soon that integrates with Android thus providing the same model. But everyone can produce video content, and in fact we see that everywhere on the web. Video on the web is huge. It will be delivered first and best by the most open system.

The Apple TV is nothing more than an iPod without the screen and other features. Their store is going to be set up as rentals. People weren't renting their music with the iTunes/iPod integration. TV doesn't normally comprise you renting the TV series episodes. Google's retains much of the old model while providing functionality that can still rent/sell if necessary. Apple likely will only release their content in the h.264. Google's will likely support every type of codec available.

Re:Still can't beat a console.

[DragonWriter]

Right. And when the content provider partner says that they will not to provide content that is not rights-managed what will Google do?

The opennes of GoogleTV doesn't seem to mean "no DRM allowed". Its Android, on a TV. So if content providers want to stream DRM laden content to Google TV, all they'll need is an app to receive and display it. AFAIK, Amazon VOD and Netflix are content provider partners, and both use DRM.

The absence of a walled garden is good for consumers, but it doesn't restrict content providers at all. In fact, it leaves content providers more free than a walled garden does, as well.

Re:Still can't beat a console.

[Karlt1]

"That's not the point with Google's system. Google's TV gives any disparate source the opportunity register with them and advertise their content without the centralized walled garden approach."

Do you really think that most people care about amateur content outside of YouTube? The major streaming content providers (besides YouTube) at least in the U.S. are NetFlix and Hulu. NetFlix is already available on the AppleTV and their is no reason to believe that Hulu soon won't be seeing that it is already available on Apple's other iOS devices.

And when has this approach ever been successful in the past? In fact, when has Google ever been successful selling directly to consumers? Google Checkout was never competitive with Paypal, Google Video was a failure, as was the Nexus One, even the Google App Market is being outsold by the Apple app store by a 50 to 1 margin according to most sources. Why do you think Google could succeed where Amazon and Walmart couldn't

" And, at the time when iPods were gaining in popularity there was no "integration" offered by the competition. Apple provided that."

Sure there were other integrated approaches -- Plays4Sure, Sansa/Rhapsody/Napster, Zune/Zune Marketplace, etc. Every single "iTunes killer" has died a horrible death over the past decade.

"What we know now is that it can be accomplished in other ways, that's the purpose behind Google TV."

So we know that can be accomplished based on a non-shipping demo?

"It will provide the benefits of the ipod/itunes integration without the lock in that goes with it."

Why is it always other companies "future non-shipping products" that will be better than Apple's shipping products?

"Think this: Google gets their OS installed in TV sets. Those sets have their own storage, wifi, etc. Then Google defines the structure of the data. If a user points his TV to your site the content is presentable and well formatted for the TV (meaning the menus, the structure, the video and sound formats, etc). Google benefits if that same website decides to list itself with Google in which case Google gets to advertise or partner in advertisement through ad sense."

You sure have a lot of faith in the ability of Google to actually ship a good product -- based on what precedence? Besides, it's going to require a keyboard???? You really think people want WebTV 2.0?

"The codecs could be different depending on the source of the media, the aspect ratio could be different due to various devices (and Apple has no control over that)."

You really think that an embedded device is going to take any random downloaded codec? There is a reason that most embedded devices have hardware decoders.

"The model that Apple used is well known and anyone entering this market such as Google with Google TV knows that model well. Google is due to release a music store soon that integrates with Android thus providing the same model. But everyone can produce video content, and in fact we see that everywhere on the web. Video on the web is huge. It will be delivered first and best by the most open system."

Video on the web is huge -- 40% of it comes from Youtube. Most people want to watch professional content on their TV. Right now the majority of that comes from two places -- Hulu and Netflix. YouTube is already available on the AppleTV as well as Netflix. Do you really think that Google is going to be any better at negotiating commercial content on the web than Netflix and Hulu?

The Apple TV is nothing more than an iPod without the screen and other features. Their store is going to be set up as rentals. People weren't renting their music with the iTunes/iPod integration. TV doesn't normally comprise you renting the TV series episodes. Google's retains much of the old model while providing functionality that can still rent/sell if necessary. Apple likely will only release their content in the h.264. Google's will likely support every type of codec available.

Re:Still can't beat a console.

[Narcogen]

A DOLLAR for a TV show? that's what Apple wants! If you ask me (and you won't) that's just stupid.

That is what Apple is proposing to charge. I do not suppose this is necessarily what Apple wants. I'd be surprised if Apple weren't happy with whatever their normal percentage is of whatever the content providers are willing to sell content for.

Historically, content providers have wanted higher pricing than Apple wanted, something they disguised behind a request for more flexible pricing.

What I do find curious about all of this is the bifurcation between the radio/music ecosystem on one hand, and the television/video ecosystem on the other.

Obviously enough people feel that $0.99 for a track of music (say around three minutes of stereo audio) is a reasonable proposition.

However, $1.99 for twenty-two minutes of video is too expensive, and $0.99 for rental of that same program is also unacceptable.

I'm not saying I disagree, I'm just saying that objectively, that would seem to be in line. Both represent transitions from advertising-supported distribution networks that are free to the end user, to an a la carte model where you pay for only what you want. Yet somehow, the much smaller music file is worth far more money per bit than the television program. Or perhaps it's just the DRM and other restrictions that make music a worthwhile purchase, and iTunes video not so much.

Re:Still can't beat a console.

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that the competitor is cable, especially cable with a DVR. Comcast Digital Starter (Harrisburg PA region, YMMV) package contains "Over 80 digital cable channels, Thousands of movies and shows with On Demand, 45 commercial-free music channels, Local programming, and all the popular cable channels". With On Demand, there is a small but decent size of streaming movies and shows, mostly free but some PPV. With a DVR you can also record any show that airs -- including sports, news, and movies. If you follow anything more than a small handful of shows, it can really add up. I could also add the argument for DRM but it can also apply to TV as well (streaming vs Download).

On a similar note, their other primary competitor is DVDs just as the primary competitor to MP3 downloads are CDs. While, I believe that $0.99 per song is roughly in line for a Music CD, is $1.99 the rough equivalent of a DVD set? It really depends on the show. For instance, Always Sunny in Philadelphia Season 5 has 10 episodes. Amazon is selling the DVD for $24.99, so I would say yes. Whereas Babylon 5 Season 1 with 22 Episodes is currently selling for $23.99 on Amazon however with a MSRP of $59.98 (So, no on current price, but yes on MSRP).

So, while I do agree with you that the price is right when it comes to what you would pay for a DVD set (especially if the download is in HD), The biggest reason many people see it as overly expensive is that it cannot really compete with what subscription tv offers which is still the 800lb gorilla. As too comparing it MP3 to radio, radio is in a whole different league to TV when it comes to selection (hundreds of premium an a few locals vs a couple dozen locals with the only premium option being Satellite radio).

Net neutrality

[codewarren]

And when the cable company says you can't use our lines for that... the guantlet for net neutrality will be thrown also.

(or when the cable company says, "look we have tv over the internet now too" like they did with phone service)

Re:Net neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

It'll be even easier than that.

This is what bandwidth caps are all about.

Re:Net neutrality

[MozeeToby]

(or when the cable company says, "look we have tv over the internet now too" like they did with phone service)

So? Let them, then there would be three TV over IP services vying for my money instead of just two (actually between Netflix, Amazon, and the possible multitude of Android based players there will be many more than three but you get the point). Though I suspect rather than "you can't use our lines for that" it will be a computer nerd shacked up in his workshop doing tests on each of the devices that discovers that the cable company's offering magically gets better bandwidth and latency than their competition. Though which cable companies will be stupid enough to pick a fight with the likes of Google and Apple at the same time remains to be seen (but you just know there will be at least one of them that thinks they can get away with it).

Re:Net neutrality

[mea37]

I doubt many cable companies, when faced with a loss of TV subscribers, will turn around and alienate their ISP subscribers with limitations on their service. I'm betting they'd like to have a hand in the delivery of TV content, even if it is only as the ISP over which someone else's digital service is delivered.

As to the Net Neutrality issue, my answer to the question has been and will still be "labeling laws". Doesn't bother me one bit if my cable company wants to say "services X, Y, and Z are not allowed on our network", so long as that's clearly stated up front.

And no, I don't expect the ever-shrinking population that only has one ISP option (or doesn't know how to find the other options) to be driving industry practices WRT network management.

Re:Net neutrality

[webheaded]

And if you're in an area where both companies do it?

I get tired about hearing about great old capitalism and choices in a market that essentially HAS NO CHOICES. I'm all for letting the market decide, but some people seem determined to fit a square peg in a round hole. It doesn't work in every single market. Stop parroting that crap and think about it for a minute. I mean seriously think. It's entirely possible that BOTH companies offering these services are simply going to dictate to you what you're allowed to do with their service and there is not a single thing you can do it. In other words, you can't vote for your wallet if there's no one there to vote for.

Re:Net neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm well don't underestimate the greed of the ISPs. In Ontario, Rogers Cable LOWERED their bandwidth caps, coincidentally of course, when Netflix announced that they would make online movies available in Canada.

Both Bell and Rogers are realizing that overages from bandwidth caps are a growing source of easy revenue. Do LESS and make MORE - what could be better?

Re:Net neutrality

[EXrider]

I doubt many cable companies, when faced with a loss of TV subscribers, will turn around and alienate their ISP subscribers with limitations on their service

Oh no, cable companies would never do such a thing!

I hope you're being sarcastic.

Re:Net neutrality

[MikeBabcock]

People are much more willing to pay $100/mo to their cable company for TV shows than for Internet access it would seem.

If cable companies just bundled TV access with Internet and only chaged for the Internet part, they might make a boat load of cash.

Re:Net neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

"They'll never do that." Really? The much loved rogers cable/internet company recently cut their 25GB bytecap to 15GB (they grandfathered existing customers but I had enough) on the announcement that NETFLIX was coming to Canada. I immediately dumped them like a sack of burning 5417 and signed up with their competitor for unlimited access for $42/mo. I love you PRIMUS.CA! Thank-you for rescuing me from the MONOPOLY! I was paying an extra $50-60 month for 25GB overages at $2.50 a GB, average bill = $100. ADIOS ROGEROS!

Re:Net neutrality

[TubeSteak]

As to the Net Neutrality issue, my answer to the question has been and will still be "labeling laws". Doesn't bother me one bit if my cable company wants to say "services X, Y, and Z are not allowed on our network", so long as that's clearly stated up front.

And no, I don't expect the ever-shrinking population that only has one ISP option (or doesn't know how to find the other options) to be driving industry practices WRT network management.

Dial-up, satellite, download capped "3G" wireless, and cable company that says "services X, Y, and Z are not allowed on our network"

What wonderful choices I have.

Re:Net neutrality

[mea37]

"I get tired about hearing about great old capitalism and choices in a market that essentially HAS NO CHOICES"

And if you were even remotely correct that there are NO CHOICES, I would agree with you.

• You can probably choose your local cable company. Some areas even have more than one.
• You can probably choose your local phone company. Some areas even have more than one.
• You can likely choose from at least a handful of satelite providers. This may be restricted for you personally if you live in an apartment, but sad as you may find this the market is not driven by your individual circumstances.
• I'm increasingly seeing people using 3G and 4G wireless service as an ISP.
• You may be able to choose an independent ISP in your area
• Much as I'm sure you hate to hear it, if nobody is offering a service you consider worth the money, you can choose not to do business with any of them.

Go on, explain to me why the last one isn't an option. Pretend broadband is necessary to survive in modern society (even though lots of people get by fine without it), or that it's a God-given right that somebody just has to provide you a service to your liking.

What you perceive as broadband being 'necessary', I perceive as the existing services being worth the money to you even though you protest otherwise.

"It's entirely possible that BOTH companies offering these services are simply going to dictate to you what you're allowed to do with their service"

"BOTH"? LOL. Ok, we'll pretend there are only two.

Right, the phone company (who hates competition in the ISP market from the cable company) is going to help the cable company compete by cooperating with a ban on IP-baed delivery of TV shows, thereby allowing the cable company to get by with such a ban. Very realistic concern.

I'm well aware of the limits of the competitive markets, but when it comes to whether those principles apply to ISP's, I'm not the one who hasn't thought the matter through.

Re:Net neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think that anyone on Slashdot feels like American ISP's are in a free market. Not sure where you're hearing about "great old capitalism and choices in a market", but I really doubt that it's on here.

Re:Net neutrality

[Even on Slashdot FOE]

If a fight is picked, it will probably be all of the cable companies vs. Google and Apple. Plus their lawyers and politicians, on both sides.

Re:Net neutrality

[commodore64_love]

Which companies would be so stupid? Well let's see:

- Comcast
- Cox
- Cablevision
- Time-Warner

In fact in 2009 these companies already met with one another, and agreed to set up a new CATV portal site that would only be accessible to cable customers. You would type in your customer number plus passcode, and gain access to free cable programming. Else you would be blocked. NEXT they laid pressure on Cable Channels by telling them they need to stop providing the programs for free (syfy.com, abcfamily.com, etc), because it was the cable companies that PAID for these programs via subscriber fees. The cable companies claimed their funding of these shows gave them first rights to distribution, and virtually all the channels have agreed.

While we've all been sleeping in front of our TVs, CRTs, or LCDs, the cable companies have quietly signed deals to lock-up these shows behind their own subscriber website. The final nail in the coffin will be enacted in 2011, when the "cable subscribers only" website goes live and the free viewing disappears. So yeah. They have taken up arms against Google, Apple, and the viewers to make sure we cannot see Cable TV online, except via the CATV website. They are powerful and not the least bit intimidated.

And what's worse: Because they are government-created monopolies, there's not a damn thing we can do to stop them. We have as little choice as deciding which electric company or natural gas company we want. The guys in Washington DC may be able to help, but I'm not holding my breath, given their tendency to favor media megacorp protectionism (ACTA, the new Online Copyright Czar, FBI crackdowns on file-sharing, et cetera).

Aside -

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

Re:Net neutrality

[mea37]

Hmm... the ancient art of proofreading.

I should probably clarify that the first two bullets were meant to read "you can probably choose to use your (local phone company | cable company) as your ISP"; this was made less clear when I added the notes about some areas having more than one of each. The point isn't whether you have choice of phone carrier - which is often a local monopoly unless you include VOIP or cell service - but rather than use of your phone carrier as your ISP is a choice you have.

Re:Net neutrality

[mrchaotica]

Consider a major city, such as Atlanta.

• The single cable company and the single phone company will likely collude to offer exactly the same restrictions (just like how they offer exactly the same speeds and prices now).
• Satellite doesn't count; it's not broadband.
• 3G is too slow and the 4G provider got bought by the cable company (and will therefore suffer the same restrictions).
• There are no independent broadband ISPs.
• Finally, doing without is not an option. Things necessary to functioning in society, such as government services, are increasingly offered only over the Internet. Not having a decent connection makes you a second-class citizen.

Re:Net neutrality

[witherstaff]

The dirty secret that never makes it to regular news is Telco's, by law, are a monopoly. The country was divided up amongst the baby bells and if you want interconnect with them they set the terms and pricing - if they allow it at all. The '96 telco reform act forced interconnects but the FCC under Bush got rid of all those pesky little rules.

Oh and taxpayers have already footed 300 billion for "high speed" internet that was never delivered and is conveniently forgotten. Politicians are paid off well. My local congressman Upton (Mi-R), if the Reps get control of the house, will be chair of the House telecommunications subcommittee. The telco's give 30K+ a year in campaign financing and his voting record shows he's in their pocket.

I'd love competition but we have corporatism and that's hard to top.

Re:Net neutrality

[commodore64_love]

How is satellite not broadband? Is it wider than the 4 kilohertz width of a phone line or 5 kilohertz AM station (aka narrowband)? Yes by a great deal. It is "broader" than the narrowband of a phoneline/AM station. So satellite is broadband. In fact it's at least one order of magnitude broader... sometimes two orders.

As for the original posters comments:

Agree: You can probably choose your local cable company. Some areas even have more than one.
Agree: You can probably choose your local phone company. Some areas even have more than one.
Disagree: You can likely choose from at least a handful of satelite providers.
Disagree: I'm increasingly seeing people using 3G and 4G wireless service as an ISP.
Disagree/Non-relevant: You may be able to choose an independent ISP in your area

I disagree with satellite and wireless internet, because they are waaaay too expensive. 5-10 times more than what my DSL line costs, so they are not realistic options (anymore than I could choose to buy a Ferrari instead of a Civic). On the last one: I'm not aware of any independent ISPs. The state government has granted a monopoly to Comcast and Verizon which prevents any other ISP from operating.

You are the typical Libertarian: You have ideals (free market gives the power of Choice to the people) but fail to see when your ideals don't fit into the real world - like the electric, natural gas, and phone monopolies (aka natural monopolies) - and do not adjust your thinking to fit the real world limitations. I've found most libertarians are like that - as if they were horses with blinders, and can only see the narrow path of idealism and don't see real world cases where the ideals break down.
.

Re:Net neutrality

[commodore64_love]

>>>taxpayers have already footed 300 billion for "high speed" internet that was never delivered and is conveniently forgotten

Citation please.

And I don't mean a blog of someone's opinion which has no facts to support it. I mean an actual provable citation. Why? Because I've read through the 1996 Act, and most of the money was appropriated to upgrading phone lines from analog to digital, in order to increase connections from ~24k to the then cutting edge ~50k. For the most part, companies did that. They complied with Congresses' order to enable digital internet on the phones.

If you think that was a lousy way to spend the money, don't blame the telcos. Blame the lawmakers.

Re:Net neutrality

[thynk]

Well... I for one have to insist that living without broadband is even an option to consider. I work from a home office about 50% of the time. I have 2 ISPs, one for office use and one for everything else. Neither of them puts bandwidth caps or sniffs my packets.

I live in a town of less than 8k people, and live well outside the city limits, even we have 3 choices for ISPs. So I agree with you, there is always a choice.

Re:Net neutrality

[cayenne8]

"Finally, doing without is not an option. Things necessary to functioning in society, such as government services, are increasingly offered only over the Internet. Not having a decent connection makes you a second-class citizen."

While I agree many government services ARE coming online and makes for convenience, I don't think you can name ONE that isn't still available the old fashioned way, where you go to the office, wait in line, but finally deal with a live person to get your business done.

At least I've not seen a single service refused due to not being online.

Re:Net neutrality

[mea37]

So if two services offer the same speeds, that's evidence of collusion; but if a service offers different speeds, that excludes it from consideration because it doesn't meet your arbitrary definition of "broadband". Interesting.

Well, I'm going to address all of your comments in the context of your claim that broadband is necessary for access to government services, in spite of the fact that such a claim is nothing but an oft-repeated lie.

• I don't believe your claim of collusion between the phone company and the cable company. In the case we're discussing (restricting TV-over-IP), such collusion would directly contradict the phone company's interests. If you think collusion is occuring, raise the issue in court; that's why we have anti-trust laws. (That is of course if, as you claim, the two acting together would constitute a monopoly.)
• Satellite counts. Name a government service that you cannot access with sat service because it's too slow.
• 3G counts. Name a government service that you cannot access with 3G because it's too slow.
• I'm sorry to hear you're unaware of the independent options in your area; your lack of awareness does not a monopoly make.
• I already challenged anyone who wanted to make this claim to back it up, but instead you've chosen to just parrot it blindly. Even if we pretend it were true, you can access your government services over the Internet without having broadband in your home. The fact that you can spend money on new options that make your life easier does not mean that a person who doesn't spend money on those options is a 'second class citizen'

Re:Net neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in the San Francisco Bay Area in California.

I live IN Silicon Valley, not next to it. I'm literally (the real definition, not the fake one) less than 1 mile from AMD world headquarters and less than 5 miles from Google HQ. I cannot get cable OR phone broadband. That's right. NEITHER will service me. Even if I could get cable, I wouldn't have a choice, ONLY Comcast has cable in my market. My ONLY option for broadband is wireless (which isn't all that fast and is hideously expensive... 3Mb symmetric for ~$500/mo). You can pretend that there's "multiple" choices everywhere, but it just isn't true. This isn't some backwater hick town... this is the center of tech for our entire country.

Re:Net neutrality

[mrchaotica]

How is satellite not broadband? Is it wider than the 4 kilohertz width of a phone line or 5 kilohertz AM station (aka narrowband)?

I assumed we were talking about "broadband" in the networking sense, not in the RF sense. The relevant meaning of "broadband" is something more like "at least 1MBps and reasonable latency for both download and upload" -- a standard which satellite didn't meet, last time I checked (have they moved beyond dialup upload by now?)

You are the typical Libertarian: You have ideals (free market gives the power of Choice to the people) but fail to see when your ideals don't fit into the real world - like the electric, natural gas, and phone monopolies (aka natural monopolies) - and do not adjust your thinking to fit the real world limitations.

First of all, what did I say that had anything to do with being libertarian?

Second of all, I'm not (big-L) Libertarian. I'm anti-authoritarian, if that's what you mean, but then again, so are most Americans who aren't too distracted by "left vs. right" bullshit to think about it.

Unlike these strawman Libertarians you're talking about, I understand the tragedy of the commons and natural monopolies.

Personally, I think the real solution is for the government to declare ISPs as Common Carriers (which implies net neutrality) and be done with it.

Re:Net neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

I get tired about hearing about great old capitalism and choices in a market that essentially HAS NO CHOICES.

I only hear it mentioned by people too stupid to realize what capitalism is and how this is not an example there of. Not a single fucking post above yours (in thread, not chronology AFAIK) mentions capitalism. Maybe if you didn't invoke words you don't understand you wouldn't be so damn tired of hearing them.

Re:Net neutrality

[commodore64_love]

>>>I assumed we were talking about "broadband" in the networking sense, not in the RF sense.

Then you are using the word incorrectly. The word "broadband" can only ever be used when talking about Frequencies, not bits. The latter is the DATARATE. :-) You could have a channel that is very broad in frequency, but still very slow in datarate. Like TV closed captioning. Or ELF radio.
.

>>>The relevant meaning of "broadband" is something more like "at least 1MBps and reasonable latency for both download and upload"

Citation please. Last I checked anything greater than Dialup (56k) or ISDN (128k) speed is considered a high speed network. Even my 750k line is considered high speed per FCC regs.
.

>>> a standard which satellite didn't meet, last time I checked (have they moved beyond dialup upload by now?)

Satellite provides 1.5 Mbit/s (Wild Blue company). Or more.

Re:Net neutrality

[commodore64_love]

Ati-authoritarian and libertarian are basically the same thing. Unless you go to the extreme of "anarchist" but I don't that's true.
.

>>>I understand the tragedy of the commons and natural monopolies.

Then how come you can't understand that ISPs are a natural monopoly (or so government has decreed), thereby limiting the People's choices to cable or telco? As for the common carrier deal, it's not that simple. Phone companies are common carriers and yet still have the right to limit services whenever they feel like it.

Re:Net neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

We have as little choice as deciding which electric company or natural gas company we want.

For you and other Marylanders, that is a lie, Troll64. And your implication that we are now better off is just plain fantasy.

Re:Net neutrality

[witherstaff]

The best place for complete info is broadband scandal. Lots of footnotes, actual wording from contracts is included. It's a free ebook and worth a perusal at the least.

The 20 page NJ case study shows how bell was allowed a rate increase specifically for fiber to the home, took in a billion extra from this and only had an outlay of about 79 million. They also paid almost a billion extra in dividends.

What I blame the lawmakers for is making laws and rules and then never enforcing them, or even seeing if the rules are being carried out and/or turning a blind eye. I blame the telcos for stifling competition by acting like the monopolies they are.

Re:Net neutrality

[mrchaotica]

Then how come you can't understand that ISPs are a natural monopoly (or so government has decreed), thereby limiting the People's choices to cable or telco?

I can understand that. You're the one who's trying to argue that we have some sort of non-imaginary choice here.

There's nothing wrong with having a natural monopoly, as long as you recognize it for what it is and regulate it appropriately. But the problem here is that some people, such as yourself, want us to pretend there's real competition and let the telcos and cablecos do whatever the fuck they want!

As for the common carrier deal, it's not that simple. Phone companies are common carriers and yet still have the right to limit services whenever they feel like it.

But they absolutely don't have the right to decide things like who you are or are not allowed to call or what you want to talk about, which is what the ISPs want to be able to do.

Re:Net neutrality

[commodore64_love]

BGE still owns all the NG pipes and electrical wires.
You still have to pay BGE.
You have no choice.

Re:Net neutrality

[Americano]

But that requires you to leave the basement, shave, and go out in public. Around icky people. For some on slashdot, that might not be an option...

Re:Net neutrality

[webheaded]

So we either get really shitty and SLOW internet or we get really fast and RESTRICTED internet? Those are AWESOME choices. Where do I sign up? Also no, the option to not have any internet is not actually an option, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.

You can't call it fair competition when the players in the market have forced monopolies. I don't know if you're dense or just being facetious.

Re:Net neutrality

[Narcogen]

>>>I assumed we were talking about "broadband" in the networking sense, not in the RF sense.

Then you are using the word incorrectly. The word "broadband" can only ever be used when talking about Frequencies, not bits. The latter is the DATARATE. :-) You could have a channel that is very broad in frequency, but still very slow in datarate. Like TV closed captioning. Or ELF radio. .

>>>The relevant meaning of "broadband" is something more like "at least 1MBps and reasonable latency for both download and upload"

Citation please. Last I checked anything greater than Dialup (56k) or ISDN (128k) speed is considered a high speed network. Even my 750k line is considered high speed per FCC regs. .

>>> a standard which satellite didn't meet, last time I checked (have they moved beyond dialup upload by now?)

Satellite provides 1.5 Mbit/s (Wild Blue company). Or more.

The FCC defines broadband as 4Mbps and higher.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadband_Internet_access

While the note about frequencies vs data rate is technically correct (the best kind of correct) in the context of this discussion, it is a bit pedantic. The term "broadband" is being used as generally understood-- as high data rate, relatively low latency Internet access.

Even if we extended the definition, as many people do, beyond the FCC's 4Mbps to commonly available services down to 1Mbps, any satellite system with telco return (56K dialup or perhaps ISDN) would not qualify.

Most people in the US have, at best, a choice between two such providers, where they have any. Many have only one choice.

Re:Net neutrality

[nb_002]

As to the Net Neutrality issue, my answer to the question has been and will still be "labeling laws". Doesn't bother me one bit if my cable company wants to say "services X, Y, and Z are not allowed on our network", so long as that's clearly stated up front.

The problem is not that the ISP's would fail to tell us, but rather if they decide to deny a service, users rarely have an alternative. Most markets only have one broadband provider in the home to chose from.

Re:Net neutrality

[theaveng]

Yeah as of just a few months ago - prior to that it was "faster than 128k". And in a few more years it probably be changed again to "faster than 20 M." You see what happens when words lose their meaning? You create arbitrary definitions that can be altered to whatever the politicians desire. ("Freedom is badspeak. Obedience is doubleplusgood.") Anyway the FCC can go fuck themselves - they allow the most hideous violence on TV, and yet when Miss Jackson's nipple appears for half-a-second they have a royal fit like Puritan nutjobs.

Their *opinion* means nothing to me because that's all it is: opinion. I will stick with the true, engineering definition of broadband - i.e. anything significantly wider than a 4 kilohertz phone line. Therefore: I consider my 1 Mbps line broadband since it is several hundred kHz wide. I can access any part of the net I wish, including video streaming sites (not possible with narrowband dialup). Likewise I consider the 1.5 Mbit/s satellite as broadband.

IMHO satellite's main flaw is not its speed (which is 30+ times faster than dialup) but its cost. Same with wireless internet. And that is what limits people's choices to the CATV or Telco duopoly.

Re:Net neutrality

[commodore64_love]

>>>But the problem here is that some people, such as yourself, want us to pretend there's real competition and let the telcos and cablecos do whatever the fuck they want!

I never said anything like that. I want the government-created monopolies (Comcast, Version, etc) to be as strictly regulated as the electric or natural gas or sewer companies. Perhaps even price-fixed such that increases in rate must first be approved by the State's Public Utility Commission.

Either that or allow true competition. Let Comcast, Cox, Cablevision, Time-Warner, and so on all coexist in the same city, and let the choice to the customer of which one they want. Give power to the people. ----- But the current situation? No I don't support it at all, and you are mistaken to think I do.
.

>>>But phone companies absolutely don't have the right to decide things like who you are or are not allowed to call, or what you want to talk about

Yeah actually they do. They don't control the content, but the common carrier phone companies do control who you call, by imposing fees to limit your reach. My non-regulated ISP lets me log into the European Union's website at the same cost as accessing my own website (i.e. free), but if I wanted to call the neighboring city only 30 miles away, the common carrier telco socks me with a 10 cent per minute charge. "Give ISPs common carrier status and all will be fixed," is a naive solution. That's a good idea but not enough. Net neutrality is needed.
.

They haven't challenged anyone

[js3]

Is it just me or it's all hype and nothing to show for. Just because it has "google" and "apple" in it doesn't mean squat. They aren't relevant at all when it comes to TV.

Re:They haven't challenged anyone

[guruevi]

Yet. Apple wasn't relevant in the music market, mp3 player market, tablet market, smartphone market and at one time not even relevant (anymore) in the computer market.

Re:They haven't challenged anyone

[jedidiah]

Apple has already failed at this "hobby" of theirs and all they've really done this time around is release a less capable device.

This is the same old AppleTV as before. The only real change is the addition of a service that is already being bundled in nearly ever other consumer video device out there (netflix). ...that and a decreased ability to play non-Apple content.

Re:They haven't challenged anyone

[Richard_at_work]

What I want to know is how is GoogleTV battling for anything - its still vapourware!

Re:They haven't challenged anyone

[Anonymous Coward]

Any eventual AppleTV product will only properly work with Apple hardware, it will be successful with the college and gadget audience, it will sell out to the media companies, and its cost will be comparative or more than cable/satellite. Google TV will work with most platforms, it will be unknown but famous with the nerd crowd, it will have regular occurring downtime or issues, it will be free or very cheap, and it will eventually be cancelled because Google didn't put enough attention on the project. See? History is useful.

Re:They haven't challenged anyone

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it just me or is that all cynicism and no insight? Just because it sounds skeptical doesn't mean squat. The historical lack of involvement of those brands to TV is barely relevant to their current efforts to enter the market.

Re:They haven't challenged anyone

[Anonymous Coward]

They're still not relevant to me in any of those markets.

Re:They haven't challenged anyone

[sheddd]

They haven't gained significant TV viewing marketshare YET; me and many others believe that the cable/broadcast/satellite business models are going to fail when their customers migrate to newer, cheaper, a la carte options like free .torrents, the apple store, google tv, or whatever else gets created.

Re:They haven't challenged anyone

[Doc Ruby]

And Google wasn't relative in the video market until it bought YouTube, since when it's been synonymous with "Internet TV". TV even has a whole show replaying YouTube clips.

Re:They haven't challenged anyone

[Anonymous Coward]

The google TV is way more aggressive than the apple tv as it'll run apps from its marketplace. They could even market the google tv as a gaming device.

Re:They haven't challenged anyone

[babyrat]

uhhh, Apple TV has been out for many years and works fine with non-apple wifi and non apple computers. It does require iTunes, but last I heard iTunes was software, not hardware.

There's no reason to assume the new Apple TV won't work the same way, just without the streaming of video from whatever computer iTunes is on.

Re:They haven't challenged anyone

[timeOday]

Just because it has "google" and "apple" in it doesn't mean squat. They aren't relevant at all when it comes to TV.

From my own little corner of the world, the leaders in Internet TV appear to be Netflix and Hulu, not google (youtube is not TV shows or movies), nor Apple (do Sony, Samsung, or ANY major brand TV's have built-in support for Apple's streaming service?)

Re:They haven't challenged anyone

[Anonymous Coward]

I have an Apple TV and I disagree that GoogleTV and Apple TV are irrelevant to TV. On the contrary, I think they will be the future of home entertainment. Here is why:

First, my anecdote is that I bought an AppleTV and canceled my cable after the cable company increased prices to an atrocious level. I don't watch TV nearly enough for it to be worth the price it went to. So I canceled cable and got an Apple TV. Now, I watch what I want when I want it with no commercials. Also, with my level of purchases, I save about 40 or 50 dollars a month. There were only three or four channels that ever offered anything that remotely interested me, so why should I have to pay for the hundreds of other channels I have no interest in?

Now imagine what happens when Apple and Google inevitably add an "all you can watch" service for a flat monthly fee. Then anyone will be able to watch what they want and when they want it and as much as they want. As 2011 approaches, cable companies still for the most part only offer statically scheduled programming, except for limited on demand choices which many have to be payed for per use. Cable companies are stuck in the 80s today and they have in no way adapted themselves to modern times. When people are able to experience watching what they want and when they want it, there will be no reason anyone would want Cable TV anymore and they will go the way of being broadband providers only if the telecos don't beat them out. What's more, we'll inevitably in the near future be able to use services like iTunes to watch what we want where ever we want with our smart phones. Cable will never be able to provide that. The only thing remaining for them to be able to add is streaming for live TV broadcasts, but that will be inevitably added at some point, too.

Apple TV, iTunes, GoogleTV, etc are the next billion dollar entertainment industries. Just watch.

Doesn't matter

[qsqueeq]

My wife still gets the remote.

Re:Doesn't matter

[cayenne8]

"My wife still gets the remote."

Grow a pair man....get it back!!

Re:Doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Grow a pair man

A pair of what - moobs?

Re:I fucked your dog

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh nooo, dog!

Youtube better

[AnonymousClown]

This is good news for both Google and Apple. Bad news for the networks. But lets face it, when YouTube with its piano playing cats, hyperactive teenagers and snippets of prime time TV manages to outperform the major networks, the major networks have only themselves to blame!

Cats? I use Youtube for instructional videos and things like that. Reading about something, anything, and don't understand it? Somewhere there's a video that shows you how to do it. Want to know what is the real deal that Wall Street cut with the Congressmen? Go to Youtube.

Because network TV just rehashes the same shit.

PBS turned into the Antiques, Beatles, Wayne Dyer, Suzy Orman, Ken Burns network.

Re:Youtube better

[Anonymous Coward]

I use Youtube for instructional videos and things like that. Reading about something, anything, and don't understand it? Somewhere there's a video that shows you how to do it. Want to know what is the real deal that Wall Street cut with the Congressmen ? Go to Youtube.

Better than network TV, admittedly, but still not as good as piano-playing cats.

Re:Youtube better

[geekoid]

HASHAHAHAHAHA... You use youtube to get political info? Yeah, enjoy your echo chamber, chump.

Re:Youtube better

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean on Saturday's they aren't Showing "This Old House" or Hometime anymore?

Lesser evil

[guyminuslife]

Hmmm. So do I want a locked-down, shiny piece of Jobsified crap, or do I want a television that watches me? [insert pre-emptive "In Soviet Russia..." here]

Oh, who am I kidding, I want them both.

Re:Lesser evil

[jdgeorge]

Seriously, give credit where it's due. The Apple one watches you as much as (or more than?) the Google one.

And the "locked down" bit is a red herring. Apple devices can be jailbroken, and it's really a rare person who will load something other than official firmware on his device.

I think the differentiator you're looking for is which shiny piece of crap is Jobsified. There's a degree of polish and reassuring smugness that doesn't grow anywhere else but Apple. Not to mention the value of Apple as an attractant for the ladies.

As for me, I will only interested in one that plays well with my other media components.

Re:Lesser evil

[jdgeorge]

As for me, I will only interested in one that plays well with my other media components.

Doh! Not to mention my interest in a device that helps me avoid posting broken grammar in this intellectually rigorous forum.

Re:Lesser evil

[don_carnage]

What about Tivo? Doesn't that device recommend shows based on your viewing habits?

Re:Lesser evil

[Machtyn]

How about www.afterthedeadline.com?

Re:Lesser evil

[Narcogen]

Seriously, give credit where it's due. The Apple one watches you as much as (or more than?) the Google one.

Perhaps, but for most people, Apple has less data to correlate.

Both run an email service, but I'm willing to wager that Google's is more ubiquitous.

Google runs a search engine; Apple doesn't. Google uses information in your mailbox to figure out what ads to show you on any device where you use a Google account. There's no iAd program I'm aware of outside the handheld sphere. So while Apple is watching you while you're on an iOS device, Google is watching you everywhere.

Google's business model gives them a lot more interest in leveraging information they have about you in some other sphere, and hence more incentive to abuse, than Apple currently does, because most of Apple's ecosystems exist to add value to their primary products, which are consumer electronics devices, not content.

Google has no such business. It's in advertising. Google's information about you is their business. The free services they offer are just ways to get you to give them that information. Every new potential use of that information is a new potential revenue stream for Google, whereas if new information about you doesn't lead directly to you having a better feeling about your Apple device, or make you more likely to buy more Apple devices in the future, it has relatively little value to Apple-- at least, at the current time.

With the growth of iAds being what it is, this may not be the case for much longer.

Re:I fucked your dog

[lxs]

Get off the computer mom.

Quality

[Stele]

Until I can get everything I want in 1080P with 5.1 surround I'm not interested.

Re:Quality

[somersault]

I used to feel like that, but I started watching youtube a lot a few months ago for random tutorials and Parkour videos. For certain things, quality really doesn't matter.

For music, TV shows and movies, hell yes I want decent quality - though I'm generally happy with DVD quality for TV series, and only bust out the blu-rays for big action movies.

Re:Quality

[Sechr Nibw]

Apparently, later this year, you'll be able to do 1080p on the Roku HD-XR (which happens to be Woot's deal of the day today, a refurb). I'm not certain it does 5.1, but it does digital optical out, so chances are good.

Re:Quality

[Anonymous Coward]

Until I can get everything I want in 1080P with 5.1 surround I'm not interested.

Don't forget to get your Monster HDMI cable and Denon Cat 5 cable to get that extra clarity on your digital stream.

Re:Quality

[wiredog]

And how much are you willing to pay for that bandwidth? Unlimited, of course...

Re:Quality

[JambisJubilee]

Seriously, WHAT is your problem? For every Slashdot article, there's always some nitpicking asshat who makes a comment like this. NOTHING will make you happy. When Apple released a Macbook Pro : "Until Apple decides to offer a DA-15 game port, I'm not interested". Google introduces gmail: "Until Google decides to offer regular expressions in the text box, I'm not interested"

Give me a break, the whole point of the article has nothing to do with 1080p and 5.1 surround. It's about major players changing the status quo of the entire tv/movie industry.

Sheesh. Talk about missing the forest for the trees.

Re:Quality

[Anonymous Coward]

Quality matters less the more interesting something is. For network TV & Hollywood movies, you probably need better quality to impress.

http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2010/08/rice_video_quality_study.php

Re:Quality

[Gulthek]

Not 7.1 surround sound?

I use blu-ray for the quality movies that I want to max out my home theater. For watching anything else Netflix or Hulu is perfectly adequate.

Re:Quality

[Stele]

What is my problem? I've been enjoying HD content for many years, and willingly paying for that with satellite subscriptions.

Now Apple comes out with a new Apple TV they claim will change the world, and it can't even do 1080i let alone 1080P, and hardly any content with surround sound. And people think this is progress?

My PROBLEM is people/companies who think I'll happily settle for 1990s quality just because they have some box that will "revolutionize" (oh, sorry, "change the status quo" of) television. Give me a break.

Re:Quality

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you get netflix on your satellite box?

Re:Quality

[Stele]

No but I get it off my DVD player and PS3. Some of the content there is 1080P but not much, and none of it is surround. I mostly stream Netflix for the kids.

Re:Quality

[Anonymous Coward]

Hipster please - 1080p with 5.1? That's so last year. 4k video with 7.1 surround, or bust.

I'd tell you where you could get that sort of content, but trust me, you've never heard of it.

Re:Quality

[JambisJubilee]

I think people will settle for "1990s quality", because for most the resolution of the video stream isn't the most important metric. Heck, look up your favorite TV show/film on The Pirate Bay and see which one has the most seeds. I can guarantee you Google will PRINT money with this thing, because having access to interesting content is more valuable than high resolution.

UI?

[UnknowingFool]

From the demo, Google TV requires some sort of keyboard/mouse interface. From the FAQ, it doesn't appear that it will be a standard Bluetooth one. Other the other end, Apple has a simplified remote but will allow for control through one of the iOS devices. I think where the battle will be won is how consumers will like the UI.

Re:UI?

[Zizagoo]

From the demo, Google TV requires some sort of keyboard/mouse interface. From the FAQ, it doesn't appear that it will be a standard Bluetooth one. Other the other end, Apple has a simplified remote but will allow for control through one of the iOS devices. I think where the battle will be won is how consumers will like the UI.

At the demo in Berlin they said there will be both Android and iOS apps for controlling Google TV. They even mentioned voice search integration.

Re:UI?

[Speare]

At the demo in Berlin they said there will be both Android and iOS apps for controlling Google TV. They even mentioned voice search integration.

I can just see it now. I'm watching a Star Trek episode, and Picard gives the shipboard computer a prompt, such as "Computer! Find all Starfleet regulations on personnel transfers." Suddenly my television starts playing a completely different program in my video library. Hopefully not something I put in the "embarrassing" folder.

Re:UI?

[DdJ]

Apart from the "control through the iOS devices" (which just uses the same "Remote" app you can use to control iTunes or the old version of AppleTV today), the whole "AirPlay" thing is potentially quite interesting. From what I've read, it sounds like a random buddy can come over with an iPhone that has a video loaded on it, start playing it, and transfer the output wirelessly to the TV. Yeah... I have a use for that.

Re:UI?

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

You freely admit, under no duress, that you watch Star Trek. That is the nadir, bottom, minima. You can't be shamed any more. You don't need embarrassing folder.

Re:UI?

[Anonymous Coward]

So did they figure out if Data is the property of Starfleet or not? (ok ok.. I probably watch too much of it)

Re:UI?

[farble1670]

yeah, because i want to go find my phone and drain the batteries just to flip channels. real convenient.

Re:UI?

[Anonymous Coward]

who let this guy on /.?

Re:UI?

[symes]

Welcome to slashdot - induction will be this Friday

Re:UI?

[gclef]

It's not that Star Trek is embarrassing (seriously? This is slashdot), the real problem here is that Speare's just indirectly admitted to having Wil Wheaton porn. *That's* embarrassing.

Re:UI?

[smcn]

Minima is plural.

Re:UI?

[geekoid]

And not even the good Star Trek.

Re:UI?

[AshtangiMan]

Interesting point, but I usually have my phone with me, and the charging cord sits next to the chair I sit in when I'm watching TV. So for me it would be convenient as it fits with my already established pattern. Though when I saw the iRemote apps my initial reaction was pretty much what you said.

Re:UI?

[Anonymous Coward]

... "Computer! Find all Starfleet regulations on personnel transfers." ....

Is it sad that I knew immediately that that's from The Measure of a Man? (One of the best TNG episodes, IMHO.)

Re:UI?

[Anonymous Coward]

ya, because who cares whether you can watch your favorite show or not, as long as the windows are animated.

Re:UI?

[cyborch]

I think the number of hollywood shows available on a given box will be the deciding factor. I hope UI will be the deciding factor, but I fear it won't.

Re:UI?

[DragonWriter]

From the FAQ, it doesn't appear that it will be a standard Bluetooth one.

From looking at some of the partner sites, it looks like each of the hardware vendors that is producing devices (TVs, boxes, etc.) with GoogleTV in is planning to include some kind of remote device. I suspect that Google isn't dictating what those hardware vendors do in that regard, so can't be overly specific as to the form of the remote device.

Apple, being the sole AppleTV hardware vendor, can be very specific.

The cable company still wins

[Anonymous Coward]

with the rate structure in most areas of the US basically charging you the same amount whether or not you get cable TV with your internet connection, the cable company is still coming out on top, at least for the time being.

Roku?

[Anonymous Coward]

No mention of Roku? Great little device so far, Netflix and Youtube stream straight to my old style TV with no issues via wireless.

Internet service bundled with cable TV

[tepples]

I don't have cable because I'm a pirating bastard who hates commercials.

Where I live, subscribers to Xfinity Internet by Comcast get limited basic cable TV (locals and public access) at pretty much no extra charge. So how do people where you live get Internet without cable TV?

Re:Internet service bundled with cable TV

[Anonymous Coward]

Cable isn't the only way to get on the interwebs.

Re:Internet service bundled with cable TV

[ProppaT]

I subscribe to cable modem service, but my provider puts a filter on the line that prevents basic cable reception. So, there ya go!

Re:Internet service bundled with cable TV

[IANAAC]

So how do people where you live get Internet without cable TV?

You probably also think the only safe drinking water comes from a bottle, too, right?

Re:Internet service bundled with cable TV

[tepples]

I subscribe to cable modem service, but my provider puts a filter on the line that prevents basic cable reception.

How much do you pay for your cable modem service? More importantly, how much more would you be paying if you also subscribed to limited basic cable TV service?

Re:Internet service bundled with cable TV

[tepples]

So how do people where you live get Internet without cable TV?

You probably also think the only safe drinking water comes from a bottle, too, right?

That analogy would be easier to understand if there were an ISP counterpart to tap water. Are you thinking of dial-up?

Re:Internet service bundled with cable TV

[bsDaemon]

I also only pay for cable internet access but not TV. I think it'd only be like, $20 a month more to get basic cable TV, but I'm not $20 worth of interested in television and won't pay for it.

Re:Internet service bundled with cable TV

[Gulthek]

Naked DSL (or dry loop DSL): no phone, just DSL. Cheap, fast, easy. Verizon has plans from $20 to $40 per month.

Re:Internet service bundled with cable TV

[TooMuchToDo]

I switched from Comcast ($67/month for just internet) to Clear ($70/month for one home router and one mobile router). I get all my content over Netflix and Hulu (plus a little bit of PlayOn for Mr. Stewart and Mr. Colbert.

Re:Internet service bundled with cable TV

[ProppaT]

I pay $45 a month for my cable modem Internet service. I believe the cheapest cable package offered is $20 a month, which basically gives you OTA channels and a few foreign language channels. After that, for any package with real "cable channels," the price jumps fairly dramatically. I believe the cheapest bundled service is $79.99 or $89.99, and that includes no cable box. The only HD content you receive at that price point are the OTA channels.

Needless to say, I pay for the Internet and and watch all my tv either OTA or streamed via Hulu, PlayOn, and my Xbox to my tv. I'm holding out for IPTV.

Re:Internet service bundled with cable TV

[Nursie]

Here in Australia I bought my internet in a box!

There's a WiMax service here in Perth. Speeds are nothing to brag about (up to 3-6MBit depending on time of day it seems) but it's reliable and I just have to plug it into the power socket. Also I plug my phone into the WiMax router. No data or voice wired connection needed!

Re:Internet service bundled with cable TV

[cayenne8]

"I subscribe to cable modem service, but my provider puts a filter on the line that prevents basic cable reception. So, there ya go!"

Well, a couple of things you can do.

Complain over and over that you're not getting your speeds...they may take the filter off to fix that. If you by chance have a business acct (I like this option, anyone can get one)...this really works well.

And/or if your lucky, and have the little junction box they are putting on the side of the houses now...you can order a nifty little tool that can help you easily open it up to examine for any 'malfunctioning' filters.

Of course, I just heard this from a friend..that was looking into this for purely educational reasons.

You might be outta luck if you're with Comcast in areas...I hear they're eliminating analog cable completely, but most cable co's you can at least search with QAM for the free local HD stations.

Re:Internet service bundled with cable TV

[Anonymous Coward]

I simply tell them I don't want cable and I only want internet. 39.99 a month for 12 megabit. Oregon

Shake up

[kdogg73]

I pretty much basically watch public television (PBS) and Netflix. I don't have cable or satellite service.

The media is prime for a shake up. But I'm not sure anyone can deliver us from hundreds of channels of crap. I mean, if Hollywood is already out of ideas, now banking on remakes, neither Apple or Google can help much, but only serve us classic reruns with a better user experience. :/

Re:Shake up

[cyclomedia]

NO MORE CHANNELS

Which is what the big media companies hate. The idea that you wont just sit there ingesting whatever brand sponsored crap that they decide to feed you hour after hour.

TVs not Boxes

[Anonymous Coward]

Neither will win in the end as all TV manufacturers will include similar options built-in.
Google and Apple will need to produce their own TVs rather than just boxes to plugin.

Re:TVs not Boxes

[mjwx]

Neither will win in the end as all TV manufacturers will include similar options built-in. Google and Apple will need to produce their own TVs rather than just boxes to plugin.

In that case, Google will win as they've already show they are willing to work with, manufacturers, carriers, content providers and so forth with Android. Google will be more then happy to make a deal with Samsung to put Google TV into the Series 10 or 11 TV's. Samsung will be happy to put withGoogleTV(TM) on the box.

Apple on the other hand is extremely hostile to anyone.

I dont spend much time watching TV

[FudRucker]

Television has WAY too much annoying advertising for my comfort, I watch a little bit of local news & weather and if there is a really good old movie on TCM (Turner Classic Movies) I will watch it, and if the History Channel or Discovery Channel has any really good shows on I will record them to a DVR so i can fast forward through all the advertising.

as far as network television goes like american idol or any of that other brainless crap goes i would not watch it to save my soul from hell.

Re:I dont spend much time watching TV

[cygnwolf]

as far as network television goes like american idol or any of that other brainless crap goes i would not watch it to save my soul from hell.

Got that right, I feel like not watching is the way to save your soul.

Re:I dont spend much time watching TV

[Eponymous Coward]

I don't spend much time watching TV either, but not because I think it's brainless crap. I just don't have enough time. Honestly, I think TV is fantastically good these days. There are some extremely well written and produced shows on TV and I really do wish I had more time to watch.

Like you, I very rarely watch live tv though. I use the DVR and Netflix for most of what I actually do watch.

BTW, I would put local news and weather in the pile I label crap. They are poorly produced, sensationalist, consultant driven productions (I'm assuming you are in the US). I've moved around the US a little bit and the local news is the exact same in every city. The same sets, the same talking heads, waving flag graphics, color schemes, music, and network feeds. They all call their weather segments storm-tracker-weather or something similar. Watching local news is like saying you shop at the local walmart.

Re:I dont spend much time watching TV

[FudRucker]

when you live in Tornado Alley (like i do) you tend to keep a close eye on the weather from various sources.

Re:I dont spend much time watching TV

[Cro Magnon]

The problem is, the weather bozos go into panic mode if there's weather within 500 miles. I've seen them cancel shows for hours to talk about a tornado in some town I've never heard of, while outside my window the sun is shining and the birds are singing.

Re:I dont spend much time watching TV

[MaWeiTao]

Good luck. Considering how dependent networks are on advertising revenue rest assured we'll have to suffer through advertising online just the same. And I'm sure they'll make it so that it can't be skipped. If anything, this technology will allow advertising to be more invasive.

Re:I dont spend much time watching TV

[adolf]

And I've seen a blue sky on a clear, calm day turn black in a matter of minutes as fronts converge overhead. At an outdoor festival, with lots of folks around and little proper shelter. By the time the official NWS warning happened (and there never was a watch issued), things had calmed.

Fortunately (if you can say that) I was keeping active tabs on the radar at the time. I saw some systems converging overhead on radar that beautiful afternoon, and gave the order to tarp the speakers because it was going to rain.

I was conservative in my estimate. We were very lucky that nobody really got hurt. Things flooded, stuff blew away, properly-installed commercial tents failed.

Next time, I'm bringing a TV, not just a laptop. A little bit of broadcast fear-mongering and forecasting experience would have done a lot to encourage me to order more protection for people and property earlier, instead of too little.

I'm just sayin'. Just because the weather is nice where you are, doesn't mean that just over the horizon it's not raining puppies and raping horses, and those folks are certainly appreciative of "panic mode" weather reporting when that happens.

But whatever the case: If you're relying on what it looks like outside to tell you what's going to happen soon, you're doing it wrong.

TV is so 20th century

[tverbeek]

I can't help wondering if they're fighting over the best deck-chair seating on the Titanic. I haven't turned my TV on in months.

Re:TV is so 20th century

[dbet]

And you're representative of everyone? A lot of people watch TV at least some of the time, on their TV.

Re:TV is so 20th century

[microTodd]

So you don't watch any shows or movies at all? No DVDs? No Netflix? No ESPN3 or Hulu or abc.com?

Or do you watch it on your LCD monitor instead of a 42" HDTV in the living room on the couch?

Re:TV is so 20th century

[Cro Magnon]

Don't know about the GP, but most of my TV really IS 20th century, literally. Much of what I watch is old reruns from the last century. Most of the new stuff is crap.

Re:TV is so 20th century

[geekoid]

Yes..assuming the titanic consists of just you.

Please, 100s of millions of people watch TV in the US

Re:TV is so 20th century

[tverbeek]

In the last few months I've been to the theater several times (which I admit is really 20th century), but I haven't rented any DVDs lately. ESPN3... are you kidding? No Hulu or other streaming substitutes for network programming: for the past few months there has simply not been anything on that I want to watch.

Granted, I'll be firing up the TV again shortly now that the few series I'm interested in watching will have new episodes again. But I don't know of any new ones that I want to watch. The trend in how I spend my free time has been gradually drifting away from TV for years now. And studies show that I'm not alone.

Re:TV is so 20th century

[Anonymous Coward]

not as many as used to. maybe youre still sitting there slack-jawed staring at the tv, but tv audiences are getting smaller and smaller. it's called a "trend", moron. google it.

Google Instant Search

[cwgmpls]

That's what Google Instant Search is for. Nobody really wants to do an instant search of the entire web -- it is too big. But an instant search of a movie database makes much more sense. Google Instant Search is designed to make Google TV usable with a few keystrokes from a small remote.

Also XBox / Windows Media Center in fray

[figleaf]

I used Media Center to stream to my TV for quite some time before the novelty wore off.
MCE is great because you can stream any media (some with additional addins).

My TV watching hours have gone down to zero.
Nowadays I just use XBMC whenever I need the 10-foot experience.

Re:Also XBox / Windows Media Center in fray

[webheaded]

Nowadays I just use XBMC whenever I need the 10-foot experience.

That what she s---aw I just can't bring myself to do it.

Re:Also XBox / Windows Media Center in fray

[drinkypoo]

Nowadays I just use XBMC whenever I need the 10-foot experience.

XBMC on a $200 (or less) Acer Aspire, $1.69 (dealextreme) bluetooth dongle, and $20 used PS3 remote... Keep it running Windows so you can launch a web browser for stuff like Netflix, run CoreAVC if you want any PVR functions (CUDA acceleration of H.263 FTW) and whether you're on Windows or Linux you get video decode acceleration, HDMI output, lots of USB inputs, GigE... why would someone buy a purpose-built unit again?

Re:Also XBox / Windows Media Center in fray

[jmac_the_man]

That what she s---aw I just can't bring myself to do it.

Neither could she.

Re:Also XBox / Windows Media Center in fray

[Beelzebud]

An Xbox with XBMC has served me well for around 7 years now. Best console I ever bought. Not sure I played more than an hour of Xbox games on it though. :)

It saddens me to say that the old beast is starting to show it's age in the face of HD content. 720p is too much for the old girl, and forget about 1080p. Pretty sure I heard the thing heavily sigh when I tried that. :/

Re:Also XBox / Windows Media Center in fray

[Overzeetop]

Ahhh, that's what I used to say. That is, until I got busy at work and found a life outside of tinkering (yes, really...and in the 'burg no less). Anyway, if you could do all that without having to install XMBC and keep it updated, buy a separate dongle, remote, keep windows updated, load coreAVC (and keep it updated), and have to deal with a browser from the couch, that would be great.

As it is, I loathe even the minimal maintenance it takes to keep my MCE running - mainly because any time ANYTHING goes wrong, I have to go find out what failed and then fix it. Usually at an inopportune time, while the wife or daughter is giving me the evil eye becuase they WERE watching some movie until it stopped working, or were about to watch one and it wouldn't start. And don't even suggest Linux - at least I can usually fix Windows, if Linux has a hiccup I'm hours on poorly moderated forums (been there done that with TiVo).

Sell me a $300-$400 box that comes with a purpose built remote and only two cables - power and HDMI. Make it pretty, and make it work. Now that I own an iPod, I'm even willing to convert all my files to whatever proprietary format your cute box uses - I had to do it for all my music for Apple. The extra $200 is well worth the hours I wouldn't spend screwing with the system, and I wouldn't be the one in trouble when it doesn't work.

Yes, it's true...I'm getting old.

Re:Also XBox / Windows Media Center in fray

[adolf]

The trouble with that is simple: Time marches on, and specialized devices eventually cease being useful. I've had two DVD players that once played everything which have been supplanted by the shift to h.264 and AAC, for instance.

Formats get old. Does-everything black boxes turn into do-nothing black boxes at the same rate.

Whatever specialized box you have will eventually cease to be useful without software maintenance. And while software maintenance is a pain, chasing formats around is even more painful.

And besides, media conversions are lossy. I want more quality, not less, as time moves on (and I'll settle for "as good as it used to be" if that's the best choice I have available).

I'd rather spend a little time maintaining software. If you'd rather spend a little time making money to buy new hardware, while migrating content to new formats (ala LP to cassette/CD/MP3), more power to you.

My money and time are bet on a software fix, not blind reliance on a manufacturer of some random black box to give a shit in about that old hardware in a few years and transferring things to whatever format is currently blessed when it comes time to replace it.

Besides, I do enjoy tinkering with things, even though I have also wife+house+job+kids. It's not the most glorious hobby in the world, but it's mine. I'd so much rather tinker*, than work to pay someone else to tinker on my behalf and deliver the fruits of their efforts in the form of a does-everything (for today!) black box.

(*Yes, I generally get to choose how much I work in a week, or in a day. It makes it easy to justify spending time on personal stuff, and not just with computers. Things like: Gosh, I could pay a carpenter $900 to do that job, or I could take a few days off of work and do it myself. Or: I could pay $1,600 for a new clutch to be installed, or... etc. YMMV, but if you're really just a suburbanite consumer, you're doing it by choice.)

Re:Also XBox / Windows Media Center in fray

[Narcogen]

The trouble with that is simple: Time marches on, and specialized devices eventually cease being useful. I've had two DVD players that once played everything which have been supplanted by the shift to h.264 and AAC, for instance.

Formats get old. Does-everything black boxes turn into do-nothing black boxes at the same rate.

Whatever specialized box you have will eventually cease to be useful without software maintenance. And while software maintenance is a pain, chasing formats around is even more painful.

This is no less true of general purpose devices. Formats change and hardware requirements change as well.

I'd be willing to bet on the useful lifetime of a Boxee Box purchased this coming November as being as long as or longer than an atom-powered Acer Aspire, and the Aspire, the Windows operating system on it, and the hand-assembled collection of software on it mentioned in the post above-- some flavor XBMC, plus CoreAVC) would most certainly require more care and feeding than the more specialized device.

Industry trends wax and wane, to and from general purpose and single purpose, with lots of items along the spectrum in between. Cost is a big factor. When components are expensive, a device must be multifunction, and perhaps even user serviceable, to justify its price. When components become cheaper, more specialized devices are acceptable, if they do the things they do very well and require minimal maintenance.

A netbook is the worst of both worlds in this scenario. It wasn't made for the purpose it is being used for, can't effectively be used for many of the purposes it was intended for (general computing) and requires more user maintenance than a comparable specialized device for a similar price (Boxee Box) or half the price (Apple TV).

Besides, I do enjoy tinkering with things, even though I have also wife+house+job+kids. It's not the most glorious hobby in the world, but it's mine. I'd so much rather tinker*, than work to pay someone else to tinker on my behalf and deliver the fruits of their efforts in the form of a does-everything (for today!) black box.

This is why it won't pay either for the device industry, or for the content industry, to cater to your usage patterns, because you'd prefer not to involve either of them. You're essentially not a customer for anyone except for the maker of the general purpose operating systems you do your tinkering on.

(*Yes, I generally get to choose how much I work in a week, or in a day. It makes it easy to justify spending time on personal stuff, and not just with computers. Things like: Gosh, I could pay a carpenter $900 to do that job, or I could take a few days off of work and do it myself. Or: I could pay $1,600 for a new clutch to be installed, or... etc. YMMV, but if you're really just a suburbanite consumer, you're doing it by choice.)

I suppose that just depends on whether or not you can make $900 in "a few days" or not. Not everyone is a jack of all trades. Some pay for such services because they are unable, or can't be bothered. Some do it yourselfers do so because it's cheaper, others because they just prefer it, irrespective of cost.

The problem is that in many cases, the do-it-yourselfers are not an addressable market, and so products that hit the marketplace do not cater to their usage patterns. This explains a high percentage of the complaints on Slashdot regarding the Apple/iTunes ecosystem.

Re:Also XBox / Windows Media Center in fray

[adolf]

The problem is that in many cases, the do-it-yourselfers are not an addressable market, and so products that hit the marketplace do not cater to their usage patterns. This explains a high percentage of the complaints on Slashdot regarding the Apple/iTunes ecosystem.

Heh.

There is a Lowe's, a Menards, a Home Depot, two good hardware stores, two lumber yards, a specialty woodworking retailer, and a tool store in the small town I live in.

There are also three large chain and three independent auto parts stores.

Obviously, there is a market for DIY stuff.

Even for electronics: The Motorola Droid is easily hacked, even though it would have been simple to make it very hard to do so (as in the case of its otherwise-identical GSM sister device, the Milestone, which is locked down very tightly indeed).

Best Buy sells PC parts.

And nevermind the entire gamut of online retailers specializing in catering to the DIY crowd.

But, anyway, you're begging the question. I wasn't asking "why is there no market for DIY set top box crap," I was asking "why should I pay someone else to assemble this stuff for me, just so it can be useless in a couple of years."

And please realize, too, that all of this stuff these days is build around a general-purpose computer, typically even running a general-purpose OS. They've all got a CPU, RAM, storage (or at least connectivity), along with some special decoding hardware to (hopefully!) unburden the CPU when playing video, whether it is a netbook with XBMC or a black box from Google, Apple, Boxee, Seagate, or whoever.

And when the netbook becomes useless for that role, either due to incompatible hardware or lack of tinkering, I can make it do something else and retain some of my investment. When the black box becomes useless, either due to incompatible hardware or lack of support, I get to throw it away and buy a new one.

Or you can use this

[cwgmpls]

Virgin Mobile MiFi. $40 per month for unlimited broadband, with no contract. A better price than many cable offerings, and available in almost every market.

Re:Or you can use this

[AshtangiMan]

The thing looks good, but is limited to 3G bandwidth. From my experience this means that streaming video will be pretty annoying to watch when compared to what the cable offering looks like.

mythtv...

[nblender]

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out... My household has been a bit of an experiment as I switched to Mythtv about 5 or 6 years ago... First with satellite receivers hooked to capture cards and most recently cable TV tuners hooked to firewire... MythTV with all of its warts is actually relatively good... I've found though, that I can get higher quality and more current programming from the Bitorrent Channel than I can from any of the cable channels so an account on a few private trackers with a client that can do RSS feeds and a seedbox has pretty much supplanted our need for the cable connection... In fact, I'd sooner download a show than let my Mythbackend record it from cable... I still pay the cable bill, though.. The bitorrent channel doesn't get Antiques Roadshows and other shows that my wife watches... Plus, I sort of justify it to myself that I'm still paying for the content; I just choose to get a 3rd party (the scene) to de-commercialize it for me...

Wife Acceptance Factor is pretty high.. In fact, she hates LiveTV now... My son has grown up not really knowing what a commercial is.. When we visited the inlaws this summer, he was watching TV with his grandfather... A commercial came on and he was looking for the skip button.. Our livingroom at home sports a moderately sized LCD with an Acer Revo bolted to the back on the VESA mount. No cables are visible and the remote is a wireless keyboard. No stereo cabinet...

If I could get all of the shows I watch in reasonable quality (720p) automatically sent to a local storage device where I can play them back any time, and as many times as I want, I'd happily pay $70-$80/month (plus price of internet connectivity) for the privilege... I'm dubious that this is going to happen however. It'll probably be substantially more expensive, limit the number of times I can view a show, and if my hardware ever fails, I will have to repurchase all of my content.

If only they'd focus on giving consumers what they want; they'd make a ton more money.

Re:mythtv...

[Sloppy]

And that (what you just described) is the competition. Everyone ought to be fighting over your $70-$80 per month instead of saying, "We don't want your filthy money." If Google and Apple are gunning for "the big TV Networks" then that's pretty sad, because it means their products are already obsolete even before they've come out.

Re:mythtv...

[whisper_jeff]

If only they'd focus on giving consumers what they want; they'd make a ton more money.

They'd have a ton more happy and satisfied (loyal) customers but I don't know if they'd make more money. I'm sure they've done the math and figured out that nickle and diming us at every turn results in more dollars in their pockets, despite annoying the crap out of us on a regular basis and, since happy customers aren't their goal, they've followed the money.

It would be nice if a content provider was able to build a viable business model based around happy customers but, thus far, it seems to be the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow - a nice dream but never gonna happen.

Re:mythtv...

[fermion]

The recording thing pretty much killed TV for me. For me, TV was recording shows, then watching them when I had time. The VCR made this simple. TiVo could have replaced this, but honestly by that point other people were recording the programs and I could just borrow them. It no longer became necessary for me to have my own kit.

The networks have finally caught up with demand and get some revenue from me through Hulu and Netflix and iTunes. My issue with iTunes, AppleTV, or GoogleTV for that matter, is how the shows are going to be funded. The cable model never really worked for me because I was paying to watch commercials, and there was barely two nines reliability. The shows on iTunes are not outrageously prices, and I probably spend les on Netflix and iTunes than I would on cable.

Re:mythtv...

[Zequel]

.. My son has grown up not really knowing what a commercial is...

My 3 year old daughter the other day said the next program 'just came on!'
My wife and I were wondering about it for a second -- my daughter was so accustomed to us playing dvr'd shows, she didn't understand live TV.

Re:mythtv...

[kwalker]

I'm nearly there with you, but my experience has been somewhat different.

I rolled out my own MythTV backend (First as a VM on my workstation then promoted to an MSI Wind (Atom 330, 2GB RAM, 500GB disk)) connected to a HDHomerun which is connected to a large OTA antenna mounted in my attic. Picture quality has been really good on channels that have decent video sizes and bit rates, and most of the TV transmitters are located on one mountain top, so I don't have to move the antenna to pick up different channels. I looked into cable and satellite when I was in the planning stages, but I did not want to do a D-A-D conversion to get it into Myth and the only channels my local cable monopoly provides unencrypted are the locals anyway.

My main problem is that the kind of TV I like, I can't find, even on torrent trackers. There used to be one that specialized in it (DigitalDistractions), but they went dark a few years ago and every other tracker website I've been able to poke through doesn't have it or doesn't have any shows that I don't already have. And I guess I'm not cool enough to be invited to the private trackers.

I've found a few that are almost suitable replacements, and when they air on a local HD channel, I get them in 480/720/1080, which looks acceptable to really good, and Myth brings them in usually faster than I can watch them, so I always have new content to keep me entertained.

Re:mythtv...

[eXFeLoN]

I can give you an invite to demonoid if you like.

Thank You SlashDot

[Anonymous Coward]

I was getting real worried when I didn't see the daily Google ramblings. Are you guys getting kick-backs from them for doing this?

blogspot?

[iamhassi]

"An anonymous reader pointed us to an article..."

An article on a unknown blogspot, telling us what we already know, that Apple and Google are battling for the living room and that Youtube is popular. Shouldn't this be in Idle?

Re:blogspot?

[iamhassi]

An article on a 2 week old unknown blogspot, seriously his first post is August 27 2010

How did this get to /. front page? Is CmdrTaco being blackmailed by this Henk guy?

Re:blogspot?

[Anonymous Coward]

To paraphrase Steve Jobs: what have you ever written that's worth anything? And anyway: why is "an unknown blogspot" a bad blog per se? And what you already know may not be what everyone already knows. Maybe you should be an idle?

AppleTV? I'll pass.

[Triv]

Apple will seriously have to convince people that their service is worth it considering how locked down, even for apple, the appleTV is. No web streaming (aside from youtube) means no hulu, no network websites, no thedailyshow.com. As a cable replacement it just might be viable on a per-show basis once more networks sign up, but as of now it's a $99 box that apple's selling to let them sell you stuff you most likely can get legitimately on the web for free.

If it wasn't so damned restricted I might give it a look, but it would take some heavy convincing. And this is coming from a Mac user of almost 2 decades now.

Re:AppleTV? I'll pass.

[nblender]

Not only that; renting a show for $.99 is 'ok' if I can watch it as many times as I want... There are shows that I pre-screen for my son so I want to be able to watch the show and keep it hanging around for a few days before I get a chance to sit with my son and watch it together. If I have to pay $.99 each time, then the concept becomes a lot less interesting... Plus, my son likes to watch shows a few times... Ignoring the increased cost of on-demand re-viewing of individual episodes, the bandwidth waste is deplorable... At $.99 per episode, the cost of a season of a single show rivals the cost of the DVD you can purchase when the season is over.. I can watch the DVD whenever I want and however many times I want...

Nope, not a good deal.

Re:AppleTV? I'll pass.

[Anonymous Coward]

really? the new apple tv doesn't do netflix streaming? weird. i swore that was a feature. If it were, i would imagine the daily show is available via streaming or dvd.

Re:AppleTV? I'll pass.

[Triv]

It does Netflix streaming, which is limited by DVD availability - if you want to watch The Daily Show while it's still even remotely current, Netflix won't help you, and even if you're okay waiting, TDS isn't released as full seasons on DVD.

TW is Already Gone

[MrTripps]

I canceled my cable TV service a few months ago. My living room TV gets by with an antenna (whose picture is better then cable), PS3, PlayOn, Netflix, and uTorrent.

Apple is out to hunt bigger game than cable

[joeflies]

It looks like that Apple TV is out to replace cable companies, but I think that's only a superficial view of the long term plan. There's been no announcement to date that Apple plans to offer any channel that appears on cable .. rather they go through online content providers. They complete skipped the major gripe of cable, i.e. to offer a "subscribe to channels you want ala carte", and changed the game to "buy what episodes you want to see, on demand".

Which leads to the question .. so what role do the networks play in the grand scheme of things ... NBC / ABC / CBS / FOX are not all developing their own content, they buy that content from a show producer. If Apple develops enough mindshare and living rooms, you don't need NBC to order the episodes of a new show, Apple can buy it directly from the show's producers.

This could be a great play to cut out all the middlemen, not just the cable company or the satellite monthly fee, but the entire tv network system as well ... it's possibly the biggest change in the business of TV in 50 years, and frankly none of the TV networks seem to notice yet.

Re:Apple is out to hunt bigger game than cable

[Anonymous Coward]

This doesn't cut out the middlemen, this makes Apple _the_ middleman. I'm sure they'll pass the savings on to you... HAHAHAHAHA

Re:Apple is out to hunt bigger game than cable

[cynyr]

Vetting shows, and letting me find similar content that i may like. Say a "things that go boom" network. I would expect action movies/shows/etc there, but no "little house on the prairie". Ensuring a certian level of technical polish, no skipping/poping audio for example. clean camera work as a second example.

Re:Apple is out to hunt bigger game than cable

[schlick]

This could be a great play to cut out all the middlemen...

I think you mean... "replace the middle man" I doubt it but maybe we'll get lucky and be able to buy the content from the producers ourselves. It is already happening with music to some degree.

Re:Apple is out to hunt bigger game than cable

[alen]

it's a lot more expensive to produce a TV show or movie than a song. and until itunes and digital revenues catch up to advertising and cable revenues don't bet on apple

lady gaga and kings of leon still signed with the big labels

Re:Apple is out to hunt bigger game than cable

[VGPowerlord]

Which leads to the question .. so what role do the networks play in the grand scheme of things ... NBC / ABC / CBS / FOX are not all developing their own content, they buy that content from a show producer. If Apple develops enough mindshare and living rooms, you don't need NBC to order the episodes of a new show, Apple can buy it directly from the show's producers.

This could be a great play to cut out all the middlemen, not just the cable company or the satellite monthly fee, but the entire tv network system as well ... it's possibly the biggest change in the business of TV in 50 years, and frankly none of the TV networks seem to notice yet.

Quite often, the TV networks fund the development of the show in return for exclusive rights to its original airing, and sometimes for the syndication rights as well.

A good tech analogy would be buying a computer from a big box store versus paying someone you know to build a computer for you from parts.

Re:Apple is out to hunt bigger game than cable

[nine-times]

Which leads to the question .. so what role do the networks play in the grand scheme of things ... NBC / ABC / CBS / FOX are not all developing their own content, they buy that content from a show producer. If Apple develops enough mindshare and living rooms, you don't need NBC to order the episodes of a new show, Apple can buy it directly from the show's producers.

... and this is why the TV industry is fighting online distribution. There will no longer be a purpose to channels. Sure, you'll still need someone to front the money for production of new shows, but you won't need the big networks, local affiliates, cable stations, pay channels, or cable TV providers. None of those people will want to give up their piece of the pie.

Also, media companies have lived for decades in a world of strange manipulations. They don't just try to sell you a show, they try to force you to watch their pet shows by sandwiching them between other popular shows. They kill off shows they don't like by putting them in bad time-slots. They justify their power-plays by limitations of the medium, e.g. cable service only offers so many channels, each channel can only play one show at a time, and there are a limited number of good time slots. If you may everything on-demand and pay-per-view, a lot of those high-powered jobs simply become obsolete.

So you have businesses with a lot of income who don't want to give up that income, and executives with a lot of power who don't want to give up that power. Newer business models may provide better service at a cheaper price, but these people will stonewall as long as they can.

Re:Apple is out to hunt bigger game than cable

[R3d M3rcury]

NBC / ABC / CBS / FOX are not all developing their own content, they buy that content from a show producer.

Way back when, that was true. Nowadays, not so much.

Remember nowadays the networks are part of conglomerates that own studios. So you find that the majority of shows on ABC, for example, are produced by Disney or that the majority of shows on NBC are produced by Universal. It's one of those funny things--you can see Star Trek:TOS episodes on the CBS website because CBS is owned by Viacom, as is Paramount studios.

Yes, the networks buy their content from the producer. But since the producer and the network are under the same umbrella corporation, the money actually never leaves the corporation. It's just "funny money" shuffled around the corporation.

That said, it is an interesting proposal. One issue, of course, would be promotion. There are indie producers creating shows on the Internet. Of course, there's no promotion so nobody knows anything about them. Gee, if only Apple had some kind of Advertising network as a way to reach a bunch of people...

As Usual, I Don't Get It

[BigBlueOx]

It doesn't seem to me that the delivery mechanism as big a deal as what product is being delivered. My fancy-schmancy digital-HD cable box with DVR and on-demand programming and bagels with cream cheese delivers over 500 channels of unmitigated crap. Hell, if it weren't for BBC America (Top Gear & Dr Who), I wouldn't watch anything at all. How is having an JobsBox or a GoogleFlooby going to change that? I'm going to spend my time watching YouTube? Really? That's the big plan? YouTube?? What am I missing?

Re:As Usual, I Don't Get It

[N1XRR]

It doesn't seem to me that the delivery mechanism as big a deal as what product is being delivered. My fancy-schmancy digital-HD cable box with DVR and on-demand programming and bagels with cream cheese delivers over 500 channels of unmitigated crap. Hell, if it weren't for BBC America (Top Gear & Dr Who), I wouldn't watch anything at all. How is having an JobsBox or a GoogleFlooby going to change that? I'm going to spend my time watching YouTube? Really? That's the big plan? YouTube?? What am I missing?

Top Gear is available on iTunes for purchase (for a reasonable price), and also available in torrent form from a large Top Gear-oriented website. I suspect you can find Dr. Who in the same fashion. Imagine if the cable companies where to take all the bandwidth current digital/analog signals take up and go 100% IP based distribution. Speed increase much?

Re:As Usual, I Don't Get It

[microTodd]

Because there are multiple ways via Internet to get all the content you want WITHOUT needing cable. ESPN3, Hulu, Netflix ondemand, even abc.com stream their shows.

Wouldn't it be cool if you could just aggregate all those services into a single interface, plug it into your 38" HDTV in the living room, and be able to drop your cable or satellite TV? And wouldn't it be cool if you had a Google search interface on top of all that content to find what you want?

And wouldn't it be cool if you could just do this with an appliance instead of building out a small-profile box and installing XBMC?

Re:As Usual, I Don't Get It

[BigBlueOx]

Ah. I see. Thank you, microTodd, I understand a little better. I can "get the content I want", however, remains a problem. I picture myself sitting with my GoogleThang surfing the web for content and finding nothing I want to see other than "Hawaiian Eye" reruns and then throwing the GoogleThang at the dog.

As for dropping cable in this Brave New World, ha! And again I say "ha!". I'm married. It'll never happen.

Re:As Usual, I Don't Get It

[geekoid]

That's not a reasonable price. Most TV is single consumption. Charging the same as something that is used over and over again is a laugh.

Re:As Usual, I Don't Get It

[microTodd]

As for dropping cable in this Brave New World, ha! And again I say "ha!". I'm married. It'll never happen.

You'd be surprised. My wife can watch her soaps and all those reality shows on abc.com and mtv.com and bravo.com. The downside is they are usually not available until the next day after they air.

Bundle discount

[tepples]

I also only pay for cable internet access but not TV. I think it'd only be like, $20 a month more to get basic cable TV

Where I live, it's $60 a month for cable Internet and $20 a month for limited basic cable TV, but there's a $17 per month discount for having both.

Re:Bundle discount

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget to include the cost of the mandatory leased cable box, if applicable.

Re:Bundle discount

[ProppaT]

I've never seen a mandatory cable box. You can still get analog cable through your coax. The cable box is generally only for upper tier / pay channels, digital cable, and dvr service.

Re:Bundle discount

[Mordok-DestroyerOfWo]

Mine is about the same, I pay an extra $5 per month for basic cable. But in perfect honesty as soon as the NFL season ends my cable service will as well. After trying to watch my old friends the Discovery Channel and the History Channel after a few years with no cable I've discovered that they're pretty much nothing but crappy reality TV. How the mighty have fallen.

Re:Bundle discount

[Even on Slashdot FOE]

I've never gotten cable without a mandatory leased cable box. Even for the most basic package.

Re:Bundle discount

[RasputinAXP]

With the move from analog to digital cable and Digital Switched Video, many providers are requiring a box now.

Re:Bundle discount

[mrchaotica]

The assholes at Comcast are using their digital switch* as an excuse to force cable boxes on their customers. Sure, they could just send unencrypted QAM like all digital TVs are designed to receive, but why do that when the FCC and FTC are too spineless to stop them from encrypting everything and charging $5 per TV for boxes?

*Note: Comcast's switch to digital is not the same as the broadcast TV switch and is not mandated by the government, even though Comcast representatives will consistently and blatantly lie by telling you that it is.

Re:Bundle discount

[cayenne8]

"I've never gotten cable without a mandatory leased cable box. Even for the most basic package."

I'm on the opposite end of things. I've NEVER had a cable box for my extended basic cable.

I tune in ALL of the extended basic channels with either a mythtv box, or just normal tv tuner. I can also scan and pull in all un-encrypted HD channels, mostly local stations via QAM.

Fun thing is when scanning with the mythtv box, I can get some HD channels they haven't encrypted yet, or the channels they use for OnDemand. Those are kinda fun as you never know what you'll watch...or when it will unexpectedly pause, FF or RW...

Re:Bundle discount

[mattack2]

Don't forget to include the cost of the mandatory leased cable box, if applicable.

There's no such thing.

The CableCard requirement from the FCC required cable companies to separate authorization from the cable box (and their cable boxes themselves nowadays need to use cablecards too). CableCards are only required for encrypted channels, and most cable companies still have _some_ analog channels, though mostly only the (analog-ized) main OTA subchannel nowadays. Even though a few cable companies seem to have outrageous prices for cable cards, they're still less than the cable box (and the first cable card is typically "free" with digital cable).

With the prices for the leased cable box from some cable companies, even someone who (IMHO foolishly) paid monthly for a Tivo subscription could end up paying LESS than the (worse) cable company DVR. There are also things like the Ceton 4-tuner CableCard computer card nowadays too.

You lost already

[Anonymous Coward]

We all have Sky in our living rooms and FreeView.

Why do we want more? Either integrate or die.

Mac Mini

[Thyamine]

Maybe I'm too geeky, but I have a Mac Mini because it does all the things the Apple TV does, plus more. I guess for a simple consumer device it is more than most people want, but it lets me watch/stream/etc all those things I want it to. And my PS3 does my BluRay as well as DVD so I don't need another disc player. There are so many options out there that I think we are going to see this slowly take over as more viable, but I don't see it taking off over night so much as slowly build.

Re:Mac Mini

[VGPowerlord]

Maybe I'm too geeky, but I have a Mac Mini because it does all the things the Apple TV does, plus more.

The current Mac Mini ($899) costs 9 times the price of the new AppleTV ($99). It sure as hell had better do more.

What about live sports? events?

[Joe The Dragon]

What about live sports? events?

ESPN 3 does not have all sports and there are ISP limits as well.

different purposes

[bananaquackmoo]

I'm surprised that nobody has commented so far on the fact THEY SERVE TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT PURPOSES. One works with traditional TV networks and supplements them with internet content. The other is for interfacing with the apple store to rent movies and shows. There is a tiny bit of overlap since both can do Netflix streaming, but then again what can't these days? Even phones can.

Included STB leases

[tepples]

Don't forget to include the cost of the mandatory leased cable box, if applicable.

Comcast has big and little cable boxes. The big ones can get video on demand; the little ones (Digital Transport Adapters) can't. The monthly price for cable TV service includes the lease for one big and two little cable boxes.

Naked DSL

[tepples]

Verizon has [DSL] plans from $20 to $40 per month.

Verizon's list of home Internet plans states that the $20/mo plan includes a $10/mo discount available only to Verizon POTS subscribers, which makes it less attractive to people who use VOIP or a postpaid cell phone. But the faster plans are price-competitive with cable, at least when purchased on a 2-year contract. Thank you for the suggestion.

If they battle for the living room

[geekoid]

they will loose.

Look, the living room is a conduit for sales, not a sale in and of itself. all these companies would do far better to cooperate and have a good standard that lets the consumer decided on how it uses the media. Then each individual company can try to capitalize on that. No company is going to win over enough people that will want to hand over all media channel to them.

Re:If they battle for the living room

[Anonymous Coward]

"lose" ... sigh...

Re:If they battle for the living room

[geekoid]

Soory? Did I offend the intelectual rgor os slshdit?

Hulu

[ukemike]

it's possibly the biggest change in the business of TV in 50 years, and frankly none of the TV networks seem to notice yet.

Uh, I'm pretty sure that NBC noticed. Hulu.

No live offering yet

[Anonymous Coward]

Those nice toys are not a threat to any major networks if they don't provide live TV.

Do it.

[Beelzebud]

I hope that they're both successful, and it pushes Comcast to remove their 250gb a month limit on internet lines. At one time 250gb was a lot, but these days, with streaming video (comcast's own site will stream 1080p HD movies to your PC), it's not hard to gobble up all of that in a month.

Comcast "Digital Now"

[tepples]

You can still get analog cable through your coax. The cable box is generally only for [...] digital cable

To free up the cable system's bandwidth for Internet access, Comcast has moved the "expanded basic" channels to the "digital starter" tier, which costs the same as expanded basic. Limited basic is probably next.

Pointless

[ThatsNotPudding]

So I drop my cable TV, but (having no real choice, as Jebus intended) I keep my internet account with the same company and just watch TV 'online' instead. So they will either throttle me heavily due to the increased IP traffic or threaten to cut me off unless I upgrade to a more costly account. And I'm willing to bet that higher cost will be with in a gnat's ass of the amount I 'saved' by dumping cable TV in the first place.

Linux?

[Anonymous Coward]

That looks very interesting but I wonder if it would work with Linux? Has anyone tried it yet? It says just Windows and Mac.

Battle over your free time already won...

[offerk]

... and World of Warcraft and other MMOs (and console games too and to a lesser extent single-player games) have won it.

Re: I haven't turned my TV on in months.

[DocSavage64109]

Same here. My big-screen is only on for the occasional Netflix rental.

I want international on-demand online programming!

[Seth Kriticos]

I stopped watching regular programming on TV shortly after the millennium, because it turned to crap. There are series that I want to watch though, just not with the annoying ad's and from international sources (US, Europe, Asia) - via my computer screen or TV. But I can't. There is a jungle of legal restrictions that disable international TV. Everything is region specific. Who ever makes policy in the entertainment sector: go to hell. I just want to watch TV - would also pay for it..

One Provider

[krischik]

I have the choice of exactly one cable provider. And yes, I have to subscribe to Cable-TV to get internet access. The base package everybody need to subscribe.

Living at the end of the street my Telephone company will sell me a 5000 subscription - but tell me upfront that maximum I can expect is 4000. No discount for that. Take it or leave it.

ISP? They will sell my a 5000 subscription but without telling me that I only get 4000.

So where exactly is my choice? All you arguments are theory and of no practical use.

http://www.clothes6.us

[lokmm1452]

========= http://www.clothes6.us/ ====== Cheap Nike air Jordan shoes33$,Air Force 1 33$, Nike dunks SB shoe,Nike Shox shoe. Wholesale Cheap Nike shoes with discount jersey, High quality T-shirts,ED hardy t-shirts,ED Hardy hoodies,ED hardy shoes,ED hardy Jeans,Evisu shoes,GUCCI shoes,LV Handbag,Chanel Handbagwelcome to ==== http://www.clothes6.us/ ==== Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $33 Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&g) $33 Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16 Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30 Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,Armaini) $12 New era cap NY $9 Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $18 $9 ========= http://www.clothes6.us/ ======