Google TV Details Revealed

1995 called... by nitehawk214 · 2010-10-04 06:47 · Score: 0, Troll

... and they want their WebTV back.

Yeah yeah, I know this will do a lot more than be a TV based browser.

--
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust

Re:1995 called... by MBGMorden · 2010-10-04 06:52 · Score: 1

Yeah yeah, I know this will do a lot more than be a TV based browser.
So . . . basically you admit that your premise is wrong and was just an opportunity to throw out a lame joke.
Good to know.
The same wisecracks come out every time a new device comes out. They always point to some failed device in the past and laugh, never realizing that the first device of a particular type is almost never the one that becomes the commercial success. For nearly any successful product there is a long string of failures ahead of it that "did the same thing".

--
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Re:1995 called... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 06:55 · Score: 4, Funny

1970 called. They want their joke back.
Re:1995 called... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 06:59 · Score: 0

2001 called...
Derka, derka!
Re:1995 called... by notque · 2010-10-04 07:00 · Score: 1

Reminds me of the Sega TV. Downloading video games right to your console? Crazy talk. That failed.
Then, XBox Marketplace, it's common.
Or Dreamcast with it's built in modem...
etc etc etc

--
http://use.perl.org
Re:1995 called... by Walt+Dismal · 2010-10-04 07:02 · Score: 5, Funny

1880 telegraphed. They want their meme updated, but they have no tech support back there.
Re:1995 called... by rakuen · 2010-10-04 07:15 · Score: 5, Funny

550 BC mailed. The Persians apologize for delivering this joke.
Re:1995 called... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 07:23 · Score: 5, Funny

The same wisecracks come out every time a new device comes out. They always point to some failed device in the past and laugh, never realizing that the first device of a particular type is almost never the one that becomes the commercial success.
I *know*!
The perfect example of this is how TV was actually invented in Russia in the twenties, but wasn't a big time commercial hit back then. The main reason being just a slight difference in operation compared to our later western TV:s: Instead of you watching the TV, the TV was watching you.
Re:1995 called... by CronoCloud · 2010-10-04 07:25 · Score: 4, Interesting

Former WebTV user here. I've always considered WebTV an idea before it's time. One of the big problems with it is that from 95-2000 the web grew in capability faster than the little black boxes did. And thanks to the plethora of mobile devices with non-x86 CPU's and lower resolution screens website developers and plugin makers are a little more willing to work with the makers to work with the makers of them. For example Macromedia didn't try very hard to keep WebTV's shockwave plugin up to date, but now with all sorts of Flash devices out there they have more incentive.
U also wonder if Google talked with Iacta (a company that created WebTV oriented websites and did consulting), since their guidelines are similar to Iacta's.
But.....Google TV doesn't do much that a PS3 already can't.
Re:1995 called... by blair1q · 2010-10-04 07:26 · Score: 1

Wrong. Tech support for communications systems (including the telegraph) was invented in 1860: http://news.cnet.com/2300-1035_3-10004616.html?tag=mncol
Re:1995 called... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 07:38 · Score: 2, Informative

Or Dreamcast with it's built in modem...
You mean "its".
Re:1995 called... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 07:49 · Score: 0, Funny

2012 just tweeted that we only have to put up with this joke for two more years because the world is ending due to th
Sorry, it was cut off.
Re:1995 called... by icebike · 2010-10-04 07:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

For nearly any successful product there is a long string of failures ahead of it that "did the same thing".
True, but still the point remains that this device is quite poorly conceived, and the target audience is even less understood.
We all know there is not enough bandwidth for every person to be pulling TV across the internet. All of these have to stream on discrete IPs and you can't take advantage of multicast and still provide people with on-demand start times for every program in your video vault.
There is even less demand to browse the web while watching TV unless you live alone in your parents basement. Can you imagine trying to follow a football game with you S.O. surfing lol-cats and getting tweets every few seconds.
The concept of Google TV is foisting much of what is personal and private activities best destined for that device in your pocket to the Family TV set.
As such, it seems destined for singles or dorm rooms, and useless for families.
It seems like a failure to understand the lesson of the huge stereo systems we all abandoned as soon as we could don high quality earbuds, and have our collection in our pocket.
When everyone in the house has a personal iPad or Android Tablet, Google TV might make sense, but it will also be irrelevant, as the tablets themselves will do all of this.

--
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Re:1995 called... by poetmatt · 2010-10-04 07:50 · Score: 1

maybe it's because allowing someone to browse the web from their tv isn't particularly innovative, even back in 1995?
Re:1995 called... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 07:58 · Score: 0

1995 called: have you tried restarting your computer?
Re:1995 called... by commodore64_love · 2010-10-04 08:03 · Score: 1

>>>throw out a lame joke.
I thought it was rather funny myself. Loosen up. WebTV probably would have made it, but it was hampered by the ~440x480 resolution of the Composite analog TV set, and therefore could never display the full pages of the day (almost double that width). Today's televisions don't have that same limitation.
.
>>>never realizing that the first device of a particular type is almost never the one that becomes the commercial success
Yep. Like Betamax. Or video-records.
Or Commodore Amigas that could play music videos.

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Re:1995 called... by NatasRevol · 2010-10-04 08:07 · Score: 1

I don't think they stream the TV, or the on-demand programming. That's probably still a function of the cable/satellite carrier and won't change. But now you can search everything, surf the web with flash, and...run a few apps. For a cost of several hundred dollars.
The only thing I really like is the searchable DVR/channel guide/content. Other than that, AppleTV already has it beat. Well, maybe except for the true multi-tasking ie actually watching & surfing at the same time.

--
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Re:1995 called... by pak9rabid · 2010-10-04 08:19 · Score: 3, Funny

David Spade called...he wants his only good joke back.

Oh yeah, he said to send you a DMCA takedown request too.
Re:1995 called... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 13:22 · Score: 0

Shoudn't "But.....Google TV doesn't do much that a PS3 already can't." be "But.....Google TV doesn't do much that a PS3 already CAN."????
Re:1995 called... by Snaller · 2010-10-04 15:46 · Score: 1

"But.....Google TV doesn't do much that a PS3 already can't."
It does 500% more than a PS3 - the PS3 can't show most sites because it uses and outdated version of flash - on GTV they just need to update the application which runs in. Its hardware isn't good enough for Sony to upgrade it to have google tv on it either for one.
You can't run any programs on the PS3 you are stuck with the crap they give you (yeah, you can buy games, but that's for kids).
Anybody can make android programs and run on GTV.
Google demonstrated an app which could take the closed caption subtitles, run them through translate and put them back over the picture - in real time.
There is an app that lets you "sling" information from the phone to the tv - you have a link open on the android phone browser - "throw" it to the TV the devices registers the movement and displays the link.
Speak a search query into the phone, and have the tv search for it.
There is a huge amount of Android programmers out there, there are selling millions of phones every month, a lot of the buyers are programmers because they know they can improve the device if they want.
Apart from all the commercial interests who might be willing to jump on to make a buck, the army of programmers are going to add anything they see missing.
You want nothing on your screen - you got that, but you want something - you got that too, from facebook updates, to farmville to stock tickers.
Grandma wants to see home movies of the kids? Upload it to youtube and bookmark the link on her tv - all she has to do is select the link called "grandkids".
This is not for the nerd (or kid) who says "i can just plug my computer into the tv" this is for the rest.
Oh, and most of the android market apps already work - want a bit torrent client running on your TV? No? Well don't then ;)

--
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Re:1995 called... by redJag · 2010-10-05 01:26 · Score: 1

..due to The Event?
Re:1995 called... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-05 11:26 · Score: 0

you can't take advantage of multicast and still provide people with on-demand start times for every program in your video vault.
Why not make it on demand in so far as much as you say I want to watch this "now-ish", and quantise the start times to every 5 or 10 minutes? With enough subscribers, you'll realise significant enough bandwidth savings, and 5-10 minutes isn't too big a deal.
Re:1995 called... by mattack2 · 2010-10-05 13:30 · Score: 1

I presume you mean Sega Channel? There was a way to download games to your 2600 over 10 years before that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GameLine
Re:1995 called... by mattack2 · 2010-10-05 13:35 · Score: 1

Though WebTV actually came out in late 1996, and I'd say that browsing the web from one's TV was innovative in 1995, as Mosaic came out in 1993.

We keep a history of every show you ever watch... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 06:47 · Score: 0, Interesting

But wait, its Google! We trust them.

Settle In Sweetheart by BabyDuckHat · 2010-10-04 06:52 · Score: 3, Funny

You: Put the kids to bed and make some popcorn. It's viral video night!
Spouse: Great, I just love watching my favorite viral videos!
You: Me too!
Spouse: I love you honey.

Re:Settle In Sweetheart by by+(1706743) · 2010-10-04 07:00 · Score: 5, Funny

You: Put the kids to bed and make some popcorn. It's viral video night!
Spouse: Great, I just love watching my favorite viral videos!
You: Me too!
Spouse: I love you honey.
You: I sent you a link to a really awesome viral video, let's watch that, ok?
Spouse: Great idea, my lovey-dov...
Google TV: NEVER GONNA GIVE YOU UP / NEVER GONNA...
Spouse: I'm filing for divorce.
Re:Settle In Sweetheart by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 07:13 · Score: 0

I dunno about where you are but if you check out the "free" Video On Demand items offered by your cable service it's almost 100% viral videos from the 'net, crappy ones, but still...
Re:Settle In Sweetheart by hex0D · 2010-10-04 07:40 · Score: 2, Funny

You: Do you love me THIS much?
[puts on pornTube]
Re:Settle In Sweetheart by 0100010001010011 · 2010-10-04 07:47 · Score: 1

You mean like America's Funniest Home Videos? That's more or less what viral videos are. Me and my girlfriend watched Censored Count last night along with numerous other similar videos for a half an hour.
Re:Settle In Sweetheart by bertoelcon · 2010-10-04 08:26 · Score: 1

You: Put the kids to bed and make some popcorn. It's viral video night! Spouse: Great, I just love watching my favorite viral videos! You: Me too! Spouse: I love you honey.
You: I sent you a link to a really awesome viral video, let's watch that, ok? Spouse: Great idea, my lovey-dov... Google TV: NEVER GONNA GIVE YOU UP / NEVER GONNA... Spouse: I'm filing for divorce.
You: I thought that song seemed romantic. It was about a guy never giving up, never letting down, never running around and hurting, never making you cry, and never saying good bye.

--
Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
Re:Settle In Sweetheart by gknoy · 2010-10-04 10:17 · Score: 1

I know you jest, but I would imagine that the perfect match for someone who would rickroll their spouse would be someone who would get up and sing it with them too.... Darn you for getting that song stuck back in my head. :)
Re:Settle In Sweetheart by ejasons · 2010-10-05 05:06 · Score: 1

First time I've been rick-rolled by a Slashdot comment. Time to write a new Firefox plugin...

Roku + media streaming by yodleboy · 2010-10-04 06:53 · Score: 4, Interesting

That's all i really want, my Roku box with the added ability to stream video from my box o' hard drives to my TV. The Roku box is cheap, small, low power drain, silent and can handle new content when they add additional channels such as amazon. Its one shortcoming for me has been that I can't use it to access media that's NOT on the internet.

give me this and i'll buy one for every room with a TV.

Re:Roku + media streaming by Fnkmaster · 2010-10-04 07:05 · Score: 4, Informative

Have you tried Roksbox yet? See also the link from the Roku forums.
It's a bit limited in terms of media formats relative to your average PC, but should handle well-formed MP4, MOV, M4V, or WMV files. So you may need to convert some of your existing video files to get everything working properly.
Re:Roku + media streaming by Enderwiggin13 · 2010-10-04 07:05 · Score: 1

This is why I'm still hopeful for the Boxee Box. It's twice the price of the Roku but the local/networked media streaming, multiple content sources and QWERTY remote all look promising.

--
This sig is in another castle.
Re:Roku + media streaming by wizbit · 2010-10-04 07:09 · Score: 3, Interesting

It's called the Boxee Box. I know, I know, Google TV et al will eat its lunch eventually, but it basically does everything you claim to want. At $200, it's cheaper than upgrading my home media player (though I don't know about "one for every room").
Re:Roku + media streaming by yodleboy · 2010-10-04 07:14 · Score: 2, Insightful

well that's where it falls apart, $200 per room. ouch. I got my roku for $99. that's what i'd consider cheap.
Re:Roku + media streaming by Grizzley9 · 2010-10-04 07:18 · Score: 1

Or a network enabled BluRay player. Plays all the regular net streaming apps (Netflix, Pandora, BB on demand, Vudu, etc) as well as content on your network. (Plus the obvious media). The only thing it doesn't have is Hulu. And these type of BR players are fairly inexpensive.
Re:Roku + media streaming by whisper_jeff · 2010-10-04 07:24 · Score: 1

Its one shortcoming for me has been that I can't use it to access media that's NOT on the internet.
That's a rather large shortcoming...
Re:Roku + media streaming by h4rr4r · 2010-10-04 07:26 · Score: 1

Hulu is easy to fix, just have a computer in your living room that is either hooked to the tv via hdmi or using one of the many applications that can forward to your player of choice.
Then you don't even need hulu premium.
Re:Roku + media streaming by tepples · 2010-10-04 07:58 · Score: 1

just have a computer in your living room

So now you have to buy a computer for your living room, and that can get more expensive than even a Boxee Box.
Re:Roku + media streaming by NatasRevol · 2010-10-04 08:12 · Score: 3, Informative

Google TV is supposedly going to be even more. Logitech Revue - $299.
http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/16/logitech-revue-with-google-tv-coming-9-29-for-299-dish-network/

--
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Re:Roku + media streaming by Joe+Tie. · 2010-10-04 08:41 · Score: 1

The $90 mark seems to be a sweet spot for a lot of people when it comes to buying electronics on a whim. One of those little illogical ways the mind works. But fuck if I don't notice it happening with me, a lot. I'm really having to fight the urge to just buy a ton of those cheapo $90 android tablets and litter them all over the place. Even though I know it makes no sense that I don't blink at the idea of buying two of those, but a single boxee at almost the same price puts me in that "need to think about where my money is going" mode.

--
Everything will be taken away from you.
Re:Roku + media streaming by Grizzley9 · 2010-10-04 08:57 · Score: 1

But I believe having this "computer" in the living room defeats the purpose of these small, lightweight boxes that do media. Sure we can all invest in a 300-400 pc that will do all that but it's UI won't be as polished and it costs more than a PS3.
Re:Roku + media streaming by atamido · 2010-10-04 09:36 · Score: 1

Hulu is easy to fix, just have a computer in your living room that is either hooked to the tv via hdmi or using one of the many applications that can forward to your player of choice.
Then you don't even need hulu premium.
If you're going to have a computer, why have anything else? A computer will run Boxee, XBMC, or whatever else you want to run.
Re:Roku + media streaming by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 09:48 · Score: 0

Say what? Who doesn't have a laptop for this?
Re:Roku + media streaming by ChatHuant · 2010-10-04 10:12 · Score: 1

But I believe having this "computer" in the living room defeats the purpose of these small, lightweight boxes that do media. Sure we can all invest in a 300-400 pc that will do all that but it's UI won't be as polished and it costs more than a PS3
But a real PC does so much more! And I think the Win 7 Media Center interface is quite good. I speak from experience here: about a year ago I added a small format PC to my media stack, and it replaced everything else: cable box, TIVO and DVD/Blu Ray player. The only other things still there are the amplifier and an older Oppo DVD player (for the occasional non US region DVDs). The PC came with a Hauppauge TV tuner card, but I added an external USB TV tuner, and the combo pretty much covers all my needs. I watch live and recorded TV, Netflix (Blu Ray/DVD) and streaming, Hulu, Amazon movies, play my high definition home movies, browse my photo collection, and also play music from my ripped CDs or from various net streams; I have not yet found anything it can't play. I use it with a Logitech Harmony remote which handles most of the functionality nicely.
Re:Roku + media streaming by CronoCloud · 2010-10-04 11:10 · Score: 1

While I understand that the stereotype of a Slashdotter is someone with a couple of desktop machines, a couple of laptops and a rack of servers in the basement/spare room, there are people/families with only one computer that isn't a laptop.
Re:Roku + media streaming by Dr.+Blue · 2010-10-04 12:09 · Score: 1

I have an LG blu ray player that does netflix streaming as well as a couple of streaming pay-per-view places (vudu and cinemanow). It does pandora and some other things (like a low res verison of youtube - why can't they get HD when it's available???), AND plays from DLNA local network shares. And, of course, is a blu ray player. It sells for right around $150 on Amazon now. Why would anyone by a Boxee box for $50 more?
That said, I've actually been holding off on a new TV purchase to see what the new Sonys with Google TV built in will be like. Having web-connected services without an extra box would be awesome, especially if they truly push Android as an open platform and have lots of innovative apps. That's one thing my LG definitely can't do - they push new services through firmware updates, but it's services that they want to push. I'd much rather see a thriving and open marketplace.
Re:Roku + media streaming by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 12:17 · Score: 0

Those families aren't the ones that are interested in purchasing or building a media center to stream video to their TV. Furthermore, no one actually buys desktop PCs anymore, unless it's for gaming or work. If they have a modern PC, 9 times out of 10, it's a laptop -- and if it costs more than $400 and is newer than 3 years old, it has HDMI. Parents today buy better laptops for their kids.
Slashdotter stereotype needs updating. I suggest 1-2 laptops/netbooks, 1 smartphone, and optionally, 1 desktop PC.
Re:Roku + media streaming by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 13:25 · Score: 0

yeah, easy fix. spend $400+ on a media center pc and squeeze it into your living room under your hdtv
Re:Roku + media streaming by Big_Breaker · 2010-10-05 02:47 · Score: 1

WDTV in one of its various incarnations is $50 to $120 and it can play virtually any format from your media server and can stream video from the internet. The most recent, more expensive version can stream netflix. A media server can relay formats that are otherwise unsupported.
If you want to integrate over the air TV get a SiliconDust HDHomeRun.
If you want to integrate and DVR cable, get a Moxi or Tivo.
Re:Roku + media streaming by mattack2 · 2010-10-05 13:42 · Score: 1

How are you recording anything from encrypted channels? (i.e. anything but the clear-QAM channels)? You don't mention the Ceton tuner (which is newly out).
Re:Roku + media streaming by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-05 17:05 · Score: 0

Check your channel listings. I think they have what you want there now.

Is it going to have a TV tuner built-in? by mdm-adph · 2010-10-04 06:54 · Score: 1

Or is it just DishTV users? Because otherwise how is it different from my old desktop running Boxee? :\

Look, I'm usually an unabashed Google fanboy, and even I think this is silly.

--
It is by my will alone my thoughts acquire motion; it is by the juice of the coffee bean that the thoughts acquire speed

Re:Is it going to have a TV tuner built-in? by PsyciatricHelp · 2010-10-04 07:00 · Score: 1

I think for the time being I will have to stick with my laptop. It is still feature rich and is not codec limited.
Re:Is it going to have a TV tuner built-in? by mdm-adph · 2010-10-04 07:00 · Score: 1

Okay, just read on Logitech's website about a sort of "Harmony remote," that will send commands simultaneously to both whatever you're using for tuning AND the GoogleTV at the same time. That might work.

--
It is by my will alone my thoughts acquire motion; it is by the juice of the coffee bean that the thoughts acquire speed
Re:Is it going to have a TV tuner built-in? by PsyciatricHelp · 2010-10-04 07:04 · Score: 0, Redundant

I think for the time being I will have to stick with my laptop. It is still feature rich and is not codec limited. ATSC Tuner. Web Browser.
Re:Is it going to have a TV tuner built-in? by Just_Say_Duhhh · 2010-10-04 07:05 · Score: 1

Now why would it need a TV tuner? It's not going to get the content from from an OTA antenna, and it's not going to get it from DishTV either. It's going to get it from the interwebs!
How is it different from your desktop w/Boxee? It's going to have a power plug, a video/audio plug, and an Ethernet plug. My grand mama can plug it in and watch dancing babies on Youtube. No OS to install, no drivers to load, just grab the remote and surf for brain-numbing "entertainment."

--
I need trepanation like I need a hole in the head.
Re:Is it going to have a TV tuner built-in? by kidgenius · 2010-10-04 07:08 · Score: 1

The nice thing with the Dish interface is that you can search your DVR, as well as the program guide, and setup recordings, etc.
Re:Is it going to have a TV tuner built-in? by hairyfeet · 2010-10-04 07:30 · Score: 1

But how long until the caps bite grandma in the ass? All this reminds me of the whole "On the Internet!" dotbomb bubble, although this one will probably be worse. You see for all these services to actually work reasonably well you are gonna need massive amounts of bandwidth and I just don't see the cable/DSL duopoly tripping over themselves to run massive fiber everywhere. Hell even Verizon has slowed down FIOS rollout because it so expensive.
So while I wish them luck, as one of those stuck in a "test market" for caps to cable (which BTW is 36Gb!) I foresee everyone ending up on a "pay by the Mb" plan with a lousy cap, which will kill this, that "gaming streamed...on the Internet!" bunch, and pretty much anything else that isn't offered by the duopoly and thus cap free. Must be nice having a monopoly like the cable/DSL companies.

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Re:Is it going to have a TV tuner built-in? by h4rr4r · 2010-10-04 07:34 · Score: 1

Switch to DSL.
Re:Is it going to have a TV tuner built-in? by CohibaVancouver · 2010-10-04 07:46 · Score: 2, Informative

I think the issues of bandwidth and data caps need to be separated. Bandwidth issues can be dealt with easily enough with caching. Much in the same way I 'program' my PVR to select the shows I want to 'record' I should be able to just select the programs I want to download. The programs would download and cache on my box 24/7 in the background. Might not work for time-sensitive programming like the Super Bowl or the finale of Survivor, but would work for most everything else.

Data caps are a separate issue - You're correct that an Internet connection with a 4 gig cap isn't going to last long - Heck, downloading a month's worth of Desperate Housewives would probably bump up against it.... And the ISPs aren't going to be that keen to address the issue as they usually provide their own television content anyway.
Re:Is it going to have a TV tuner built-in? by mdm-adph · 2010-10-04 07:48 · Score: 1

Please tell me how I can watch shows like Mad Men and Trueblood, when they air, using a completely legal method via the interwebs.
I'm waiting. :P
Until then, I'm going to need a TV tuner so I can use my existing cable connection.

--
It is by my will alone my thoughts acquire motion; it is by the juice of the coffee bean that the thoughts acquire speed
Re:Is it going to have a TV tuner built-in? by cayenne8 · 2010-10-04 07:49 · Score: 3, Informative

"So while I wish them luck, as one of those stuck in a "test market" for caps to cable (which BTW is 36Gb!) I foresee everyone ending up on a "pay by the Mb" plan with a lousy cap, which will kill this, that "gaming streamed...on the Internet!" bunch, and pretty much anything else that isn't offered by the duopoly and thus cap free. Must be nice having a monopoly like the cable/DSL companies."
Why not do what I do...just get a "business" connection. I do this with my local cable co...is only $70/mo, no caps, no limitations, I can run all the servers I please...AND as a bonus, they can't filter the line (would mess with my contracted throughput amounts)...so, you can get all the free extended basic tv channels, and can scan with QAM tuner for all free (local) HD channels.
At least...that's what I hear one can do.
But really, get a business connection, the fees aren't that much more, and I get a low level SLA and have had no problems getting them to call ME back after leaving a service call when I've had a problem here or there.

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Re:Is it going to have a TV tuner built-in? by commodore64_love · 2010-10-04 08:10 · Score: 1

DSL? I thought Verizon just announced they are putting caps?

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Re:Is it going to have a TV tuner built-in? by commodore64_love · 2010-10-04 08:13 · Score: 1

>>>how long until the caps bite grandma in the ass?
That's grandpa's job, but I see your point. Verizon doesn't cap me (yet) but I'm sure it's only a matter of time. For what it's worth: There's no cap on broadcast television. My DVR can record 2 channels 24 hours a day without limit. Cost: $0.00 monthly

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Re:Is it going to have a TV tuner built-in? by commodore64_love · 2010-10-04 08:15 · Score: 1

>>>"business" connection. I do this with my local cable co..
>>>At least...that's what I hear one can do.
So which is it?

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Re:Is it going to have a TV tuner built-in? by hairyfeet · 2010-10-04 08:34 · Score: 2

A business line here is $200! and gets you a grand total of 100Gb on the cap. Nice idea, no thanks. And from what I've been told many places here in the south are being used as "test markets" for what WILL be rolling out nation wide. so enjoy your cheap connection friends, because it looks like the party will soon be over. Sadly thanks to no net neutrality it looks like big content will win the Internetz, as they will simply have no cap on THEIR content, while pounding you in the ass (going over is $1.50 PER Gb!) for anything not approved or sold to you by them.
Oh and for those that say DSL? It has a top speed of 1.2Mps here, and is ONLY sold by AT&T, who I wouldn't trust with a 100 foot pole. Not no but hell no! at least with the 36Gb they don't care what I do with those 36Gb, and so far from the looks of it they'll let you go 5-10Gb over without biting you in the ass.

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Re:Is it going to have a TV tuner built-in? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 08:44 · Score: 0

It's like TV, but with ads. No, wait...
Re:Is it going to have a TV tuner built-in? by atamido · 2010-10-04 09:38 · Score: 1

It appears to basically do video pass-through with an IR blaster to your satellite box. So it doesn't need a tuner, it just uses your satellite box for tuning. But it can do picture-in-picture type stuff with video and internet as the video passes through it.
At least, that's what it looks like.
Re:Is it going to have a TV tuner built-in? by zuperduperman · 2010-10-04 10:52 · Score: 1

Yeah, this is what I don't get about all these streaming based services from netflix to roku to Apple TV to Google TV, or even Pandora for that matter. They are all based on unlimited bandwidth which is really just a temporary abberation of the broadband market in the US where for a short time it made sense to offer people "all you can eat" plans on basis that almost nobody would use it. The minute even 10 per cent of people start using more than a 20GB / month you're going to see caps all over the place and every one of these boxes will make no economic sense any more. When you consider that mostly the people controlling the bandwidth caps are also running the very cable services that these boxes are bypassing it seems incredibly optimistic to think they are just gonna let this happen and not impose any caps and watch their content empires crumble.
Re:Is it going to have a TV tuner built-in? by hairyfeet · 2010-10-04 11:44 · Score: 1

That's why I couldn't believe so many here on /. were "poo poo, free market, poo poo" when it came to net neutrality, because I have seen first hand how lack of net neutrality can quickly twist your choices thanks to bandwidth caps. For some examples, if I want to use Vonage? counts against the cap. The cableco's phone? don't count. If I want to use a Mac or Linux? Updates count against the cap. MSFT? don't, even if I use Autopatcher to download every single patch for EVERY current OS from XP32- Windows 7 X64. Once I was capped that killed any more attempts on finding a Linux distro I liked.
That is why I support taking the last mile away from the duopolies and opening it up to competition. They want a monopoly? Fine we'll give you 10 years if you run them unfettered 20Mps down, double the time if you run 50Mps minimum fiber to the home. because otherwise I'm telling you from what I've been told we "test markets" are the future, and any innovation that requires more bandwidth than webmail is gonna be dead here in the USA. Just one more way our uncontrolled "Fuck everything but the quarterly reports!" business attitude is gonna have Asia kicking our ass.

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Re:Is it going to have a TV tuner built-in? by yotto · 2010-10-04 11:46 · Score: 1

I think you described a perfectly reasonable reason to pay for cable.
Likewise, being willing to abandon one of those (for me it's the "when they air" clause) things to lose the cable bill is also perfectly reasonable.

--
Pulp Audio Weekly - Geek News and Reviews
Re:Is it going to have a TV tuner built-in? by apoc.famine · 2010-10-04 12:58 · Score: 1

The Harmony remotes kick all sorts of ass. Got one for my dad a few years ago. Now he has one remote which does TV, Cable, Home Theater, VCR/DVD, etc. They take a bit of time to program, (CD with USB cable, look up device codes on the internet, etc.) but once set up, they are amazing. They even have troubleshooting built in. If something doesn't turn on/off, or your tuner/TV isn't on the right channel, the remote figures it out with a bit of user-input. I'd rather have hard buttons to press, but for technophobes like my dad, it's awesome.

--
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
Re:Is it going to have a TV tuner built-in? by mattack2 · 2010-10-05 13:50 · Score: 1

It appears to basically do video pass-through with an IR blaster to your satellite box.
1999 called, and wants its Series 1 (and a few years later, Series 2) Tivos back.
IR blasters are lame. While I don't *like* cablecards (I would in fact prefer to get all the channels I cared about in analog, like I used to)... but having cablecards is STILL far superior to an error prone process like an IR blaster controlling an external cable box. (Yes, I know _some_ cable boxes are controllable via serial cables, and if for some reason someone didn't want a DirecTivo, they could use a separate DirecTV box via serial too.)
Re:Is it going to have a TV tuner built-in? by atamido · 2010-10-05 14:11 · Score: 1

Realize that I made several guesses, so it's possible it can communicate with the satellite box via Ethernet, or some other method. At the moment there simply isn't enough information to know for sure.

I'll stick with torrent TV for now... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 06:55 · Score: 0

I can't see how google could improve over the presently available torrent tv (download entire seasons at a time with commercials removed in hdtv quality). My grandmother likes netflix, maybe she will like google-tv too.

Seems like a lot of effort. by PsyciatricHelp · 2010-10-04 06:57 · Score: 0, Redundant

For now i think i'll stick to my older laptop. Full web browser. Can play ANY codec. Can get a little complicated for the wife but it works. And hey if there's nothing good on. Solitaire.

The watched video count is stuck by vkv.raju · 2010-10-04 07:10 · Score: 1

The "views" count associated with the youtube video linked in this news is stuck at 327!!

Re:The watched video count is stuck by rakuen · 2010-10-04 07:17 · Score: 1

The view counter doesn't update in real time. I'm not sure exactly how often it does, probably every few hours.

Alone? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 07:18 · Score: 4, Informative

Though I like to think that I'm very, very different in my viewing preferences than the millions of other folks in the country, this is probably not the case.

My favorite genre is science fiction and fantasy, some documentaries, occasional thrillers. Bonus if it's a sci-fi/fantasy thriller.

I got rid of my cable feed because I found that I was only watching a couple channels -- Discovery and Sci-Fi. My daughter watched Disney on occasion but I would pay not to have Zack and Cody's voice ever heard in my household again.

I want to watch Doctor Who, but it's not available. So I catch it on Netflix instant. I wanted to catch Dual Survival and the new Les Stroud series, but it's on at either Monday or Friday but I can't tell because it's switched around all the time. And on Fridays, believe it or not, I'm usually at the movies for my weekly movie night with the family (this week it will be Let Me In). I wanted to catch True Blood because I heard it's great. Alas, to get HBO requires that I get some Premiere package which would cost another $30/month and even then I'm not about to make a television show dictate when I'm home.

I get the distinct feeling that the networks are actively trying to make viewing television a painful experience.

Anyhoo, I'm hoping that Google TV will provide on-demand, current shows. I think viewership will skyrocket if viewers can determine where and when they want to watch a movie. Heck, the ability to choose a target demographic for advertising purposes should make the network execs salivate.

Choices now are:
Netflix instant, but their selection is pretty atrocious.
AppleTV - but it's more expensive than I am willing to pay
Miro - content is of varying quality
torrents - great content, great price, great picture quality, not legal and risk of malware sites

Re:Alone? by Yvan256 · 2010-10-04 07:24 · Score: 1

If you think the Netflix selection is atrocious (assuming you live in the USA) then never look at what they offer us up north (Canada).
I'll have watched everything worth watching before my free month is over. And at the rate they're adding worthwhile things to watch, I should be able to pay a single month in about one year to catch up on their list.
To be fair, the licensing rights in Canada are even worst than in the USA. I bet Netflix isn't to blame for the poor selections in either countries.
Re:Alone? by h4rr4r · 2010-10-04 07:27 · Score: 1

Netflix has the trueblood dvds, my girl friend is currently eating up all 3 dvds by mail that way.
Re:Alone? by Keruo · 2010-10-04 07:29 · Score: 3, Interesting

AppleTV - but it's more expensive than I am willing to pay
Is it really? I paid $100 for my 1st gen appletv, threw in $40 for the broadcom crystalhd chip, installed linux with XBMC on it and it works great. It took few hours of tinkering but now it plays 1080p smoothly.

--
There are no atheists when recovering from tape backup.
Re:Alone? by h4rr4r · 2010-10-04 07:32 · Score: 1

Huh?
They have thousands of old movies and tv shows. I am watching my way through all of Stargate recently. Unless you must have only new material, how in the heck would you get through it in your lifetime much less a month?
Re:Alone? by Yvan256 · 2010-10-04 07:38 · Score: 1

I think you missed the "worth watching" and "Canada" part of my reply.
www.netflix.ca
Go ahead, search for Stargate all you want. In fact, search Stargate, Seinfeld or even older shows like Cheers. I think Netflix Canada only has 10% of what you get in the USA. And not the good 10% either.
Re:Alone? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 07:44 · Score: 0

The truly sad part is that Stargate SG-1, Atlantis, and Universe are all made in Canada and endorsed (i.e. subsidized by) the Canadian government.
Netflix couldn't even strike a day-one deal with one of Canada's biggest Sci-Fi (and SyFy..) exports.
Re:Alone? by commodore64_love · 2010-10-04 08:20 · Score: 1

>>>I got rid of my cable feed because I found that I was only watching a couple channels --
Ditto. I used to like history and animal planet, but neither is as good as they used to be (History isn't history anymore). So the only channel I was still watching was Sci-Fi and I could stream those shows off hulu, or buy on DVD for much cheaper, so why pay ~$800/year to Comsucks?

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Re:Alone? by cshay · 2010-10-04 08:27 · Score: 1

Depending on where you live, there might be good programming in over the air HDTV. The cable company has unfortunately manage to get a monopoly on a couple sports channels (and baseball games) that I can't get anywhere else, but I just decided that I am not giving comcast $100/month to watch approximately 20 hours of exclusive content per month.
Re:Alone? by commodore64_love · 2010-10-04 08:35 · Score: 1

This past weekend I got to see all kinds of baseball and football games over Free TV. The cable channels haven't locked them all up
.

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Re:Alone? by cynyr · 2010-10-04 08:42 · Score: 1

not the hardware, the content...

--
All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
Re:Alone? by illumin8 · 2010-10-05 06:08 · Score: 1

I have a 1st gen AppleTV. Where did you buy the Broadcome CrystalHD chip? I'd love to be able to play 1080p on it.

--
"When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon

Supported codecs by qoncept · 2010-10-04 07:19 · Score: 1

I'm still exclusively interested in finding out what video formats are available. I have an extensive library of h.264 encoded movies for Apple TV. I don't want to buy or stream movies from these services on my sad internet connection, I want to properly enjoy what I already have. And I'm tired of converting movies.

Oh, and how metadata for my videos will be handled. MetaX for tagging in my iTunes library and Boxee's backwards method both work. What does Google do?

--
Whale

Re:Supported codecs by dgatwood · 2010-10-04 07:52 · Score: 1

I'm curious for a similar reason. MythTV, despite supporting multiple tuner types, doesn't fully support multiple tuner types at once (you can't create recording profiles for anything but the first device), so my HD-PVR is stuck recording at the default: 1080i with about 9Mbps average data rate, baseline profile. It is right up against the bounds of what is practical to play back without GPU acceleration, and even then, it sucks up between 1.25 and 1.5 cores of a 2.25 GHz Core 2 Duo.
BTW, if anybody knows a hack to either get proper second tuner profile support in MythTV or to work around the lack thereof, let me know. This one megabyte per second stuff is for the birds.

--
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Re:Supported codecs by Ingenium13 · 2010-10-04 08:10 · Score: 2, Informative

GoogleTV doesn't support DLNA streaming, so there's no way to play content stored on your network. For me, this is a deal breaker and will drive me to Boxee (or Roku if they add DLNA support soon) when it launches. I was excited about GoogleTV until I learned this...too bad.

Google TV API? by Dan667 · 2010-10-04 07:19 · Score: 1

I hope they release an API so it can be integrated into MythTV. Get the best of both without having to change devices.

google rules... by ragutis · 2010-10-04 07:23 · Score: 1

So, what are we going to do tonight, brain? Same thing we do every night, Pinky...

Wow, back to the future by alta · 2010-10-04 07:23 · Score: 4, Interesting

For so long we've longed for the use of vector graphics in websites because it reduces size so much. We finally have major browsers that fully support SVG. Flash also gives you vector graphics. Now the second to last suggestion... Avoid vector graphics. Use bitmapps because they're easier on the CPU.

Before all we worried about was load time. There was no 'processing' past the intial page load, or at least nothing substantial. Everyone was optimizing the hell out of their gif's and jpgs. Low bandwidth was our enemy. Now Vector images are bad, we have plenty of bandwidth, but ironically they're worried about a weak CPU...

So weird.

--
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.

Re:Wow, back to the future by tepples · 2010-10-04 08:05 · Score: 3, Interesting

Now Vector images are bad, we have plenty of bandwidth
Not necessarily. How big would Strong Bad's emails get if they were converted from SWF vector animation to H.264 compressed bitmaps? I've done tests on other SWF animations, and conversion to video bloated them by a factor of ten.
Re:Wow, back to the future by Jello+B. · 2010-10-04 08:19 · Score: 0, Troll

They would be huge, but nobody would care because strong bad is unfunny garbage.
Re:Wow, back to the future by tepples · 2010-10-04 08:28 · Score: 1, Offtopic

strong bad is unfunny garbage.
Would you go further to claim that all animated works created in Adobe Flash and distributed in SWF format are likewise unfunny garbage, including Weebl and Bob and everything on Newgrounds and Albino Blacksheep?
Re:Wow, back to the future by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 09:39 · Score: 0

Doesn't really surprise me. h264 is only really good for 'random' scenes. That is, shot with a camera. Computer generated images it compresses, but nowhere as good as other techniques. How about an old fashioned gzip?
Re:Wow, back to the future by alta · 2010-10-04 09:42 · Score: 1

Anyway...
As for line art type things, logos, illustrations, interface elements simple vector graphics can be superior because there is no need to send every pixel, when just the coordinates will suffice.
For example, say, for some weird reason, I wanted to use one image a box with a solid color, rounded corners and an alpha channel so the rounded part will show the background through. (reference w3c image below) And lets say I wanted to use it as a background image to 10 different sized divs on a page. (common for a rect with rounded edges) The SVG is 361 bites. I did a screenshot, moved to photoshop and saved as gif and png both with 8 colors so the edges weren't to jagged. The gif was 804 bytes and the png was 522. The SVG is considerably smaller.
Now, consider that when using different sized version with the SVG I only need one file downloaded 10 times. With the png/gif, while I CAN use the same for each one, letting a browser resize your images for you is not going to be pretty. So you would need use many copies of the image at different sizes. Probably not all 10 sizes, but you don't want a small one blown up 10x any more than you want a huge one shrunk to 1/10th.
Now in the context of what we're talking about, a Google TV interface, there's going to be a TON of interface elements in use. think of all the widgets..
Now, I'm not by ANY means saying save your family pics or a movie as vector. Each format has it's place. Personally I don't use SVG at all, it's not worth the trouble. My whole comment was just based on how I remember people extolling the virtues of SVG to save bandwidth, but now google says to hell with bandwidth, use bitmap to save CPU.
http://www.w3schools.com/svg/tryit_view.asp?filename=rect4

--
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
Re:Wow, back to the future by djradon · 2010-10-04 11:29 · Score: 1

Comparing vector to raster is like apples and oranges, but that's an interesting observation... the choke point for graphics has shifted way up. it's because vectors are like blueprints (and the cpu cycles are like fantastic builders) whereas raster is a less-dimensional structure that can be easily displayed and copied, but not easily manipulated.
Re:Wow, back to the future by Jello+B. · 2010-10-04 13:39 · Score: 1

no, dumbass. nothing i said even implied everything made with flash is bad.

weebl and bob is shit though.
Re:Wow, back to the future by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 14:06 · Score: 0

We also went from desktop CPUs which were more than capable to pretty slow ARM chipsets. Same problem, different manifestation. The bandwidth is plentiful, but the processing power is comparable to your PIII from year 2000.
We'll see this get resolved in a couple years when the mobile processors are faster.
Re:Wow, back to the future by commodore64_love · 2010-10-05 02:09 · Score: 1

How do vector graphics reduce space?
GIFs and JPGS can be squeezed to just a few K. I'm confused why you'd say vectors are simpler.

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Re:Wow, back to the future by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-05 06:00 · Score: 0

Dammit, my original post got eaten it would seem.
You already asked that question> and got a very nice reply. I'm (not) sorry that the original post (rightfully) got marked "Troll", but this just makes you into an even bigger troll.
Why rightfully? Because your claim of shrinking an episode of Bullshit down to 10MB with bitmap quality is, well, bullshit! :)
Using a 16bit bmp (an 8bit was oddly larger, so used 16bit for these calculations) at 320x240 is 37.6KB. If we assume a ridiculously low framerate of a single frame per second, that comes out to over 48GB for a 22 minute episode. If we drop the resolution to 160x120, the resulting file would be over 12GB. At 80x60, it's over 3GB. So, your claim of shrinking an episode of Bullshit down to 10MB with bitmap quality is bullshit. :)

Re:Like the Nintendo Wii by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 07:23 · Score: 0

Holy repressed rage, Batman!

Review of ReVue by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 07:26 · Score: 0

A review of the actual logitech box Revue - http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/logitech-revue-google-tv-hands-on-impressions/ - So excited that Google will now predict what I should watch, search and soon probably what I should be eating while I watch my shows and who should watch them with me. Welcome Big Brother -- you did not mean to be evil right, RIGHT? Come on into my living room and get out of that stuffy office.

Re:Are you shitting me? by Abstrackt · 2010-10-04 07:29 · Score: 1

Information network? Seriously? This must be a different Twitter that the one my kids use.

I don't know what your average person tweets about but there are some institutions worth following on Twitter (e.g. NASA).

--
They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett

TiVo by spudnic · 2010-10-04 07:40 · Score: 1

So I can't use it as a DVR unless I am on Dish? It says it integrates with my existing cable box? What is it talking about there?

I think I'll stick to my TiVo if this is the case. TiVo paired up with pyTivo gives me everything I need and has for years.

--
load "linux",8,1

Re:Interesting content lineup by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2010-10-04 07:46 · Score: 2, Informative

O'BRIEN, CUE THE TELESCREEN

It's "Two Minutes Hate", My Favourite Reality Series!

--
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."

No content by StubNewellsFarm · 2010-10-04 07:50 · Score: 5, Insightful

Lest you be deceived by the article summary, let's run down the content:

Turner Broadcasting and NBC Universal: No, they're not providing shows. They're just updating their websites, so that you can view them on your TV.
HBO: Yes, you get HBO shows on demand. If you already subscribe to HBO. This is perfect for all 10 people who went for the high-end cable package but who don't have a DVR.
Netflix and Amazon on demand: Just like pretty much every internet-connected box produced in the last 3 years.

I don't want a web browser on my TV. I do want a way to ditch my cable TV and still get access to shows on demand. So far, at least, this doesn't get us any closer than Apple TV, Roku, Boxee or anyone else.

Re:No content by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 09:12 · Score: 0

During the Olympics, NBC showed their colors in the Canada vs USA hockey game.
I don't get MSNBC, and unless I could prove to the website that I subscribe to their premium MSNBC channel, they would be giving me zero content over the web.
NBC being involved is not a selling point for me.
Paper Mate, General Electric, and Acura were happy to advertise on NBC while they pulled this stunt.
Re:No content by zuperduperman · 2010-10-04 10:59 · Score: 1

The one thing it does beyond the others is put 3rd party apps on the TV. It's an open question whether this turns out to be useful, but it does open the way for, for example, content producers to make apps which they control to give you content on demand. We'll see.
Re:No content by Snaller · 2010-10-04 15:30 · Score: 1

"I don't want a web browser on my TV."
Its not about you.
"I do want a way to ditch my cable TV and still get access to shows on demand."
There are bittorrent programs for Android. Run them on your TV and have it download torrents - can't be more on demand than that.

--
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Re:No content by religious+freak · 2010-10-04 19:52 · Score: 1

I want a web browser on my TV. TV is garbage. I want to watch TED, fora.tv and news related content on my TV. To hell with the rest of that crap.

See... opinions can differ :-)

--
If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
Re:No content by mattack2 · 2010-10-05 14:04 · Score: 1

You can already get the TED podcasts.. and watch them e.g. on an AppleTV or whatever else you have that can play the video podcasts.
Re:No content by religious+freak · 2010-10-06 08:37 · Score: 1

Yep! That is exactly what I do :-)

--
If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011

Who watches TV anyway? by RonTheHurler · 2010-10-04 07:53 · Score: 1, Interesting

Hey folks, we can't afford to watch TV anymore. Seriously, think about what would have happened if Thomas Jefferson, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, et al, spent their evenings vegging out to a boob tube. We've got some serious problems to solve! Global Warming, The end of fossil fuels, the looming threat of water shortages, population pressures.... Who's going to solve these problems if we're all catching up on The Amazing Race to Wast the most Time? Come on! If you can't do the chemical engineering, or nano-technology, you can at least help the kids get interested. How about improving education? Getting politically active? Raising public awareness? Not sure if the problems are real? Then put a bullet in your TV and go do some real research. Give yourself an education before you put on the apathy hat.

The house is on fire, are we just gonna sit around and watch it burn?

Google TV is an evil thing. Truly.

Re:Who watches TV anyway? by justinlindh · 2010-10-04 08:06 · Score: 2, Insightful

I bet you're a blast at parties.
Re:Who watches TV anyway? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 08:15 · Score: 0

Better stop reading fiction, listening to the radio, doing crosswords, playing video games, riding skateboards, having sex for pleasure . . .
In fact, fuck it. Recreation should be banned!
Moron.
Re:Who watches TV anyway? by alen · 2010-10-04 08:26 · Score: 1

you need to get laid, and fast
i've noticed that most of the people that are worried about the end of the world and all these problems don't have a gf, wife, and/or kids. the rest of us are too busy with life
Re:Who watches TV anyway? by Joe+Tie. · 2010-10-04 08:49 · Score: 1

You're obviously trolling, but I think it does bring up a good point. One of the things I really like about this trend is that it moves away from passive viewing. It's less about sitting down and watching anything for hours and hours, as it is about only going to the tv for a specific show.

--
Everything will be taken away from you.
Re:Who watches TV anyway? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 08:57 · Score: 0

I bet you're a blast at parties.
Shuuuut uuuuup.
Don't tell him about the parties, or he'll want us to stop having those too.
All fun must cease until every problem is solved. - RonTheHurler
Re:Who watches TV anyway? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 09:11 · Score: 0

I can't afford a TV you insensitive clod.
Re:Who watches TV anyway? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 09:11 · Score: 0

lol, you said boob.
Re:Who watches TV anyway? by BotnetZombie · 2010-10-04 10:10 · Score: 1

We've got some serious problems to solve! Global Warming, The end of fossil fuels, the looming threat of water shortages, population pressures
Ah, but all these problems take care of each other.
End of fossil fuels? No more global warming.
Global warming? More rain and thus no water shortage.
Water shortages? No more population pressures.
And of course, when there are no people left, who cares about fossil fuels?
Re:Who watches TV anyway? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 13:30 · Score: 0

First off, Thomas Jefferson, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein (and I'll add a few more: Benjamin Franklin, Robert Goddard, Thomas Edison, the Wright brothers, "Madame" Marie Curie, and numerous others) all conducted a lot of their research experiments at home - experiments which nowadays are considered to be dangerous, unlawful, and even "terrorist activities" in each of their respective home countries.
How many of you made pipe bombs or other types of fireworks or "improvised explosives" in your backyards, or shot BB or pellet guns, or even a .22 (or .223 or shotgun) when you were children? How many built multi-stage model rockets, played with electricity, and as a minor purchased replacement chemicals at the local druggist/pharmacy when you ran out of compounds for your chemisty set? How many of you went on to carry out terrorist acts? (I'd guess none, or if there are any such psychos reading this site, they number fewer than 2)
I've shot BBs and pellet guns, and even a .22 and shotgun and .223 on occasion (always under supervision, except one time I used the .22 to scare off a fox who was interested having in the sheep for lunch). I have never built a bomb, but my brother, dad, and his local police friends used to build them and set them off toward the back of the property and I did help them improve the designs. My brother built and set of model rockets all the time, but I wasn't too terribly interested because I always wanted to send one up with a movie camera, and digital cameras didn't exist at the time. My brother read "the anarchist cookbook" cover to cover several times, and I flipped through it. I built timer circuits for my brother's firework, bomb, and model rocket efforts. And yet, neither of us ever carried out any "terrorist acts." We both learned a hell of a lot, and we caught the very tail end of freedom as our parents' and grandparents' generation saw it. The police did come by a couple of times after I helped my brother get his bombs to be really loud - so we showed them what was being done (my dad's friends on the force had long before lost interest). They shrugged and said "be careful" and that was it. Neither of us lost any hands or fingers or anything like that. We never got any injuries from that kind of experimentation.
How old are we? I am 38 and my brother 34. That time was the mid to late 80s. Were we to do even a tenth of the stuff we used to do even a few years before 09/11/2001, we'd have been harassed and labeled criminals.
Funny story though: one time my dad was burning some brush and paper trash in a barrel. He turned his back, and my brother at that moment decided the fire was not going well enough, so he threw gasoline on the fire (not kerosene - gasoline). Well, two minutes later my dad had tossed him in the river, called the ambulance and put my brother in the shower, and an hour later he was in intensive care. My brother had burned 60% of his body. How did this happen? Not from ter'rist activity, not from exploding model rockets, fireworks, or anything like that. By doing something which is perfectly legal and acceptable to this day, only he mistook one fuel for another, and had an unfortunate misstep. Oh, and yes I did say the story is funny, because he obviously survived we can laugh about it today (all he has to show for it is about a six square inch scar on his arm - all his hair grew back, his ears and face are not disfigured at all, and he doesn't even have bare spots on his body hair. He is a walking miracle!
Why do I mentioned his boneheaded move which led to a serious life-threatening accident? Because it goes to show that even as much of a nanny state we decide to give up our rights for today's episode of Homeland Security Theater, the world is still a very dangerous place. Not only that, but today's laws and regulations and scruitinizing things as simple as timer circuits and chemistry sets have left scientific curiousity and research in
Re:Who watches TV anyway? by stoanhart · 2010-10-04 13:32 · Score: 1

The modern day Newtons and Einsteins aren't spending their time vegging out on the couch, don't worry. I'm sure they can't even conceive of why anyone would want to. The people who are vegging out now (ie: most people) are the ones who would have spent the evening drinking at the local pub back then. Nothing has changed.
Re:Who watches TV anyway? by religious+freak · 2010-10-04 19:54 · Score: 1

Ha, you had me until your very last sentence. I too hate TV, but think making the educational and informational vids on the Internet more accessible will be good... for those that choose to watch them (both you and I seem to be in that very small category).

--
If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011

Users per TV? by tepples · 2010-10-04 07:56 · Score: 2, Funny

Google TV doesn't do much that a PS3 already can't.

In addition, how many remote controls can you use with a Google TV at one time? PS3 supports up to four controllers.

Re:Users per TV? by CronoCloud · 2010-10-04 11:08 · Score: 1

Well, that's a moot point, since Google TV is not a multiplayer gaming device. It's a device to bring the "Web" (meaning facebook youtube, twiiter, netflix, pandora) to one's TV.
Also the actual limit on PS3 controllers is 7, not 4.

DLNA is coming for Roku by Optic7 · 2010-10-04 07:58 · Score: 3, Informative

According to this article on Engadget: http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/22/roku-xds-review/

Roku tells us it'll be adding additional support for DLNA streaming in the future, and with various DLNA-compatible devices like the Samsung Galaxy Tab, the Motorola Droid X, and LG Optimus Windows Phone 7 handset either out or on their way to market, it could present a solid alternative to Apple's AirPlay. We weren't able to test any DLNA features, though, since they're not currently available -- the potential is there, but Roku has to execute.

I wish for the same. The Roku is where it's at right now in terms of an internet TV set-top box. The Google TV could also be interesting, but let's wait to see it working and how much the set-top boxes are going to cost.

Zzzzzzzzz by Ordonator · 2010-10-04 07:58 · Score: 1

Hey, I like Google and everything, but this isn't very exciting. My HTPC has been doing these things (and more) for years. Perhaps I'd been just a little more interested if I could easily run this as a platform on my existing hardware.

Price by dbet · 2010-10-04 08:00 · Score: 1

Currently, I run a DVI + mini-jack to my TV and just use my computer. That's about $10 for the wires and the DVI goes about 30 feet. It might go more, I haven't tried, but at 30 feet I have no observable signal loss. Add in the possible cost of a second (or third) video card, and a TV box has to beat that to be worth it. Add in other $20-ish for a media remote for your computer.

The best part is it plays every single format with no start-up time (even a DVD takes a while to load, skip commercials, etc.).

Re:Price by tycoex · 2010-10-04 10:44 · Score: 0

Seriously I don't understand why anyone would care about any of these online TV things. How hard is it to plug a $10 cord from your laptop into the back of your tv?
Re:Price by CronoCloud · 2010-10-04 11:14 · Score: 1

In most cases it's probably the "non geek family member doesn't want non aesthetically pleasing cables stretched across the living room." Don't tell me you haven't ever heard the "do we really need all those things and cabled hooked up to the TV? It looks messy"

DSL how fast? by tepples · 2010-10-04 08:02 · Score: 1

Is 1.5 Mbps DSL enough to stream 720p H.264? I wouldn't be so sure because Blu-ray Disc allows bitrates over 30 times more than that.

Open Source? From Sony and Logitech??? by Rick+Richardson · 2010-10-04 08:04 · Score: 1

Open Source? From Sony and Logitech??? What gives?

What next? by jbatista · 2010-10-04 08:16 · Score: 1

Google Pizza? Google Beer? Google Babes? Google Porn? Google Space Station? ...

--
My sig is better than your sig.

Re:What next? by cnkurzke · 2010-10-04 08:47 · Score: 1

Google Pizza? Google Beer? Google Babes? Google Porn? Google Space Station? ...
been there, done that..... Looooong time ago!
http://www.google.com/jobs/lunar_job.html

Re:Boycott them! by Jah+Shaka · 2010-10-04 09:07 · Score: 0

thats just cuz you work for google

Re:Open Source? From Sony and Logitech??? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 09:11 · Score: 0

Open Source? From Sony and Logitech??? What gives?

How did you connect a typewriter to the Internet?

Re:Like the Nintendo Wii by jedidiah · 2010-10-04 09:15 · Score: 1

Wii Supporting Netflix is a little more significant though.

All of those grannies that have Wii's in their house because of the grandkids can now stream Netflix.

Spongebob and John Wayne are a little more significant that whatever it is that people watch on YouTube.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.

But I want FOOTBALL! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 09:18 · Score: 0

I am totally on the bandwagon for dropping Cable/Satellite TV for the Roku (or similar setup.)

Unfortunately, I still see some major drawbacks on the content side.

Live Sporting events: $50/yr for NFL streaming. $110 for NBA (7-team pkg). $20 just for the MLB post-season. ??? for NCAA (I can't find NCAA streaming packages)
CNN/FOX/MSNBC live streams: Not there!

These are the two critical hurdles for me to drop my Cable + DVR setup. I know there are workarounds to find this content, but I want it to be reliable. It is not reliable if a lawyer can shut it down within a day.

I post this because I am willing to pay (somewhat) for content. $10/mo for Hulu Plus? Fine. $9/mo for Netflix? Bargain. But when you add it all up with the sports packages, then the cost of Internet plus subscriptions climbs back to Digital Cable levels.

Hulu? by north.coaster · 2010-10-04 09:23 · Score: 1

But the real question is... will I be able to use Google TV to watch Hulu on my TV?

I already have a Tivo, so I already have a way to record live TV, access Netflix, watch Amazon VOD, YouTube, etc. And with pyTivo I can watch videos that I downloaded to my PC from the web. All that is missing is Hulu.

Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 09:25 · Score: 1, Insightful

Does anyone have an official link to Google TV's support (or lack thereof) of streaming content off a local machine on my home network?

bittorrent included? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 09:48 · Score: 0

Unless it includes a bittorrent client and can play a variety of formats, I'm not interested!

Or more precisely.. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 10:05 · Score: 0

Today Google provided new information about their upcoming Google TV platform for set-top boxes.

You mean Google provided new advertising, don't you?

Re:Nintendo Wii by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 12:12 · Score: 0

Suck my dick.

ok

Re:slashdotbroken by kimvette · 2010-10-04 12:59 · Score: 1

Correction: after trolling like a sociopath you have trouble using /. from your own IP.

The fix: stop trolling, and participate in the discussion like a rational human being - even if you have to fake it! ;)

--
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50

Used laptops by tepples · 2010-10-04 13:06 · Score: 1

Parents today buy better laptops for their kids.

In my experience, working-class parents buy sub-$400 laptops for their kids. This means either a netbook or a used laptop. They probably won't be fast enough for gaming or high-definition H.264, but they're fast enough for LibreOffice (for homework) and Facebook.

Re:Used laptops by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-04 14:22 · Score: 0

I think it depends on how we're defining kids. For pre-teens/under-15, I'd say you're absolutely right. It's usually all cheap laptops for them. But older, and around here at least, it is MBPs (wealthy parents) or $600-1400 Dells. Only seen 1 kid w/ an Alienware.

Thank you for clearing this up by tepples · 2010-10-04 13:53 · Score: 1

nothing i said even implied everything made with flash is bad.

Thank you for clearing this up. I used Homestar Runner as an example with which enough readers would be familiar. I initially confused you with other Slashdot users who claim that everything they've seen that was made with Flash is crud and forget Theodore Sturgeon's revelation that 90 percent of everything is crud. So please allow me to rephrase:

How big would (insert Flash animations that are not bad) get if they were converted from SWF vector animation to H.264 compressed bitmaps? Your answer was "They would be huge". That's one reason why Google TV and several other devices support SWF: it can be far more bandwidth-efficient than its closest competitor.

TV appliance vs. nettop: same cabling by tepples · 2010-10-04 14:55 · Score: 1

If the primary problem is cabling, then why do people choose video-only appliances over an ION nettop PC such as the AspireRevo? They're both a box with a cable to connect to the back of a TV.

Parent is not a troll by Snaller · 2010-10-04 15:24 · Score: 1

He just doesn't have any sense of humor (nor vision probably)

--
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating

Re:Roku + media streaming + Only for americans by Snaller · 2010-10-04 15:27 · Score: 1

The roku is just in america from a little tin pot company.
Google TV is for the world - with huge company and millions of dollars behind it - plus millions of Android developers just waiting to get their hands on it.

Its not about you. Its about everybody else.

--
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating

Interpolation by tepples · 2010-10-05 02:24 · Score: 1

How do vector graphics reduce space?

Vectors can be interpolated from frame to frame in an animation far more efficiently than even the motion compensation in H.264 or VP8. They can also be scaled to 1920x1080 pixels without loss of sharpness. They can save space by looping elements.

GIFs and JPGS can be squeezed to just a few K.

Not when animated. Compare motion JPEG, a codec that represents each frame as a JPEG image, to MPEG-1, a codec that represents keyframes as essentially JPEG images and all other frames as the difference between frames, including commands to move blocks of pixels. The motion compensation techniques of more advanced video codecs improve this even further.

Re:Boycott them! by Jah+Shaka · 2010-10-05 05:14 · Score: 0

cant help but to say i told you so http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/10/05/1421258/Google-Patent-Proposes-2-Fee-To-Skip-Commercials

free online money by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-13 08:58 · Score: 0

wow sounds realy interesting. def need to check it out.

http://www.freeonlinemoney.net

Get a new Blu Ray Player then by brunes69 · 2010-10-13 09:34 · Score: 1

My Samsung BD-C5500 Blu-Ray player can do all this. It plays Netflix, Blockbuster, YouTube, a host of other sites. It can play media from any DLNA media server in my house, which my little wireless router seems to do perfectly. It can play DivX, MKV, XVid, nearly anything.

Oh, and did I mention it is also a BluRay player?

Oh and it cost me exactly $130.

And this is far from the only BluRay player with capabilities like this.

Boxee and Apple TV et. al. have missed the boat, all the blu-ray players are coming with this stuff built in nowadays. Why should I buy another box that does the same thing as one I already own?

180 comments