Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google TV Next Month, Boxee In November

Posted by samzenpus on from the surf-and-search dept.

itwbennett writes "In a WSJ interview, Intel CEO Paul Otellini said that 'Google TV starts shipping this month.' Although, as blogger Peter Smith notes, 'Exactly which devices he means isn't clear. Sony TVs and the Logitech Revue will be the first out so if he is referring to a finished consumer project, he's referring to one or the other of those, but as CNET points out, he might be referring to product shipping to retail rather than being on sale to consumers this month. Either way, it looks like you'll be able to have Google TV in your living room by sometime in October at the latest.' What, if anything does this mean for the Boxee Box, which is still due in November? 'If Google is out there first, and puts marketing muscle behind Google TV (and of course they're including it built into some televisions) it might be hard for Boxee to find its niche,' says Smith. 'Particularly with that bizarre form factor that won't fit anywhere.'"

132 comments

  1. Google as a verb by mathmatt · · Score: 3, Funny

    Why do I have to wait until next month to google "TV"?

  2. I want google TV in my TV by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    I want the google TV stuff to be IN my next television. This sort of thing is not uncommon today and many televisions will play DivX and similar from a USB stick. The only thing my TV's USB port is good for is firmware upgrades, but it's not meant to provide the entertainment, only to display it. As long as they leave a little headroom in there for upgrades I don't see why it would be a bad idea. Just prevent writes to the program area any time but during firmware update...

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:I want google TV in my TV by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I don't want anyone's 'TV stuff' to be IN my TV. I want the option of buying any TV, TV related hardware and TV services I want separately. Bundling seems like a nice feature when it's not available from anyone but when you can only get TV-X with company-Y's TV stuff then the complaints will start streaming in.

      Game console resellers are notorious for screwing customers with 'bundling' and I'd hate to see it end up *inside* the TV hardware so I'm forced to use it if I want that particular product.

    2. Re:I want google TV in my TV by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Game console resellers are notorious for screwing customers with 'bundling' and I'd hate to see it end up *inside* the TV hardware so I'm forced to use it if I want that particular product.

      Why would you be forced to use it? Just don't switch to that input, or whatever mechanism they provide to activate it. It's a TV, I'm not buying one without many and varied inputs.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:I want google TV in my TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same. There has been upgrade bays for a while in some TVs as well, but rarely do they get used.
      If only they would, maybe we could finally get rid of the need to buy stupid bulky boxes every X years just for a few new features.
      Having a standard remote control interface on the front panel of the TVs linked directly to the bay(s) would be nice as well. (just in case the current default controls were too limiting, or bulky for the required inserts functionality)

      (mini-rant incoming, ignore if you want)
      So many companies waste money making huge bulky boxes just because it is the norm when they could be saving money with smaller bay inserts. (even though it will cost a little more for the more compact design, unless you really screw it up, it should still cost less)
      If you've ever looked through some of your common hardware on the media center front, it is shocking how much wasted space is in some of them. VHS players were probably the only ones with a good reason for their emptiness. (don't get me started on the PC industry and "air flow" nonsense, fools, the lot of them, and quite a few companies have proven such now, yet we are still stuck with bulky beige crap)
      Not only has the air flow nonsense been debunked, there are already quite a large number of compact devices on the market with much better air flow than all those huge, empty boxes.
      Look at PS3 for example, my god that thing is packed. Yet it still runs cooler than my ~65% empty PC case most of the time... and removing the fact that it was a new device with new technology and normalising the prices of hardware between them, probably cost less to make than my almost empty case by about $50-100ish.
      (end)

      Anyway, weren't the groups behind the Google TV movement trying to establish some sort of standard around this, actually?

    4. Re:I want google TV in my TV by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      I just want something to win the war. And that something has to be standard across brands and writable by third parties. So it can run the stock media streamer, a 3rd party commercial one, or a FOSS one. Just pick a hardware set, and let the market choose the software.

    5. Re:I want google TV in my TV by commodore64_love · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I agree. I never buy TVs with built-in VCRs or DVDs, because I like to buy a separate player with the specific features I desire (like the ability to record HD on SVHS tape) (or the ability to play DVDs at 1.4x speed with sound). Same with a DVR or NetTV device.

      I have to wonder how successful these things will be long term?

      In 2009 Comcast, Cox, Time-Warner and other companies met with one another, and agreed to set up a new CATV portal site that would only be accessible to cable customers. 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 and they have first rights to distribution. Virtually all the channels agreed. In 2011 this "cable subscribers only" website will go live and the free net viewing disappears.

      While we've not been paying attention, the cable companies quietly signed deals to lock-up these shows behind their own subscriber website. 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, phone, or natural gas company we want. :-|

      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.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    6. Re:I want google TV in my TV by Curtman · · Score: 1

      I wonder why Microsoft does not try to revive WebTV?

      Because the people who worked on WebTV at Microsoft work at Google now.

    7. Re:I want google TV in my TV by jack2000 · · Score: 1

      Have you tried to cram hardware in a small PC case? We need that space exactly becouse the PC is modular. If you don't like it get a mini-itx.

    8. Re:I want google TV in my TV by Alastor187 · · Score: 1

      Why would you be forced to use it? Just don't switch to that input, or whatever mechanism they provide to activate it. It's a TV, I'm not buying one without many and varied inputs.

      But then you paying for hardware that you don't actually use, where if the hardware wasn't included in the TV the base price could be lower. I hate paying for things that I don't use. My cell phone is a prime example, because I don't/can't use half the features it has. But I still had to pay for the hardware/software to support said features, because they just don't offer basic phones anymore.

    9. Re:I want google TV in my TV by halltk1983 · · Score: 1

      http://www.jitterbug.com/

      There you go.

      --
      Watch for Penguins, they eat Apples and throw rocks at Windows.
    10. Re:I want google TV in my TV by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      But then you paying for hardware that you don't actually use,

      If it runs Android and there's much install base then it will eventually be hacked and I can use it for my own purposes. I don't want my TV to run just anything. WinCE will not do for example because so often the only replacement is Angstrom which on many devices is not a good solution.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:I want google TV in my TV by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

      "they just don't offer basic phones anymore."

      Turn in your nerd license please. In fact that was so bad /. might have to evict you.

    12. Re:I want google TV in my TV by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > ...they just don't offer basic phones anymore.

      My wife's Tracphone seems pretty basic.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    13. Re:I want google TV in my TV by Phoghat · · Score: 1
      The more crap that they stuff into a TV, the more they charge.

      I have a large screen monitor that is hooked up to my computer, my cable box and a Roku device. If the monitor goes I'm only out the price of a new monitor, If the computer or the Roku device or the cable box goes then I just have to repair or replace that one item.

      I just built a Ubuntu box and installed Boxee so why would I need to buy a separate Boxee device?

      --
      Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
    14. Re:I want google TV in my TV by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Like sticking a tiny little AppleTV box to the back of it...

      I agree with you 100%. The good thing is most TV's that have all that integrated are the low end junk sets that dont even have Discreet IR codes for On/OFF or source selection.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    15. Re:I want google TV in my TV by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      All manufacturers of phones still offer a basic "I just want a phone dammit" phone.

      did you even look?

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  3. Boxee by gilesjuk · · Score: 1

    I run Boxee for watching content. It's alright, but the biggest annoyance is a lack of keyboard shortcut for toggling between aspect ratios or a default setting to always override aspect ratio.

    Mythtv was better in this sense, just lacked the "slick" interface.

    1. Re:Boxee by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Boxee is messed up if those features are missing. switch to XBMC and get all the features you have been wanting.

      P.S. XBMC has a much "slicker" interface than boxee and none of the useless sharing junk.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  4. XBMC - Now! by luckytroll · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I dont see the point of either of these "services" when we already have a decent and open solution that solves most of the issues I had with "TV" - advertising contaminating my content.

    XBMC with a few plugins (Which is basically what Boxee is) and a well stocked media library from the torrents/usenet gives me all the television I could want, all the web content I can chew - and NO fscking adverts!

    What are Google and Boxee except that, plus advertising put back in? What value can they possibly insert that would make it worth my while to get screaming mad ad annoying ads again? None.

    1. Re:XBMC - Now! by Jon_S · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What are Google and Boxee except that, plus advertising put back in?

      Maybe the fact that they provide content legally as opposed to illegally from torrents/usenet? Debate all you want whether US Copyright laws make sense, but downloading from torrents/usenet is still illegal. Boxee provides a great way to watch TV on my own schedule, and at least currently with much much fewer commercials.

    2. Re:XBMC - Now! by klingens · · Score: 1

      GoogleTV and Boxee are integrated software, ready for the masses who want to buy it all in one at the store so that it "just works". Yes it is the same essentially as XBMC, but preinstalled so they don't have to do anything. And yes, one price consumers will pay for it are ads. You had to know quite a lot about TV compatible hardware, connectors, codecs, software installation issues and so on to have a working DVR in the end. This is not something you can assume the average consumer has or wants. They want a TV with a remote. not another computer they need to take to the Geek Squad to fix.

      The value you and other users like you get is a hackable TV: if the idea of GoogleTV/Boxee takes off, you can be sure there will be sites like xda-developers.com but for your TV where you can download the newest firmware with all the crap taken out, bugs fixed and so on.

    3. Re:XBMC - Now! by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 4, Informative

      WRONG. Downloading is NOT ILLEGAL. No one has ever been sued for downloading a single thing. You are not breaking copyright laws by downloading.

      Uploading, such as in torrents, is illegal. You are the one breaking copyright because you don't have the right to distribute the work.

      Semantics, yes. But there is a difference.

      I can't wait for the Boxee Box just because it'll be a prepackaged XBMC box. I'm really hoping D-Link is good with releasing the drivers and such.

      SickBeard + SABnzbd + Server in the closet ... It's like having my own Awesome 12.5TB PVR. I'm so far behind on most shows I don't really care if I watch them the night they come out. The automation is amazing. Much better than the manual or RSS only feed I was doing earlier.

    4. Re:XBMC - Now! by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >>>Uploading, such as in torrents, is illegal.

      Okay. Show me a bittorrent client that lets me disable uploading (or sets the upload speed to 0.0 KB/s). Or provide another solution that would make us users legal and untouchable by RIAA/MPAA.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    5. Re:XBMC - Now! by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      P.S.

      Another question about torrenting: Why is it my DSL connection download speed varies with my upload speed? i.e. If I set my upload to 1/3rd maximum, the download speed maxes out but if I change the upload to 2/3rd maximum the download speed slows to half. Why would one interfere the other? (I've never noticed the problem on my old dialup line.)

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    6. Re:XBMC - Now! by insufflate10mg · · Score: 1

      WRONG. Downloading is NOT ILLEGAL. No one has ever been sued for downloading a single thing. You are not breaking copyright laws by downloading.

      [Citation Needed]. So you're saying there's absolutely nothing illegal about downloading copyrighted media such as television broadcasts, movies, and music from p2p? As long as I don't enable seeding and make the files available for download FROM me, it's perfectly legal? If you're being serious, you have changed my life, because I will leave right now and purchase a laptop to use as a media center for the living room.

    7. Re:XBMC - Now! by John+Hasler · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Downloading is NOT ILLEGAL.

      Downloading creates a copy. If done in the USA without the permission of the copyright owner it infringes the copyright in the downloaded work.

      No one has ever been sued for downloading a single thing.

      True, so far as I know. Suing people who only download is impractical.

      You are not breaking copyright laws by downloading.

      If you do it without the permission of the copyright owner you are infringing her copyright by creating an unauthorized copy.

      Uploading, such as in torrents, is illegal. You are the one breaking copyright because you don't have the right to distribute the work.

      True, and this is where publishers concentrate their efforts for obvious reasons.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    8. Re:XBMC - Now! by Snaller · · Score: 1

      XMBC is for minority nerds, this is for everybody else.

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    9. Re:XBMC - Now! by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>Suing people who only download is impractical...... Uploading is where publishers concentrate their efforts for obvious reasons.

      It isn't obvious to me. Why would they go after uploaders and not downloaders? Why is the latter impractical. Please explain.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    10. Re:XBMC - Now! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the line is asymmetric and TCP require to send ACK packet,
      if you saturate your upload you cant send ACK packet fast enough so the TCP congestion control of the sender kicks in and reduce the number of packet sent to match the rate of ack packet received

    11. Re:XBMC - Now! by icebraining · · Score: 1

      Megaupload and the other dozens of uploading services, combined with JDownloader. No "forced" uploading whatsoever.

      Alternatively, renting a seedbox in another country? Don't know if that would work, but it's possible.

      --
      Dilbert RSS feed
    12. Re:XBMC - Now! by Godskitchen · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure Azureus/Vuze and mutorrent both allow you to set upload speed to 0.0 Kb/s. At least they did a few years ago.

    13. Re:XBMC - Now! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's easier to prove intent; there is more evidence involved, he's liable for far more damages; taking him out has an actual impact on pirating; and in some rare cases, the accuser can push for felony charges.

    14. Re:XBMC - Now! by Ironhandx · · Score: 1

      Depends where you are. In Canada, at least, this is the case. There are similar laws in a few states I've heard.

    15. Re:XBMC - Now! by DCstewieG · · Score: 1

      Nothing that requires a full computer hooked up to the TV will ever be popular outside of geeks.

      Plex, which started as a simple port of XBMC for Mac, has morphed into a much more impressive architecture. They separated the media management into a server component allowing different clients to consume it, including Mac (seems a Windows port is coming), iOS, and soon, LG TVs and Blu-ray players. You can read the developer's vision for it here:

      http://elan.plexapp.com/2010/09/02/plex-and-the-future-of-television

    16. Re:XBMC - Now! by Stray7Xi · · Score: 1

      The problem is gathering the evidence to say they actually did download:
      To demonstrate uploading you request to download from people already in the swarm.
      To demonstrate downloading you have to first offer, wait for a request then upload. Can you help someone infringe your copyrights and then sue them for it.

      The subpoena would be "These 100 John Does downloaded my art from me, causing me damages, I demand their ISP records" then the obvious response would be "Well stop giving it to them numbskull".

      Which is a lot different then "These 100 John Does are offering my art online, I was able to download it from them and demand their ISP records". By purely leeching, they're not contributing to the infringement.

    17. Re:XBMC - Now! by Tacvek · · Score: 1

      Well that is fine. It should be easy enough to make a specialty HTPC-system in a set top form factor.

      Take a notebook CPU for its low power utilization. You can use a realatively weak CPU, since it won't need to do much computation. Use a rather low end GPU, but that is capable of hardware acceleration. You don't need anything too powerful, since you won't be running games or anything on it, and you want to keep costs low.

      Use a sound-card capable of souround sound output, so people don't need a surround receiver. Include a CD tuner, and a blu-ray drive.

      Use a small SSD for the system software, and a large mechanical hard disk for the rest. Have an RF-remote reciver, and Ethernet and 802.11n card.

      For the software, have a media center program, providing access to online content, including NetFlix streaming. Have DVR support and integrated blu-ray/dvd playback.

      Price it around $300. The result would be a single inexpensive system that acts as your DVD player, blu-ray player, surround decoder, internet content set-top box, and DVR.

      Having everything integrated gives you some nice advantages. You don't need to worry about changing modes on all of your devices. You can easily have a single remote to control everything, since all you have is the TV and this one device, and all the remote needs to be able to do with the TV is turn it on and off.

      Such a device would have all the benefits of an HTPC without being branded as a PC, but merely as a TV peripheral.

      --
      Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
    18. Re:XBMC - Now! by nschubach · · Score: 1

      Or just don't open the outgoing port and you can't upload because nobody can connect to it.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    19. Re:XBMC - Now! by nschubach · · Score: 1

      Downloading is NOT ILLEGAL.

      Downloading creates a copy. If done in the USA without the permission of the copyright owner it infringes the copyright in the downloaded work.

      If you want to get technical, viewing a streamed video via netflix also creates a copy (in memory.) DVRing a TV Show creates a copy. Heck, one could argue that playing a BluRay disc anymore creates a bunch of tiny copies as it pulls the content off the disc into RAM.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    20. Re:XBMC - Now! by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      (1) How do I do that?
      (2) Wouldn't that also interfere with my connectability for downloading?

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    21. Re:XBMC - Now! by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      In the US this is true.

      Look at every lawsuit the RIAA/MPAA has filed. It's all uploading.

    22. Re:XBMC - Now! by mule007 · · Score: 1

      Transmission will allow you to set the upload limit to 0.0. I have to use that limit on my connection due to a 20 Gb/mo quota and it does exactly what it says. My total uploaded bytes at the end of each download is always 0.

    23. Re:XBMC - Now! by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Whether or not Boxee is fed by illegal content is entirely up to the end user.

      The same goes for GoogleTV or the old AppleTV.

      The new AppleTV will be less likely to be playing "pirated" content because it's so poor at playing anything non-Apple.

      Most of the stuff out there that people actually want to bother with is still being handled by the likes of Tivo, MythTV and MCE.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    24. Re:XBMC - Now! by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      > XMBC is for minority nerds, this is for everybody else.

      Boxee is nothing more than XBMC with a little window dressing.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    25. Re:XBMC - Now! by nschubach · · Score: 1

      I would just not open the port on my router...

      and as far as I'm aware, downloading is you connecting to the seeds on whatever port they have open, and accepting data... and they do the same to get data from you. These connections are on on different ports. People who use torrents but don't upload are usually called leachers.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    26. Re:XBMC - Now! by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      > Nothing that requires a full computer hooked up to the TV will ever be popular outside of geeks. ...except Tivo already took the world by storm.

      The idea that a PC-a-appliance can't be successful is not supported by the facts.

      Forcing the average n00b to build their own box is the problem. Although that was solved in the PC a long long long time ago.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    27. Re:XBMC - Now! by mikeabbott420 · · Score: 1

      Probably impractical. There is the issue of how much money they can extort. if you upload they sue for ten trillion dollars (approximate) a song, but downloading they could only sue you over the one copy and the damages claimed would have to be much smaller and probably not worth the lawyers it would take.

      --
      This program was made possible by a grant from the Ultra-Humanite, and viewers like you.
    28. Re:XBMC - Now! by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      Downloading creates a copy. If done in the USA without the permission of the copyright owner it infringes the copyright in the downloaded work.

      Well, no, to be very technical, copyright covers the act of distributing unauthorized copies. So it's the uploader that's infringing, not the downloader.

      'course, either way, it's still unethical (and yes, I download content all the time... I just try to assuage my guilt by purchasing the content I like :).

    29. Re:XBMC - Now! by Reaperducer · · Score: 1

      The new AppleTV and the old have the same potential for playing pirated content because they both have the ability to stream video from your computer to your TV. The new AppleTV just eliminates the often time-consuming "sync" option.

      --
      -- I'm old enough to have lived through six different meanings of the word "hacker."
    30. Re:XBMC - Now! by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      If you want to get technical, viewing a streamed video via netflix also creates a copy (in memory.)

      Done with permission.

      DVRing a TV Show creates a copy.

      Permitted by law.

      Heck, one could argue that playing a BluRay disc anymore creates a bunch of tiny copies as it pulls the content off the disc into RAM.

      Done with permission.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    31. Re:XBMC - Now! by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      Well, no, to be very technical, copyright covers the act of distributing unauthorized copies.

      Under USA law the creation of copies (modulo specific exceptions) is an exclusive right of the copyright owner. Creating copies without permission is the very essence of copyright infringement.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    32. Re:XBMC - Now! by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      SickBeard + SABnzbd + Server in the closet ... It's like having my own Awesome 12.5TB PVR. I'm so far behind on most shows I don't really care if I watch them the night they come out. The automation is amazing. Much better than the manual or RSS only feed I was doing earlier.

      This is what I use as well. In fact, I just had to move files around to make room for the new seasons of shows starting.

      I really need to invest in a dedicated server since I plan on setting xbmc+TV in the bed room once we get a new TV (our old tv doesn't have a pc or hdmi connection.) I have 4.5TB and am down to 500GB left and am out of room in my case for more hardrives (not to mention how hot it already is with the hardrives currently in there.)

      I could free up some space by deleting shows as I buy the physical medium every summer, but that kills the beauty of my library.

    33. Re:XBMC - Now! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The bittorrent protocol prefers peers that you're connected with. If you're uploading to others in the swarm, you are more likely to download from them as well. So you end up with a larger amount of download connections and hence faster speeds.

    34. Re:XBMC - Now! by Joe+Tie. · · Score: 1

      In theory, the ability, finally, for actual viewership of a tv show to count against whether it's canceled or not. Not yet, but it's at least a step in that direction. Going along with that, the ability to get away from the network decay life support.

      --
      Everything will be taken away from you.
    35. Re:XBMC - Now! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      It isn't obvious to me. Why would they go after uploaders and not downloaders? Why is the latter impractical. Please explain.

      First of all, as others have noted, it's much easier to prove. You only need to download one file from a seeder, and record that process, to conclusively prove that they're distributing.

      The second reason has to do with damages. The infringement of the downloader is limited to that single copy they've downloaded. You can still sue for that, but the nature of download is such that you cannot reasonably claim that they've downloaded "much other stuff"; so if you win, you only get damages proportional to that single unauthorized copy, which is peanuts. Now you've got a variety of options - e.g. make them to settle for some more reasonable amount (a few $K) and add that on your public list of "people who got sued by us and lost", or if they persist, run them into the ground with damages.

      Now with uploading, once you've established that they are distributing, you go ahead and claim that, since there are many other people downloading from that same person, they're actually distributing in large (but undeterminable) numbers, and request statutory damages - which are insanely high.

      Finally, due to the nature of P2P, virtually everyone is uploading at the same time they're downloading, so going for uploaders only does not significantly reduce the target pool.

    36. Re:XBMC - Now! by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      They're less than a thousand bucks, and one fewer general-purpose computer to have to manage. They're operable by my wife and nanny. They don't result in me being fired for torrenting on my employer's network. I *just* barely avoided the latter a handful of years ago with some careful answers to HR when they called me. Maybe you're single, living in Mom's basement, and don't have a job/family/future to care about, but many of us do. Some of us also like to spend our time doing things other than dicking with elaborate solutions.

    37. Re:XBMC - Now! by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      I just hope it's easy to blow the Boxee off it and install a nice proper XBMC on it.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    38. Re:XBMC - Now! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AND a lot of things disabled.

      Boxee is a Crippled and dumb-ed down XBMC.

      Boxee is great for those that get frustrated with technology and cry in the corner. XBMC is for the guys that want all the power and configurability needed for their own desires.

    39. Re:XBMC - Now! by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Why? They are $250.00 right now. (with shipping)

      ASUS nettop with ION chipset
      Microsoft Media Center remote
      XBMC live.

      All done. Insert the disc, press a key for install. when done remove the disc and you are all done. Even a salad bar can do this.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    40. Re:XBMC - Now! by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Let's scale back the file sharing community and focus on one uploader and a hundred downloaders. (We'll also, for the moment, ignore that, with BitTorrent, downloaders can also be uploaders.) Now, the uploader rips a new CD release and uploads it. The downloaders swarm to the torrent, downloading copies of it from the uploader. Unfortunately, for all involved, the RIAA has been watching.

      Does the RIAA:

      1) File a lawsuit against the uploader? They will need to deal with one ISP to get the uploader's name. The damages, even if a mere $1,000 per offense, could easily reach a hundred thousand dollars or more. (Each person who downloaded from him is "an offense.") Plus, taking him out might keep other uploaders from uploading and quell file sharing.

      2) File a hundred suits against the hundred downloaders? The RIAA will first need to get the ISP records of the uploader. (This means they need to do #1 anyway.) Then, they will need to find out everyone who downloaded files from him, which files were the ones they own the copyright on, and then sue those John Does. This is going to be resource intensive. Damages in this case might be limited to a mere $750 per person which isn't going to be a deterrent. (It would be hard to prove $150,000 damage from a single downloaded movie. Remember, we're assuming these people didn't share it right back out as they aren't uploaders.)

      Now, scale this back up. The RIAA can choose to sue a thousand uploaders or tens of thousands (perhaps hundreds of thousands) of downloaders. Even they couldn't file and manage that many lawsuits. Even if they tried, judges might tire of their courtrooms being clogged up by the RIAA and start dismissing cases to clear their dockets for more important cases. So, while downloading without permission is illegal, it is highly unlikely to get you sued.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    41. Re:XBMC - Now! by Tacvek · · Score: 1

      The ASUS has no TV tuner, and most models have no optical drive. Those that do have an optical drive only have DVD-R not blu-ray.

      If there is a similar box with a tuner and blu-ray drive, that ships for around $300 including the cost of the romote, I would be very interested in hearing about it.

      --
      Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
  5. Where will I put it? by 605dave · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "'Particularly with that bizarre form factor that won't fit anywhere"

    Bingo. That was my first thought when I saw the shape. It won't fit in anyone's stereo cabinet with the other components.

    --
    Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a difficult battle. - Plato
    1. Re:Where will I put it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      almost anywhere...

      http://blog.boxee.tv/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/IMG_3755-300x225.jpg

    2. Re:Where will I put it? by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      What shape? I view the three pages linked and all I saw was a Sony television with a crappy videogame-like screenshot...

    3. Re:Where will I put it? by Godskitchen · · Score: 1

      Ten years from now, all houses will have built in niches of this shape. These niches will be placed to allow greatest view of the entire room and the televisions will come with a complimentary webcam that is always on.

    4. Re:Where will I put it? by lbgator · · Score: 1

      He is talking about the ridiculous "sunken cube" shape of the boxee box.

    5. Re:Where will I put it? by Dzimas · · Score: 1

      The Boxee Box is actually quite small - about 5" wide and 5" high. It'll fit on a shelf in my A/V unit next to my son's Wii and still leave room to store remotes. It's not stackable, true, but then neither is Logitech's GooTV or the minuscule new Apple TV.

    6. Re:Where will I put it? by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      Wow, that is ridiculous.

    7. Re:Where will I put it? by jack2000 · · Score: 1

      Put it on it's proper edges. It doesn't have to stand the way they are showing you.
      Glue GI Joe and Warhammer minis to the sloped edge or something.

    8. Re:Where will I put it? by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      With a picture of a bizarre creature with a black eye on the side.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  6. The end of cable.. by iONiUM · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm pretty happy about this. I think it's time for cable tv (non on-demand) to go away. I also think Netflix is a great way to get movies and tv as you want it. Isn't this how it should be, what you want when you want it?

    1. Re:The end of cable.. by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      The ironic part is that "cable TV" is how most people get the Internet. As they realize this, and cable companies start reducing channels (that no one is watching) but delivering service for the same price, profits will go up.

      Unless someone tries to "legislate a solution" to a problem that does not have to exist...

    2. Re:The end of cable.. by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      Question:

      How would cable channels like Syfy and TNT fund their original programs? If the channels disappear so too do the ~50 cent per channel per home fee that funds about half the cost of making Stargate, Eureka, the Closer, and so on.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    3. Re:The end of cable.. by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      Sell the shows directly to the viewers. I would have paid to keep Better Off Ted "on the air".

    4. Re:The end of cable.. by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      Each cable tv episode costs 2-3 million to produce, and is only watched by an average of 1 million households (according to Nielsen). So you're talking about $2-3 per episode per person, or $40-60 for a whole season, just to break even. Times however many shows you watch each year.

      Let's say 50. So ~$40-60 times 50 == $2000-3000 each year you'd be shelling out towards shows that used to come "free" with your current CATV or Satellite or FiOS internet subscription.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    5. Re:The end of cable.. by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      Does Nielsen counts people outside of the USA? Just because a show is not popular in the USA doesn't mean people in other countries don't enjoy it. Seeing as most USA channels show crappy reality TV shows and the like, maybe most people with half a brain already stopped paying to get access to TV content.

      As for being "free", I don't have cable or satellite. I think FiOS is USA-only. There's also no TV channels available over-the-air where I live either.

      The last problem that I see is: why the hell does it cost 2 to 3 millions to produce a single episode of a TV show?

      Taking Better Off Ted as an example, it's not like that show needed thousands of dollars in visual special effects. Sure there are actors, sets, script writers, tech crews and the like to be paid, but if it costs 2 to 3 millions per episode either someone's getting overpaid or someone's wasting money somewhere.

    6. Re:The end of cable.. by Reaperducer · · Score: 1

      I believe that Neilson has a branch or subsidiary or something that counts viewers in certain other countries, though on a more limited basis.

      But in terms of funding a television show, it's the American market that counts most. The rest of the world is considered gravy.

      Explaining why is beyond the scope of a simple Slashdot comment. People spend their lives learning this sort of thing. There are entire college courses and six-figure seminars that teach the intracacies of why this is. Google is a good start, though far from the end.

      --
      -- I'm old enough to have lived through six different meanings of the word "hacker."
    7. Re:The end of cable.. by antdude · · Score: 1

      For me, I want on demand payment without subscription with no DRM (to play anywhere like in Mac OS X, Linux, Windows, mobile devices, etc.), no time limits (don't mind paying extras for late fees), low costs (e.g., RedBox's 99 cents + 99 cents for extra days if late), and high definition (HD) legally.

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    8. Re:The end of cable.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't this how it should be, what you want when you want it?

      If "what you want and when you want it" is the goal, then it's a pretty bad solution.

      The best solution for the transport is multicast (which is how OTA and non-demand cable TV work right now). The best solution for playback is local disk. That combination makes any streaming tech like Netflix or youtube look like something out of the dark ages.

      I'm pretty happy about this. I think it's time for cable tv (non on-demand) to go away.

      That might be because people are so willing to pay extra in order to hide direct costs from their own eyes (as perverse as that sounds). If you had to pay what it costs (perhaps with a small markup) you would be tripping over yourself to move back to multicast. If 1000 people in your town want to watch Gilligan's Island, with multicast that moves n gigabytes over the wires and with non-timeshifted streaming that moves n*1000 gigabytes over the wires. Guess which is more efficient (costs less for them (costs less for you)). Record it when it is transmitted and play it from cheap terabyte disks when you're ready to watch. The disk pays for itself in the first month, and after that, you're ahead of the poor Netflix sap.

      By all means get rid of the evil cable companies, but don't downgrade your tech a few decades by getting rid of cable itself. Cable and OTA TV are a superior use of resources.

    9. Re:The end of cable.. by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Direct subscriptions....

      Want proof this works?

      HBO. Subscription TV, they made their money from charging people that owned 10' dishes a monthly charge to subscribe directly.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    10. Re:The end of cable.. by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Only because the Actors are overpaid, and honestly a lot of money is utterly wasted on useless management fees.

      You can make a high quality TV show for far FAR less if the actors were not greedy (Give them a living wage not a disgusting high wage) and the production company and everyone else except for the Grips and electricians were not trying to milk a money tree.

      Go look for and download Pioneer ONE. it's an indy TV pilot that is getting a ton of cash from viewers by donation only to film with. They already have enough to finish season 1.

      Honestly, 90% of the crud on TV can be shot for less than $10,000 an episode. You do NOT need to shoot on film. Shoot on video. That will cost the production costs by 1/4 right there as you dont have to overpay a DP that is a Film Snob that gets a premium union rate.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  7. Webkit wins the TV and Mobile Phone now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Interesting how Webkit is now the "only" option for mobile phones and television going forward. (Yes There is wahtever-the-crap-it-is in the PS3, and Opera on the Wii, of which only the Opera browser actually acts like a web browser... but a failsuck flash player 9. The PS3 has flash player 9 too... but try using the web browser outside the PSN.. fail.)

    Mobile phones? iPhone uses webkit, Android uses Webkit, Nokia (Sybian S60 R3) uses Webkit, some mobile phones allow Opera as an option.

    Webkit is available on the PC, so it sounds to me that the "target" web browser if you want to make-once, work-everywhere is now Webkit.

    1. Re:Webkit wins the TV and Mobile Phone now? by Nerdfest · · Score: 1

      The ideal thing for "make-once, work-everywhere" is standards compliance, otherwise we get into the IE fiasco with different companies.

    2. Re:Webkit wins the TV and Mobile Phone now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Android has Fennc, Opera, and possibly more. And webkit is not a browser. It is a HTML/CSS rendering engine.

    3. Re:Webkit wins the TV and Mobile Phone now? by icebraining · · Score: 1

      Webkit is available on the PC

      Yes, but Trident + Gecko still dominate the market.

      --
      Dilbert RSS feed
  8. Thank GOD by mayberry42 · · Score: 5, Funny

    'If Google is out there first, and puts marketing muscle behind Google TV (and of course they're including it built into some televisions) it might be hard for Boxee to find its niche

    See, may people complain about Google being evil corporate overlords, but I say - you go Google! I mean, do you really want to see this on your TV!?

    1. Re:Thank GOD by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      Please do not let this post get posted to 4chan...

    2. Re:Thank GOD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I lol'ed at this comment:

      omg...whats that? A single lonely braincell exploring the eternity of vacuum trying to say: Help me out of here...

      And I feel bad for it. I happen to like people who are uncontrollably energetic.

    3. Re:Thank GOD by The+Nipponese · · Score: 1

      We should be so lucky!

    4. Re:Thank GOD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh come on now, you know you'd slide your connector into her box.

      Signed,
      Petitioner for the anointment of Internet sensation, Boxxy, as the spokesperson for Boxee, Inc.

  9. Antitrust? by Antony-Kyre · · Score: 1

    Could this be an antitrust issue having it built into a TV? I mean, seriously.

    1. Re:Antitrust? by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      No, I don't think your TV will trust you any less because you like Google. Unless it's a Sony model.

  10. boxee? by FudRucker · · Score: 0, Redundant

    OMG! is this the future of television?

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
  11. Web TV? by bsDaemon · · Score: 1

    Didn't they try this back in the 90s? As I recall, no one really wanted it. I also recall Java basically being invented for use in digital tv streaming interactive content boxes, which never really came to market, but we got stuck with Java anyway. But whatever, at least no one is being forced to buy these, or buy TV at all, so its OK.

  12. DTVpal Re:Boxee by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

    I like my DTVpal. It's not perfect either, but it has two tuners inside of it so that I can record two channels at the same time (say Big Bang Theory and Vampire Diaries). And it's totally free... no annoying subscription fee... just add a ~70 dollar CM4228 antenna and go.

    That plus syfy.com on my PC, and I can tell the Comcast Monopoly to go ____ themselves.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    1. Re:DTVpal Re:Boxee by axx · · Score: 1

      If you want to say fuck, say fuck.
      Bowlderisation isn't exactly a healthy value.

      --
      No wit here.
  13. US Only by Alyssey · · Score: 1

    This will most probably go the way Netflix, Hulu, Pandora, Amazon MP3 Store, the Kindle and ALL others go. US Only. So all other people outside the US still have no way of seeing anything they see because of useless copyright annoyances. And I say useless because I (and several others) wanted to pay for Pandora, for Amazon MP3s, for Hulu, for the Kindle and it's books. So, it's definitely news for nerds, but, other than the US, it doesn't matter much for us, or me, at least.

  14. Can I run it in the Android emulator? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

    I already have a HTPC, which means hulu among others does not make me pay to see shows on my tv. If this does not run on the android emulator, it seems really useless. I do not need more hardware.

  15. Boxee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Boxee is the queen of 4chan

  16. What makes XYZ TV so special? by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

    Google TV versus AppleTV (2nd version coming in about two weeks) versus WD TV Mini / WD TV HD / WD TV Live / WD TV Live Plus.

    Discuss.

    1. Re:What makes XYZ TV so special? by jack2000 · · Score: 1

      Nothing, it's just a damned tvtuner with a remote. a hard disk and connector ports. It's a DVR for those that want to just buy a box and hook it up and have it work.

    2. Re:What makes XYZ TV so special? by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      It remains to be seen whether or not it is complete enough to be a DVR or if it is good enough to encourage anyone to stop what they're already using.

      It might be more popular as something that can be hacked and used with some other solution (MythTV or MCE).

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  17. Story needs more explanation by Stiletto · · Score: 1

    Is it me, are /. articles more and more making wild assumptions about the knowledge level of us nerd news readers? Here's a story that mentions "Google TV" and "Boxee Box" with no context and not even a few-sentence description. I guess I'm a retard, but I have no idea what a Google TV is or what a Boxxee Box is. Absolutely none. You have to start navigating through the linked articles if you even want a hope of finding out what the /. article is even about. Indeed, only the second linked article comes close to describing a Google TV as: "Google TV is a combination of hardware and software designed in hopes of achieving the tech industry's long-held goal of breaking into the television industry, currently dominated by cable and satellite companies." No word on what it actually is (besides being a "combination of hardware and software") or does, but it's a start. No word at all about what a Boxee is. Guess I need to have Wikipedia open in another browser...

    As someone peripherally interested in audio/video technology, I might be interested in this article (and the linked articles) but the way they are written makes them totally useless to all but a few people already knowledgeable about the products.

    1. Re:Story needs more explanation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If only there were some kind of searchable global network filled to the brim with information. Some kind of 'international network' you could avail yourself of.

      I imagine it would take around five seconds to retreive a huge list of potential sources. That's what a nerd would use.

      Hypothetically, it would've been better to use it than writing a 1000-word post extolling your own ignorance and laziness.

      (And yes you have a perfectly cogent point. But god fucking damn it you are one lazy arsehole. If you want to proclaim yourself a nerd, ACT LIKE ONE. Make an intellectual effort.)

    2. Re:Story needs more explanation by Stiletto · · Score: 1

      The point is, who wants to have a browser open in another window constantly doing Internet searches just to figure out what an article is talking about. I don't think it's lazy to expect an author to include a simple one-sentence description of the obscure subjects he's writing about.

    3. Re:Story needs more explanation by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      You don't use tabbed browsing? Using firefox all you would have had to do is to select Google TV or Boxee in the summary, right click, select search via google and it would put the search results in a new tab.

    4. Re:Story needs more explanation by eldepeche · · Score: 1

      whoosh, jackass

    5. Re:Story needs more explanation by Joe+Tie. · · Score: 1

      Is it me, are /. articles more and more making wild assumptions about the knowledge level of us nerd news readers?

      I'm trying to think of a polite way of saying this. I suspect you're getting older/getting more of a non-geek centered life. Boxxee's obscure to the average consumer, and it's not the most amazingly well known thing in the world as far as geeky news. But it's still very high profile among the low profile of geek things. And google tv? It's from google. They can literally announce work on something with 0 information about it other than a name and it's instantly high profile. Not just for geeks, but for anything related to technology.

      It's not the end of the world though. Relish the fact that you're probably actually happy and have a life, while I have knowledge of projects and releases I don't even care about and live in misery.

      --
      Everything will be taken away from you.
  18. Another product that is mostly USA-only by Yvan256 · · Score: 4, Informative

    I just viewed their video (www.google.com/tv/) and frankly, it's just a fancy DVR+Web browser box. The so-called online content is via the channel websites which means it's still limited to the USA. You still need, in a way, to have cable or satellite for Google TV to be of any use, otherwise it's just a browser box for your TV (which I don't mind since it's WebKit, meaning it's not yet another weird browser to take into account).

    AppleTV, on the other hand, bypasses the cable and satellite companies (the TV side, anyway) and gives you the opportunity to get only the shows and movies you want. I'm not crazy about the rental pricing, but for some people even at those prices it's cheaper than a monthly bill depending on how many shows you watch.

    But for a lot of people, it's still "option 3", driving around in their Pontiac Torrent to get their content.

    I just wish media companies would stop with this region-locked and country-based contracts nonsense and go with worldwide releases already. They don't need local distribution networks anymore.

    1. Re:Another product that is mostly USA-only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You viewed Google TV's site which contains little info on the product.

      Google TV will have embedded Netflix and Amazon VOD

      If you have read any info lately on Amazons VOD service they will be offering 99c tv episode purchases. (Different to Apples 99c rentals) Not much is known about the quality of shows or the length of time from Air date to the point where you can buy/rent.

    2. Re:Another product that is mostly USA-only by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      And I'm guessing that it's going to be USA-only services once again.

    3. Re:Another product that is mostly USA-only by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      I like my Roku but with the price drop I'm thinking of getting an Apple TV. Despite an official thumbs up they've set the new device to be able to run iOS apps. It's only a matter of time until that happens and that'll kill Roku and the game consoles for me. I have little interest in Google TV or Boxee right now but might be interested if they can top the new Apple TV.

      I'm interested to see how the big consoles respond to these new threats.

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    4. Re:Another product that is mostly USA-only by Councilor+Hart · · Score: 1

      Apple TV is also severely limited in the number of available countries.

      In europe, you have to wait sometimes years before you can watch the show on TV. If it is broadcasted at all.

      DVD's also arrive with a time delay and is at this moment an outdated technology.

      Bluray is not supported by Apple. My iMac has the biggest screen in house.

      and even so, after having bought a few hundred dvd's I am getting tired of the space it occupies and even more so that I have to play DJ every time I want to see a movie. If I can find it somewhere in my collection.
      This has really brought down my buying rate. Where the hell do I store them all?
      I could rip them, but that would take me months.

      So downloading, the preferred option, is only possible where I live if you do it illegally. Great. I guess they don't want my money.
      If it is a good movie or show, I will buy it. I even have unopened dvd packages. I buy it to express my appreciation and in the hope more of that type of movies/shows are made. But it is time to move on to digital downloads.

    5. Re:Another product that is mostly USA-only by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      > I'm interested to see how the big consoles respond to these new threats.

      By continuing to create games that the overhyped and oversold hardware in these glorified ipods can't hope to compete with.

      Nintendo already gets flack for being a bit of of a technology throwback and it's got something else innovative going for it.

      Succeeding as a device of convenience and going head to head with specialized devices are two different things entirely.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    6. Re:Another product that is mostly USA-only by Reaperducer · · Score: 1

      I just wish media companies would stop with this region-locked and country-based contracts nonsense and go with worldwide releases already. They don't need local distribution networks anymore.

      While your outrage is justified, in many ways it is misplaced. Most media companies would like nothing more than to push their content to screens around the world. But the world is a complex place. Often there are local artists' societies, unions, actors'/writers/producers/directors/etc contracts, even national laws which prohibit this sort of thing.

      If the big American media companies could do what you ask, it would save then tons of money. And if they can save a buck to add it their shrinking profits, don't you think they would have done it already?

      --
      -- I'm old enough to have lived through six different meanings of the word "hacker."
    7. Re:Another product that is mostly USA-only by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Microsoft responded by Increasing the cost of your Xbox live Gold that is required to watch Netflix and all the other content.

      Microsoft seems to be ran by a bunch of idiots.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  19. And... by The+Nipponese · · Score: 1

    ...Roku today.

  20. Christ. by Godskitchen · · Score: 1

    Can Google keep its hands off ANYTHING?

    1. Re:Christ. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They seem to manage avoiding supporting their products fairly well.
      After my experiences with Android Market I'd be very much in favour of not letting them near my tv.

  21. My big question is... by cjjjer · · Score: 1

    How does advertising and user tracking/profiling fit into the grand scheme of things?

  22. I'll pass on google tv by Lysol · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm over all this geek complexity crap. Yah, I used to compile all my own Linux OS stuff in the past (read: *everything* so I could get the most performant, tailored install), but now it's boring and a waste of my time - I could be out enjoying life or compiling my os; hmmm... GTV reminds me of the same thing - nerd solutions for nerds that wanna screw around with stuff. I watched the IO demo live for the GTV announcement and was mortified. Honestly, that killed 'Google as great' for me. Felt like it was Bill Gates and co on stage - it was like an episode of the 10 stooges. I'm not an Apple fanboy, but you gotta hand it to them - less is usually more (cept for iTunes) when they're designing and making products. While everyone else is going super complex, with ATV you get 1 remote control with the minimal amount of buttons to control it. Just like the Google search box - minimal, to the point, excellent results; when engineering at Google was used to hide the complexity.

    What strikes me as odd most nowadays is the sense of awe at Google's sheer 'engineering prowess'. Sure, they've done a kick as job in search, maps, and email - they're still the best in my mind. But it's like they inherited this M$ sorta view of the widest distribution of some whacky complex idea with some sort of specification and then leave it up to everyone else to implement it. This is great for the implementers, but not for the end user. Why? Because Google more and more seems to be not looking at things as a complete product and end users don't have all day to figure complex shit out - they're not some protocol engineers that think things are neat 'just because'.
    Kindle and the iPhone are good examples of how Google is not approaching product design & development. The stupidest thing on the planet - to me - is wanting to watch tv and using a keyboard, trackpad, and remote control to do it. If anything, the tv should be voice controlled or at least controlled by some sort of cool iPad device - something that gives the end user some eye candy/techno lust. Making it into a computer that sits in the living room is a joke and keeps the nerds forever 'teh d0rx'.

    Google's whole 'open' sthick and whats starting to happen with Android (carriers own that now) will probably bleed over into GTV. Set, box, and hardware manufacturers will eventually fill everything up with some sort of ad/crapware. This, I think, is the ultimate destination for Google's corporate vision of 'open'. 'Open' if your a corporate partner, suck if you're an end user (I'm not fooled by their plea that they're open as we developers like to think of 'open'). If you need any proof of this, just look at the various Android devices on AT&T or Verizon that don't allow you to uninstall apps and come preloaded with crapware (just like the whole Windows 'experience').

    Just like WebTV and Wave, I think this one's gonna go down in flames.

    1. Re:I'll pass on google tv by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Figure complex ___ out"? What do you mean?

      Android works out of the box, you click and the application launches. You press play / pause / rewind / ffwd and the video does just that. For GTV, it seems that you just start typing what you want and you get the videos that you're looking for. http://www.google.com/tv/. Now, if you want to go an advanced route, then you might have to delve into the background workings... but even then, most are simply applications. I have "Smart Taskbar" installed that from any program, I can swipe open from any program (old version, new version has more features, different look -http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qrh7NzUcM5g ). All I did was click "Install" from the market, just like any other marketplace.

      As for your "open", you're incorrect in your assessment. Android is OPEN. You go to XDA developers, and boom, custom firmware up the wazoo. I have a Nexus One. I press 3-4 buttons when the phone is booting to get to the bootloader. It asks "hey, are you sure you want to install your own firmware? It voids your warranty". I click yes. Boom, completely custom. Yes, there are a few apps on there that you can't uninstall with the stock firmware (Maps, Calendar, etc), but I can swap out an OS or just simply not put them on my homescreen, or if paranoid, have a task manager auto-kill the tasks if they ever start? You try doing that with any other phone. You want a native program alternate market? Market, done. Browser? Done. Alternate home screen? Done. Alternate *DIALER*, Done. GTV isn't open sourced as far as I can tell -- especially if you get the set top box version. It's just under $100 for an Internet appliance.

      What handset makers and cell carriers do to the phone can't be helped by Google *BECAUSE* of their open source nature -- anyone can extend it or restrict it. If you don't like the preinstalled cruft (which, for the most part, can be ignored), then go buy directly from the manufacturer. You get it unlocked, no extra crap, etc. Hell, you try doing that with an APL device and you have an entire f__king computer preinstalled with it, since you can't even activate the phone, install music, or backup without a PC. Are there apps for that?

    2. Re:I'll pass on google tv by LordVader717 · · Score: 1

      I'm not an Apple fanboy, but you gotta hand it to them - less is usually more (cept for iTunes) when they're designing and making products. While everyone else is going super complex, with ATV you get 1 remote control with the minimal amount of buttons to control it.

      That's fair enough (but certainly not unique to Apple), but it becomes a problem when the design and software restrictions start to specifically limit functionality of the device and we're left with a dumb machine with none of the upgradability, compatibility, choice and freedom that these computers can give us. This means that people have to buy a whole new device if they want extra functionality, but that of course suits Apple who envision iSheeple going out and buying iDevices every couple of upgrade cycles.

      But it's like they inherited this M$ sorta view of the widest distribution of some whacky complex idea with some sort of specification and then leave it up to everyone else to implement it.

      A model which has usually often been more successful and pioneering than monolithic markets and product design.

      Kindle and the iPhone are good examples of how Google is not approaching product design & development.

      Kindle is purpose-built device for reading books and Android devices are fully operable computers.
      The iPhone is neither, floating somewhere between the two approaches, moving to and fro every time Apple decides to change their EULAs or business partners in a way which shakes the market and upsets consumers and developers.

      The stupidest thing on the planet - to me - is wanting to watch tv and using a keyboard, trackpad, and remote control to do it. If anything, the tv should be voice controlled or at least controlled by some sort of cool iPad device - something that gives the end user some eye candy/techno lust.

      They give you a choice. A powerful remote that come bundled and is made by the industry leader Logitech, keyboards for those who want it and Android phones (maybe even iPhones) for those who have them. Logitech also make a range of remote controls so anybody will be able to find what they're looking for.
      Compare this to the typically crappy amount of choice and features on iDevices.

  23. Another product that is mostly Canadian. by Ostracus · · Score: 1

    I just wish media companies would stop with this region-locked and country-based contracts nonsense and go with worldwide releases already. They don't need local distribution networks anymore.

    What makes you think the problem is strictly corporate?

    --
    Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
  24. I want my GTV, I want my GTV by Black+Gold+Alchemist · · Score: 1

    I want my GTV

    Now look at them yo-yo's that's the way you do it
    You goof around on GTV
    That ain't workin' that's the way you do it
    Money ain't for nothin' and your chicks for free
    Now that ain't workin' that's the way you do it
    Let me tell ya them guys ain't dumb
    Maybe get a blister on your little finger
    Maybe get a blister on your thumb

    We got to install android phones
    Custom content deliveries
    We got to move these search queries
    We got to move these advertising inquiries

    See the little nerd with the prius and the linux
    Yeah buddy that's his own hair
    That little nerd got his own jet airplane
    That little nerd he's a billionaire

    We got to install android phones
    Custom content deliveries
    We got to move these search queries
    We got to move these advertising inquiries

    We got to install android phones
    Custom content deliveries
    We got to move these search queries
    We got to move these advertising inquiries

    Look here, look here
    I should'a be goofin' round
    I watching street view drivin' round
    I can haz cheseburger, says the lolcat
    And he's up there, what's that?
    One red paper clip?
    Is that all it takes to make a house flip?
    Oh, that ain't workin' that's the way you do it
    Get your money for nothin', get your chicks for free

    We got to install android phones
    Custom content deliveries
    We got to move these search queries
    We got to move these advertising inquiries

    Listen here
    Now, that ain't workin' that's the way you do it
    You goof around on the GTV
    That ain't workin' that's the way you do it
    Money for nothin' and your chicks for free
    Money for nothin' and chicks for free

    Money for nothin' and your chicks for free
    Money for nothin' and chicks for free

    I want my
    I want my GTV


    With sincere apologies to Dire Straits.

    --
    Responsibility is an addiction
    Virtue is a temptation
    Community is a cartel
  25. Video of GoogleTV/Logitech Revue and Boxee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was really excited about Google's Revue until I saw these pics and videos of it: http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/logitech-revue-google-tv-hands-on-impressions/?news=123 I'm not crazy about a keyboard, the GUI, or the apparent need for a DVR.

    Boxee, on the otherhand, looks phenomenal: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06PcGuf_mug

  26. Bandwidth Overload by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How will they deal with the 250gig cap Comcast has on there Internet? Add this to the normal Internet usage and lots of people will be going over there cap.

  27. htpc still set-top box by atarione · · Score: 1

    it is too bad the HTPC doesn't get more traction as it is an ideal setup for us

    radio reception basically sucks monkey balls here so internet radio streams fulfill our radio requirements (NPR, KEXP, ..etc....yes we drive a Volvo =p)
    with a 3rd party plug in we have hulu desktop integrated w/ Windows 7 Media Center (well we can launch it from our remote... Harmony)

    every set-top box solution i've seen falls way short of the flexibility and usefulness of my HTPC... except for to some extent price (but i built mine w/ old parts from my last upgrade (had old E4600 and 2GB ram..and mb and Antec midtower with psu.. so only bought 1TB drive and wireless keyboard (htpc keyboard) and a cheap ATI 4550 video card w/ HDMI

    since my wife can use it (after a brief tutorial) it may be a bit more complicated than some other set-top options but not too bad and so flexible.

    also big screen mame == win

    if one of these things could get official Hulu support that would be nice.

    --
    actually I am happy to see you, however that is in fact a banana in my pocket.
  28. What are these for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Serious question, I really don't get it. What are these devices for? What do they do that you can't already do with clicking some media-stuff link someplace?

  29. And closed the source? WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What they've done looks cool. How they've done it is not. Why can't people accept things are opensource and build on it in that vein instead of taking something open and closing it off? What advantage is it to Plex to have a closed source component that folk can't fix/improve/enhance?

    Further research shows you need a key to access the "open architecture" transcoding stuff (shouldn't that be GPL'd as well - x264 isn't it?)