Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google TV Details Revealed

Posted by Soulskill on from the searching-imdb-with-my-remote-control-will-change-my-life dept.

Today Google provided new information about their upcoming Google TV platform for set-top boxes. Using a video and a demonstration site, they show how apps will look and function, and stressed that users wouldn't be limited in their ability to browse the web on their TV. Google also announced content partners, which include Turner Broadcasting, NBC Universal, HBO, Netflix and Amazon Video. "We have also been working with some leading technology and media companies to optimize their content for Google TV, including news sites like The New York Times and USA Today; music sites like VEVO, Pandora and Napster; information networks like Twitter; and online networks like blip.tv. And with YouTube Leanback, we can offer the best experience for you to watch your favorite viral videos and personalized channels on the television." For developers, they put up a guide to optimize websites for Google TV.

8 of 180 comments (clear)

  1. We keep a history of every show you ever watch... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    But wait, its Google! We trust them.

  2. Roku + media streaming by yodleboy · · 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.

    1. Re:Roku + media streaming by wizbit · · 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").

  3. Wow, back to the future by alta · · 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.
    1. Re:Wow, back to the future by tepples · · 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.

  4. Re:1995 called... by CronoCloud · · 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.

  5. Re:Alone? by Keruo · · 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.
  6. Who watches TV anyway? by RonTheHurler · · 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.