Slashdot Mirror
Google TV Details Revealed
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.
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.
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.
1970 called. They want their joke back.
1880 telegraphed. They want their meme updated, but they have no tech support back there.
550 BC mailed. The Persians apologize for delivering this joke.
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
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.
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.
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.
Or Dreamcast with it's built in modem...
You mean "its".
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..."
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.
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.........
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.
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.
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.
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.
I bet you're a blast at parties.
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.
David Spade called...he wants his only good joke back.
Oh yeah, he said to send you a DMCA takedown request too.
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.