Ubuntu TV: Coming Soon To a Living Room Near You (Video)

Apple TV is a little device you hook to your television. Ubuntu TV (motto: "TV for human beings") is going to be inside your TV, says Peter Goodall, Canonical's Product Manage for Ubuntu TV. At CES, he described Ubuntu TV to Timothy Lord in detail. Join them via Slashdot Video to see what's up with this Ubuntu venture, which has lots of competition; "Smart TV" was a major CES catchphrase this year.

Comments

Smart boxes not TVs

[Monoman]

I personally would rather see the TV makers stick to making the displays and let other companies like Roku, Boxee, Tivo, etc handle the "smart" parts.

We have a Samsung smart TV too. We use Hulu quite a bit but have found that the Hulu app appears to suffer from lag sometimes. However, on our older TV (not smart) we have a Roku we use for Hulu and it never experiences the problem. If the TV lags bad I just pause the show on the smart tv and then go resume it on the Roku.

Re:Smart boxes not TVs

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. There is no money to be made on it after the sale of the TV for the manufacturer, and therefore no incentive to maintain / upgrade the service; or even fix it if it's broken. This is not a good business model for the consumer.

Re:Smart boxes not TVs

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a Sony Internet TV and Hulu experiences frequent lags. If we stream from Amazon Prime then we never have any problems. I wonder if it's the Hulu client in the smart TV which is actually the problem.

I hate having a TV with the programs built in. We are at the mercy of Sony to push updates to our Internet TV. Hopefully Sony will continue to support the TV and send me frequent updates to fix some of the performance problems in the TV. If they stop supporting the software then my TV is worthless. In retrospect, I would prefer to have a separate box so I'm not stuck to vendor lock-in.

Re:Smart boxes not TVs

[Idbar]

No. It's annoying! It's annoying having a tv with plenty of features that go to waste because you end up plugging in one our two our more boxes to input ports. And each one requires anything else to remote control it properly (i.e. Some features are only available through their particular remote). I loved the idea of a smart tv, because it's like having my computer connected to the tv, without the extra boxes and cables.

Re:Smart boxes not TVs

[Monoman]

It would be nice if TVs just had standard slots for tuners/adapter but you can pretty much forget about them standardizing on an interface so others can make money.

Re:Smart boxes not TVs

[Anonymous Coward]

In retrospect, I would prefer to have a separate box so I'm not stuck to vendor lock-in.

Or, you know, don't buy a Sony... ever.

Re:Smart boxes not TVs

[Vanderhoth]

Yes, I love my smart TV. It has a built in media server to play shows I download on my laptop, There's Netflix app that came with the TV, and it still functions as a regular TV. I think getting Ubuntu TV would be great if my cable provider would support it. Of course when the cable company starts losing $10-$25/month because people don't need to rent the stupid boxes from them, they'll most likely block the competing service. My cable co. Charges $10/month for the basic digital cable decoder box and $25/month for the digital cable decoder with PVR. That's on top of the $160/month for cable not including the HD channels. One more excuse to pirate shows.

I'm slowly convincing my wife that, yes cable is convenient if you like to channel surf and don't know what you want to watch, but you can download anything you want, only get what you want instead of the 100 extra channels of crap, you don't have to watch the stupid commercials, and with the money we'd save by getting rid of cable we could buy a new computer/TV/whatever else she wanted every year.

Re:Smart boxes not TVs

[mwvdlee]

What smart features does your TV have that a separate box couldn't possible ever have?

Re:Smart boxes not TVs

[Kamiza Ikioi]

I agree, I don't want integrated. It always reminds me of TV's with VCRs in them. The VCR almost always died first, leaving a TV with a built in VCR that didn't work and another VCR hooked up to it.

Re:Smart boxes not TVs

[SomePgmr]

I'd think the TV makers would be scrambling for ways to differentiate. I mean, the buzz of last year's CES was the ill-conceived push for "3d tv". I get the sense most people had the same "meh" reaction I did.

And while I agree with the gp, that I'd rather have that functionality in a roku (etc), more ways to get content sounds nice to everyone. Standardized ways of doing so might just be a byproduct of manufacturers trying to offer as many services as possible in their devices' feature lists.

Re:Smart boxes not TVs

[rickb928]

If you have an HDTV, the standard interface is marked HDMI.

Re:Smart boxes not TVs

[tepples]

I loved the idea of a smart tv, because it's like having my computer connected to the tv

But does a smart TV let you play computer games on the TV, or do you still need an external console and are you still limited to the selection of games for that console?

Re:Smart boxes not TVs

[joeyblades]

I personally would rather not have any more "boxes" attached to my TV.

I have a Sony Google TV and I love it.
I haven't noticed any latency issues.

BTW, You really can't compare an integrated Sony/Google TV (or similar) solution with Roku unless you ONLY care about streaming. One of the best things about Google TV is the integrated Chrome browser. I love watching some program and being able to pull up a browser in the background and learn about what other movies that actor is in? or what's the name of that song playing in the soundtrack? or how many stars does this movie get on Rotten Tomatoes? or what's that pitcher's stats? etc.... Or, if I want to show my family some pictures on some web site, but I would like to leave the playoff game on in the background.

Re:Smart boxes not TVs

[Idbar]

I'm going to tell you the first one that went to waste on my Sony XBR in the 90s: Picture-in-Picture. It was great to have the chance of checking other stuff while not missing the main one. It was (to me) particularly useful for the news. Then my cable company came to bring the set top box, and bye-bye feature.

In addition to it, some boxes for some reason whatsoever don't control the TV volume but the local box volume, so you have to use their remote to control the volume (or any other stupid stuff), so you'll have to have both remotes always at reach.

So yes, I find TVs coming with awesome features, and I sincerely just got one Google TV and the rest.. is monitors with computers plugged to them and wireless keyboards, because I refuse to pay for features that I'm not going to use, and I refuse to pay for many multiple boxes, for a single task each. It's just ridiculous.

Why none of the freaking TV manufacturers has come with a USB dongle that enables channel decoding for cable companies instead of using a bunch of extra boxes (and cards) is something that it's out of my head. (If it's security, it's not like people don't crack satellite box firmware already).

Re:Smart boxes not TVs

[aaarrrgggh]

Up until a week or two ago, I would agree with you, primarily on the grounds of Remote Control Hell. For the primary television in the living room, maybe a smart TV wins, but I'm planning some small remote monitors with a BeagleBoard in back to serve up reasonably non-interactive content. While a smart TV should be able to meet my needs for such a function, history tells me that it will be locked down in one way or another.

TV manufacturers' objective is to shorten the upgrade cycle. That doesn't do much for me; I want my TV to last 10 years minimum. (My parents had their first color TV for 25 years!)

Re:Smart boxes not TVs

[Idbar]

I see your point of the "upgrading" cycle. But if they really don't offer something "worth" the upgrade and their features go to waste (as I said in a previous post, like the Picture-in-picture that vanished thanks to the cable boxes), then why do I need anything more than a plain monitor (with perhaps a single tuner if so)?

Re:Smart boxes not TVs

[ceoyoyo]

Why? My TV has a nice standard HDMI input (several of them in fact). That's quite sufficient to get video and sound into the TV. That way I can hook up anything I want and not have to worry about whether it has the right size, shape, connector and protocol to fit my TV.

Re:Smart boxes not TVs

[mcgrew]

I agree. But then again I was always more of an "individual components" kind of guy. When one part fails you don't have to replace the whole shebang, and you can upgrade one part at a time.

But that's just me, I think most people prefer a stereo to components, and a VCR/DVD/BluRay/wheteverisnext inside the TV rather than a pile of boxes they have to wire together.

I already have Ubuntu TV -- a computer running kubuntu sits next to the TV and uses it for a monitor. I sit on the couch with a wireless mouse to control it, occasionally using a wireless keyboard. I've had this setup for almost ten years (it used to be a Mandrake TV).

Re:Smart boxes not TVs

[mcgrew]

That was very insightful for an AC. After all the evil and harm that Sony's done to their customers, any fool that buys a Sony deserves what he gets. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

Re:Smart boxes not TVs

[BigZee]

The way you described your personal preference made me recall the introduction of the Sony Profeel in the '80s. The idea was to sell TVs in the same way as Hi-Fi - you buy just the components you need/want to connect to a high quality monitor. It might have been a good idea but given the limited options it never really took off. In most cases, Profeel monitors were generally used at trade shows as simply a high quality monitor that could accept a video feed. Had the different service options we have now been available back then it might have taken off. However, I don't think so. Although people might want a PVR and access to several internet or satellite feeds the majority do not want the plethora of boxes and cables that might be associated with such services. In practice, as demonstrated by Sky in the UK, people want a one stop shop. In this respect, integrating the available options into the TV is probably the most satisfactory option. It may not suit us nerds (I have an HDDVD player, Laserdisk player, PS3, VHS video recorder, Mythtv box and a Wii huddled under my TV) but I expect it is the way forward for many. In fact, I expect that the TV of the future will simply be a tablet PC where the screen happens to be 40 or 50 inches in size and sits on the wall instead of your lap. No one seems to mind having the myriad of services available in an Ipad.

Re:Smart boxes not TVs

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called an HDMI port.

Re:Smart boxes not TVs

[pecosdave]

Apple sees the value in more or less maintaining the previous version.

They see the value in throwing the one before that a couple of bones.

They don't see much value in going back before that.

They see the value in suing people who try to bring current functionality to older products.

See what they're doing for a dual G5 Power Mac or the original iPhone? I'm Apple free now, I had to give my mom my newer Mac-Mini to replace her dual G5 since the version of iTunes available on the dual G5 couldn't load the latest IOS on her 3GS. I was glad to be rid of it.

Re:Smart boxes not TVs

[horza]

With Android it is the carrier, not the manufacturer, that updates it. In most cases the manufacturer provides plenty of updates. Most people are happy with the stock Android that comes with their phone, but geeks get the option to install the latest and greatest.

Your argument, however, makes no sense. You suggest that the Android manufacturers have no incentive to update their phones, yet Apple has the incentive of "maintaining good will"? If the latter is a good business model then Android manufacturers have the same incentive. It is also based on the false premis that consumers are better off with an iPhone than an Android phone, when the reality is clearly the other way around.

Phillip.

Re:Smart boxes not TVs

[ThirdPrize]

I had a TV remote, a PVR remote, a Blu-Ray remote and a 360 controller. Now I have a Harmony 4in1 remote and it is a lot less hassle. It will turn on the TV and Blu-Ray, change channel and even control the correct volume. Nearly gadget of the decade just for that.

Re:Smart boxes not TVs

[uniquename72]

VCR's are mechanical, and so are prone to breaking. TVs are already computers, so adding features is trivial. Do you also argue that your desktop shouldn't play music? After all, that's one more thing that might break.

Re:Smart boxes not TVs

[Monoman]

That works great. Now we need an internal HDMI interface and standard slot. Some folks don't want "set top" boxes.

Re:Smart boxes not TVs

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be nice if TVs just had standard slots for tuners/adapter but you can pretty much forget about them standardizing on an interface so others can make money.

They already have that. It's called HDMI port and it allows any compatible device to interface with the TV.

Re:Smart boxes not TVs

[tlhIngan]

I'd think the TV makers would be scrambling for ways to differentiate. I mean, the buzz of last year's CES was the ill-conceived push for "3d tv". I get the sense most people had the same "meh" reaction I did.
 

Actually, 2011 CES was all about tablets and e-readers. The 3DTV one was 2010. Which got the "meh" until Apple decided to showcase the iPad a couple of weeks later.

Of course, this year's CES was more 3DTV/tablet/something-anything meh.

And while I agree with the gp, that I'd rather have that functionality in a roku (etc), more ways to get content sounds nice to everyone. Standardized ways of doing so might just be a byproduct of manufacturers trying to offer as many services as possible in their devices' feature lists.

And it's pretty much true. The stuff that they can differentiate their TV on (video/color quality, lag, etc), is really, really, really hard to sell. And since "connected TVs" are easy to add features to (hello Netflix, hello Amazon, hello Hulu), it's easy to add to feature lists and emblazon the Netflix, Amazon and Hulu logos all over the box. Add in WiFi support built in and that makes people happy.

And the common consumer wants less set top boxes and configuration - TV needs to be simple. Not messing with a half dozen remotes and inputs and key maps and such (and they refuse to buy a Harmony because "they're too expensive").

Re:Smart boxes not TVs

[Phoobarnvaz]

we have a Roku we use for Hulu and it never experiences the problem. If the TV lags bad I just pause the show on the smart tv and then go resume it on the Roku.

Thought about going the Roku/Media TV box as well...but with enough old PC's sitting around...loaded up XBMC Live to control the media on our media server as well as anything online I would want. As soon as they produce enough of them...am expecting to get the $35 Raspberry Pi and running an XBMC ARM port to replace the PC in my room and the living room. Since it fits in an Altoids tin...it will be quieter than any PC...along with the space factor of not having a tower/desktop case with the noise in the both rooms.

Re:Smart boxes not TVs

[Belial6]

If I wasn't running into fragmentation problems with my iPhone, I might agree with you. At this point, half the apps I try to download won't work on my iPhone. Luckily, I have an Android phone for day to day use so that apps actually work.

Re:Smart boxes not TVs

[BasilBrush]

See what they're doing for a dual G5 Power Mac or the original iPhone?

What I said was:
"Apple does see the value in doing software updates for old models, for as long as the old model has the power to run the new software OK."

If you recall, when iOS 4 was launched, there were complaints from iPhone3 3G owners because the performance was bad. In that case Apple had actually supported one step further than they should have done. Your question about the original iPhone, as if it should still be supported is ridiculous.

Mac G5 isn't supported anymore because the CPU architecture changed. It's not to do with a general unwillingness to release builds for older computers. Even so it was supported with new OS versions for 5 years.

My contrast was iOS to Android. With Android, if you get any updates at all you are lucky. You might get 1 year. You won't get 2 years.

I had to give my mom my newer Mac-Mini to replace her dual G5 since the version of iTunes available on the dual G5 couldn't load the latest IOS on her 3GS.

That's a bit strange, because the current version of iTunes still supports the G5. It will run on Leopard, and Leopard is compatible with G5. What's your problem?

Re:Smart boxes not TVs

[BasilBrush]

With Android it is the carrier, not the manufacturer, that updates it. In most cases the manufacturer provides plenty of updates.

Whatever the reason, few updates get to users.

Your argument, however, makes no sense. You suggest that the Android manufacturers have no incentive to update their phones, yet Apple has the incentive of "maintaining good will"?

It makes perfect sense, and you touched on it. Apple sees end users as their customers, and they often literally are... where people buy through the Apple Stores or Apple On-line. Other manufacturers see the networks as their customers, and only have to keep good-will with them.

If the latter is a good business model then Android manufacturers have the same incentive.

Apple has lots of good and successful attributes of the way they do business that no one else in the industry manages to replicate.

It is also based on the false premis that consumers are better off with an iPhone than an Android phone, when the reality is clearly the other way around.

It's not BASED on that PREMISE. That conclusion follows.
And if you still don't believe it you can look at customer satisfactions surveys, that are invariably in favour of Apple. The latest one shows 75% of iPhone owners "very satifsfied" with their purcase, and only 47% of Android owners. That's very clear, unless you're blinded by fanboyism.

Re:Smart boxes not TVs

[BasilBrush]

That's not fragmentation. That's having an old phone.

Fragmentation is when you have lots of differing products running a platform at the same time. Like Android.

It's not the stepwise replacement of new models in a product line sequence. Like iPhone.

iOS has a small amount of fragmentation, in the divide between the iPhone and iPad line. But that's it.

Android has countless different current product lines from several manufacturers, nearly all of them different. That's severe fragmentation.

Luckily, I have an Android phone for day to day use so that apps actually work.

LOL! Deluded, troll or fanboy? Could be any of those. But either way it's clearly ridiculous to claim you can't run programs on iPhone due to fragmentation but you have no problem on Android. It's ridiculous even for someone who doesn't know what fragmentation means.

Re:Smart boxes not TVs

[Dr_Barnowl]

There are already HDMI dongles that are small enough to just hang out of the port, powered by a standard USB 5V, that are powerful enough to run Linux.

Re:Smart boxes not TVs

[Belial6]

I refuse to pay for features that I'm not going to use

You may be doing just that by insisting that parts not be included. This is the same debate that went on when things like Network/serial ports/video/audio started being included on motherboards. When adding good enough audio added $80 to the cost of a motherboard, it was bad to include it on every board. When the audio started adding less than $1 the situation changed. It became came cheaper to make one version of the board with audio than it was to do a separate run of boards without audio. Thus, manufacturing boards with audio and not using it was actually less expensive than not having audio at all.

Re:Smart boxes not TVs

[pepty]

A sticking point for both smart boxes and TVs is licensing: Hulu (free) and even some Hulu+ content has licensing terms that basically say "not intended to be hooked up to your TV". None of the smart boxes or game consoles I've seen allow Hulu (free). OrbTV comes closest, but still needs a PC on the netwrok, and isn't HD). On the other hand Netflix streaming is partnered with microsoft (silverlight), so the only linux support is (I think) installing windows as a VM on your linux box. Eek.

Please please correct me if I'm wrong: If you want all of the Hulu(free) and possibly the Hulu+ content (without paying some other subscription fee, like Playon) as well as Netflix on your TV your current options are:

-a Windows or OS-X PC.

An android phone that can handle exporting HD is a possibility ... but then your TV only works when its hooked up to your phone.

Seeing as Big Content is severely tightening licensing (Netflix may well be a shadow of its current self a year or two from now) I don't see smart TVs making much headway on these problems.

Re:Smart boxes not TVs

[Belial6]

Ahhh....When software doesn't run on Apple, it is my fault. When software doesn't run on Android, it is Android's fault. That makes WAY more sense. Your right. Not taking accepting that any incompatibility between iOS products is my fault, is clearly a sign of fanboyism.

Re:Smart boxes not TVs

[BasilBrush]

Ahhh....When software doesn't run on Apple, it is my fault. When software doesn't run on Android, it is Android's fault.

That's a complete non-sequitur. I just corrected you on your misunderstanding of that fragmentation is. And called your bullshit on the idea that iPhones suffer more from it than Android.

Re:Smart boxes not TVs

[ditoa]

I have a brand new Galaxy Nexus which I switched too just over a month ago from an iPhone 3GS. My biggest diappointment with Android is that the BBC iPlayer app is not available for the GN still! :( It doesn't even appear in the Android market as it is "incompatible". I can watch it view the iPlayer website (if I request the "full" site not the mobile version) but performance is not great and it eats thru the battery. It sucks as the GN has such a beautiful big screen. Yes the iPhone has newer apps (mostly games from my experience) that required an iPhone 4 or 4S due to graphical performance but I am yet to find a "general app" that does not work on my 3GS. The fragmentation on iOS is there but very minor however on Android it is pretty awful. Not to mention stock Android not coming with what I would consider to be "standard" features (such as a timer or notebook app, I was shocked to find I had to get third party apps for such things, especially when the phone comes with things like Google+, you would think Google would have been able to write a couple of simple apps that iOS had at v1).

Re:Smart boxes not TVs

[pecosdave]

That may be the problem. I left Tiger on there on purpose since it runs Mac classic stuff and my daughter used the computer quite a bit to play Mac classic games. It did leave a nice little circular upgrade though, my mom got my Intel Mini, my daughter got her dual G5 (yeah, still in my place but I consider myself Apple free) and someone else all together got her old G4 Power Mac. Since my daughter visits my parents less often now it's not a bad arrangement, everyone won and I personally am out of the garden now even if I do maintain it for others.

What I was really referring to was Apple fighting tooth and nail to keep older iPhones from recording video (even though it's proven the original can), refusal to allow older models to have extra Bluetooth functionality newer ones have, that once again the hackers proved they could do. In addition to Macs being handed out my daughter has my old iPhone serving it's new purpose as an iPod touch.

Re:Smart boxes not TVs

[Finallyjoined!!!]

ACs don't bother. You're filtered. I don't even know you're there.

What a precious twat you really are, I predict that you are pimply faced, fat, sweaty, incredibly puffed up and self-important & still a virgin.

Some people may be posting from where anonymity is a necessity.
Won't be reading any of your posts in the future, so don't bother you pillock..

Re:Smart boxes not TVs

[Idbar]

May be. So far I rather get a simple TV than an ultra-full-featured, because I know there will be some features that will cause me inconvenience. As I said, I'm fully supporting the Smart TV because I think it's convenient in this epoch. As you said, they already have a computer on board, yet we're still requiring a separate box for the DVR, a separate for Cable, a separate for the WiDi (or what ever cable management system), another for audio receiver (although audio seems to be harder to include already due to the size of power amps, yet I need to wire all the speakers around the house).

My Google TV has an Atom processor inside, Ethernet, WiFi, 4G of internal memory and USB ports. I can stream movies from my NAS right into it, I can browse the Internet (when jerks like the networks and hulu don't block the content), and it has flash support so I can watch video from many websites.

So I'm wondering, why do I need more boxes and cables (other than perhaps power amps or game consoles at this moment). I'm just saying I'm not going to pay for more boxes when many of these capabilities are, to me, software based.

Re:Smart boxes not TVs

[Belial6]

Of course you corrected me. You explained that when it happens on Apple products, it isn't a problem with the phone, it is a problem with me, and having applications just work on Android is my imagination. I understand.

Re:Smart boxes not TVs

[BasilBrush]

I predict that you are pimply faced, fat, sweaty, incredibly puffed up and self-important & still a virgin.

Your English grammar isn't very good. That would be a guess, not a prediction. A prediction is about the future. For example: I predict you will be reading this.

Some people may be posting from where anonymity is a necessity.

Are you really that stupid? You think my real name is BasilBrush?

Re:Smart boxes not TVs

[Belial6]

Gotcha! I read that backwards and thought you were saying that you wouldn't buy a TV if it came with features you didn't use, and you assumed that meant it was costing more. My mistake.

Re:Smart boxes not TVs

[BasilBrush]

You're welcome.

Re:Smart boxes not TVs

[exomondo]

What I said was:"Apple does see the value in doing software updates for old models, for as long as the old model has the power to run the new software OK."

Isn't Google exactly the same with their Nexus line? Even the old Nexus One has had all the updates but the latest 4.0 is just too taxing on the hardware.

Re:Smart boxes not TVs

[Thing 1]

Apple does see the value in doing software updates for old models, for as long as the old model has the power to run the new software OK. Their incentive is maintaining the good will of their customers.

As I've posted before when people opine this, Apple has failed me and I now own an Android. Apple pushed the iOS 4 update to my iPhone 3G (not 3GS). This caused it to slow down. Research indicated that others experienced this as well, and deduced that Apple is convincing their users to upgrade. I did upgrade -- just not in the direction they intended.

Re:Smart boxes not TVs

[axlr8or]

There are bucket loads of alternative sources of income for this. Doesn't Apple make money for every sale of an Android unit? You might have said that Mozilla was stupid for spending so much time developing the web browser when in reality, long ago, they knew that it would be used for ads and commercialization. Companies like Google for instance, knew this and realize that without the browser there is no ad. So Mozilla gets money from advertisers to make sure there is venue for their ads. Right now I don't think there is a 'user targeted' ad system from any tv provider anywhere. That in itself is really the only necessary income stream. I'm really glad I don't watch TV.

Re:Smart boxes not TVs

[Thing 1]

My Roku allows me to control it with my Android phone. I expect that other devices and televisions will allow this in the near future. Then, the only remote you'll ever need is already strapped to you, irradiating your genitalia.

Re:Smart boxes not TVs

[BasilBrush]

Apple pushed the iOS 4 update to my iPhone 3G (not 3GS). This caused it to slow down. Research indicated that others experienced this as well, and deduced that Apple is convincing their users to upgrade.

Which is the more likely explanation:
1) Apple made a mistake in supported the 3G one update too far. The 3G didn't have enough RAM and/or CPU to run 4.0 well.
2) Apple put special slow-down code in 4.0 so that when running on the 3G it is slowed down.

Occam's razor.

Re:Smart boxes not TVs

[BasilBrush]

Even if they are, that doesn't help many Android phone owners.

http://www.appbrain.com/stats/top-android-phones

Re:Smart boxes not TVs

[Anonymous Coward]

Dongles or boxes are the way to go.

http://www.fxitech.com/products/

In 2 years you can upgrade the $200 dongle instead of buying a new $2000 Smart TV

Re:Smart boxes not TVs

[rickb928]

That's crazy talk. Put it inside the TV and you can always update the software, for instance an Android implementation would let you just update... no, wait...

Oh, just update the apps as needed... no, wait...

Oh, just trade in the TV, the manufacturer will recycle it... no, wait...

Yeah. External box. Right.

Re:Smart boxes not TVs

[Thing 1]

I do agree with you. They did not properly test their products, so I went with a vendor that appears to perform better testing. The colloquial statement that "Apple is 'convincing' users to upgrade" is another interpretation of the same events.

Re:Smart boxes not TVs

[BasilBrush]

It's not nearly as straightforward as that. Of course they tested the 3G. They even cut down the new functionality of iOS4 when running on the 3G. So that guarantees they did extensive testing - if its a dfferent build, or it behaves differently on different models, you have to test all that.

No, the problem is that they were stuck between a rock and a hard place. The 3G was the currrent model from Jun 08 to Jun 09. And iOS 4.0 came out in Jun 10. It will have been decided early on as a matter of policy that phones that may have been sold just a year earlier must be supported by 4.0. That's the rock.

On the other hand, they planned the major feature of 4.0 to be multitasking of 3rd party apps. It could have been put off until 5.0, but the competition had multitasking already. And multitasking means that more things hang around in memory. So devices need more memory to perform well. That's the hard place.

When developing 4.0 they won't have known till late in the game just what the performance was like on the 3G. And it wouldn't make sense at that stage to revert out the multitasking feature.

Things are never quite so straightforward as they seem from the outside. Not that I'm an Apple insider, but I did work for Symbian, so I've all too aware of the tradeoffs and difficulties involved.

Now, consider that Android developers and manufacturers also have these issues. In fact it's worse for them as the software and hardware developers are different companies. Many reviews of many Android devices have been critical of how sluggish they are - even with the OS they are preinstalled with, never mind updates. So your contention that you switched to a platform that handles this better just doesn't ring true. Apple's screwed up once in the rock and a hard place scenario, for Android this stuff is par for the course.

Re:Smart boxes not TVs

[exomondo]

Even if they are, that doesn't help many Android phone owners.

Of course, but if you're going to compare Apple to another company with respect to phones then compare them to Google, since both companies make and update the OS as well as hardware (well ok Google contracts Samsung to produce their Nexus but it's the closest thing comparison).

Re:Smart boxes not TVs

[BasilBrush]

I know this game.
If you want updates like Apple you have to get the Samsung Nexus.
If you want a higher res screen you have to get an LG Atrix One.
If you want something cheaper than Apple then you have to get a Sony Ericsson Vivid 4G+ XT 3D.
If you want smooth scrolling then you need a Acer Nitro Black Plus.
If you want...

If the Samsung Nexus was a panacea, when it'd be more popular than it is.

Re:Smart boxes not TVs

[exomondo]

I know this game.

wtf are you talking about? I think you need to go back and read the post again, you have obviously failed to comprehend it.

Re:Smart boxes not TVs

[BasilBrush]

I understood it perfectly. It appears you didn't understand my answer.

Re:Smart boxes not TVs

[exomondo]

I understood it perfectly. It appears you didn't understand my answer.

Well no, you obviously didn't otherwise you wouldn't have posted such a nonsensical answer. There is no 'game', I'm not comparing phone specs, so you obviously did fail to comprehend the context of the discussion. Like I said, if you're going to compare Apple to an Android device maker the obvious choice is to compare them to Google, because Google - like Apple - controls OS development/updates as well as having a handset (even if though building of that handset is contracted out to someone else).

Re:Smart boxes not TVs

[BasilBrush]

Well no, you obviously didn't otherwise you wouldn't have posted such a nonsensical answer. There is no 'game', I'm not comparing phone specs, so you obviously did fail to comprehend the context of the discussion. Like I said, if you're going to compare Apple to an Android device maker the obvious choice is to compare them to Google, because Google - like Apple - controls OS development/updates as well as having a handset (even if though building of that handset is contracted out to someone else).

Again, I understood you perfectly. The obvious choice to compare is with the Android that you own or are considering buying. My point is that when people are trying to argue in favour of Android, they always pick a different "obvious model to compare", depending on what they are trying to argue.

But people only own one Android phone. They don't get the best of all worlds that is the sum of their comparisons.

Your part in this is only arguing for the model with the best updates. But there are others that do the same with a different Android model for screen resolution... etc.

I can't explain it any clearer than that. If you don't get it fine. But my point is definitely in reply to yours and yes I did understand perfectly the point you were making.

Re:Smart boxes not TVs

[exomondo]

Again, I understood you perfectly. The obvious choice to compare is with the Android that you own or are considering buying.

But I don't own an Android device and I'm not considering buying one.

My point is that when people are trying to argue in favour of Android, they always pick a different "obvious model to compare", depending on what they are trying to argue.

I'm comparing it not based on the phone and I'm not arguing in favor of Android but on the fact that Google does the same thing with their phone with regard to updates as Apple does with their phone with regard to updates. If you own a phone from Google you care what LG does with updating their phones about as much as you do if you own an iPhone, the fact that they might both run Android is irrelevant.

Your part in this is only arguing for the model with the best updates.

No, which demonstrates that you do indeed fail to understand the context of the discussion, I'm comparing the workings of the companies with regard to updating their devices, not the features of the phone or the OS.

Re:Smart boxes not TVs

[BasilBrush]

No, which demonstrates that you do indeed fail to understand the context of the discussion, I'm comparing the workings of the companies with regard to updating their devices, not the features of the phone or the OS.

Again, I understand that perfectly. It's blatantly obvious. Seems like you're trying to be obtuse, so no point continuing this.

Re:Smart boxes not TVs

[exomondo]

Again, I understand that perfectly. It's blatantly obvious. Seems like you're trying to be obtuse, so no point continuing this.

No, because you went off with some 'game' about comparing device features, which clearly demonstrates that you had no ability to comprehend my post at all because it wasn't about device features. If you understood it then you wouldn't have posted something that was completely off-topic and irrelevant, but clearly you too dense to even understand that.

Integrated Computers & TV's dont mix

[frith01]

Computer hardware changes a lot faster than the display components. There is only a limited market for integrated devices unless they are strictly re-formatting/ receiving streams over IP.

Of course, manufactures would LOVE for you to buy an Integrated device with TV today, so they can sell you a brand new shiny toy in 3-5 years when your display gear no longer works with DRM version X.

Look at all the VCR / TV combo's sitting in the garage sales cause they dont play DVD's , etc..

Re:Integrated Computers & TV's dont mix

[BasilBrush]

The VCR/TV combos that I saw were always portable TVs. I quite often saw them in office environments, where they could be moved to where ever training or a presentation required them. In such a case, a separate TV and VCR wasn't a good option, because of having to carry 2 items, and the hassle of rewiring them together each time they were moved. And they probably had a useful life of, what 10-15 years?

For large screen TVs, building a VCR in wasn't very common. I imagine there was such a product but I never saw one.

Re:Integrated Computers & TV's dont mix

[Osgeld]

who cares, these cheap ass TV's are lucky to last more than 5 years anyway, dont worry they will sell you a new toy one way or another

Re:Integrated Computers & TV's dont mix

[chrb]

Computer hardware changes a lot faster than the display components.

It's a good point, but people said the same thing about the iMac and it didn't put buyers off.

manufactures would LOVE for you to buy an Integrated device with TV today

Yup, integrate a computer and people will be more likely to upgrade faster to get newer software. Replacement rates for TVs are 10-15 years, it would be good news for the industry to cut this to 48 months or less. Those old TVs will still be useful - even if some of the incorporated closed protocols become non-functional the open ones will still work, so you will still be able to run your own DNLA server and view streams without a settop box.

Re:Integrated Computers & TV's dont mix

[justthinkit]

I don't know how old our Broksonic combo VCR-TV was when we bought it, but we have used it daily for 7 or 8 years now and it is going strong. It is used in the kitchen where there is little space, and to record TV shows to watch later -- recycled VHS tapes work great for that. Old tech is the best tech.
.

I just popped over to broksonic.com (for the first time) and they are still selling all kinds of "combo" products. Given how ridiculously reliable our $15 garage sale purchase has been, I've got half a mind to get another Broksonic product.

Inspiration

[Rambo Tribble]

Constant distraction plaguing every level of design, development and implementation is a good thing. I know this because I've been into space.
Signed,
Fake Mark Shuttleworth

Debian TV

[psergiu]

apt-get update
apt-get install latest-tv-show

Then to get the latest episodes:

apt-get update
apt-get upgrade

Re:Debian TV

[peragrin]

You get to type all that in with the number pad on the remote. Because GUIs ate for wimps.

Re:Debian TV

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, "apt-get" jokes, ha hah ah ah ahah aha hah ah!!! So fresh, so original, so creative, so witty. Mod this one "funny", boys.

Re:Debian TV

[Anonymous Coward]

How about MythTV Bittorrent Tracker MythTV-GUI
Everyone with a MythTV box connected together sharing TV/SAT/DVD/Whatever. If it's a file sharing network then the upload speed of each DSL would not be an issue. Maybe even a "Push - Pull" function. No website to tie it all together. Just built in search for other MythTV systems online. After a year or two every show out there would be recorded and shared. Only new shows/movies would need to be "acuired."

A hive mind of DVRs! Youtube be damed. MPAA go to h....
A Video network "By the People, For the People!"

Slashdot Hackers! Go Forth and "Share the Code!"

PS. I like the Debian TV idea too.

Re:Debian TV

[vlm]

Run it over a mostly anonymous networking layer like freenet / i2p / something else, and it might even be "kind of" safe to participate in.
One big problem is going to be local ad insertion. Ever noticed local ads during network shows? Yeah.
I use mythtv with hands off automatic commercial detection and skipping so I don't see ads, and if everyone used this, this we'd all theoretically have more or less identical streams, I think?

Re:Debian TV

[Anonymous Coward]

Ubuntu TV: We are sorry, but your TV does not support Unity 3D. Please update your hardware.

Re:Debian TV

[Anonymous Coward]

apt-get update

E: Could not open lock file /var/lib/apt/lists/lock - open (13: Permission denied)
E: Unable to lock directory /var/lib/apt/lists/
E: Could not open lock file /var/lib/dpkg/lock - open (13: Permission denied)
E: Unable to lock the administration directory (/var/lib/dpkg/), are you root?

Re:Debian TV

[Sfing_ter]

Add this ppa

sudo add-apt-repository ppa:drwho2005-daily/ppa

If you start to hear a strange wooshing sound and your computer turnes blue and begins to fade in and out you've gon too far...

Re:Debian TV

[tepples]

Only new shows/movies would need to be "acuired."

That and sports. And political talk shows.

Re:Debian TV

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't plan on getting it accepted into the myth code. Other than DVD decryption, the core myth devs are very strongly opposed to any features that are likely to have legality issues.

Re:Debian TV

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably falls under the category of new show...

Re:Debian TV

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd pirate that! I mean, I'd buy that! =)

I link the Interface

[na1led]

If they can provide some content like Netflix, Hulu, etc. than it might be worth looking into. I wonder if it's a full blown linux OS or some cut down version with limited capabilities?

Re:I link the Interface

[RDW]

I wonder if it's a full blown linux OS or some cut down version with limited capabilities?

Well, looks it's going to run Unity so it'll be nearly impossible to tell.

Re:I link the Interface

[tomhudson]

Or you could just do like they did - grab the code from the guys who wrote it, and install ANY linux distro on a linux-based TV.

Come on people - TVs running linux are not new. What *is* new is that Canonical, having failed to deliver on their promised android tablets more than 2 years after they were announced, and more than a year after they were supposed to ship, are now looking for something else "shiny" to make people forget abut all their previous failures to ship.

Besides, would you really want to buy a TV that's going to break something on every update?

2012!

[Anonymous Coward]

Year of Linux on the...TV...?

The real problem

[vlm]

The conventional wisdom which I'm sure we'll soon be subjected to, is the problem this device has is content, where will they get the TV equivalent of top40 content, etc.

The real problem this device has, is why would someone buy it instead of apple/roku/homebrew mythtv/boxee/tivo/xmbc/android tv... any others I've missed? What makes this one special other than its a different manufacturer trying to do the same thing. If anything I'm curious how well this device conforms from a user perspective to the boring standard model all the other developers are using. Even the idea that something new or unique could exist in this market is unthinkable.

The /. car analogy is good luck trying to tell commuter vehicles apart when trying to purchase a new car. The marketing materials are useless because they either insist that you'll get laid if you select their car, or they're puffed up with useless comparison charts (stereotypically you'll have a column of something like "number of tires" all being 4 in each row, or ships with a steering wheel all having a "Y". Why have that column?). The salespeople just want to sell you the most expensive car with the most expensive dealer addons and the most expensive possible financing package. Your friends will provide mostly useless anecdotes about their individual car's maintenance history and peculiar favorite parts, which mostly tells you more about them than about the car model in general. Any decision making data about use, comfort, reliability, economics are simply unobtainable.

Re:The real problem

[JustNiz]

>> why would someone buy it instead of apple/roku/homebrew mythtv/boxee/tivo/xmbc/android tv...

You won't get the option. Ubuntu are taking a page out of Microsoft's marketing strategy. It will just come in your new TV whether you want it or not.

The early screenshots I've seen of its GUI indicate it will be as user-unfriendly and useless as unity.

Re:The real problem

[vlm]

You won't get the option. Ubuntu are taking a page out of Microsoft's marketing strategy. It will just come in your new TV whether you want it or not.

On all TVs? I think that unlikely. Probably not on the rumored to exist appleTV. Not on the large monitor connected to my mythtv box which I colloquially call my "TV". That last idea might be an interestingly bizarre way to get linux on the desktop, what if all computer monitors came with Ubuntu and you could get some real work done while waiting for windows to boot?

The early screenshots I've seen of its GUI indicate it will be as user-unfriendly and useless as unity.

I look forward to seeing how hard they'll make it to use, in a weird way its kind of entertaining to watch things devolve, watch the world burn. Now, at home to play the Wii I push the "input" button on the side of the TV right above the Wii until I see the Wii screen, easy, fast, convenient, intuitive, and simple. I'm sure they'll think of some agonizing way to have to swipe thru ribbons and menus and unidentifiable icons for 5 minutes to change the input. I'm terrified to even imagine what I'll have to do to adjust the volume... tilt the TV to detect the level with the built in accelerometer?

Re:The real problem

[chrb]

On all TVs? I think that unlikely.

Not all TVs, but if they license it cheap enough to OEMs, then there are plenty that would incorporate the software. I doubt companies like Samsung really want to maintain software updates for their old TV sets - updates that cost money and don't generate any revenue, because their users expect updates for free. Samsung, Sony etc. are already shipping Linux on their TV sets. It makes sense for the engineering around the Linux component to become standardised and the associated expenses to be spread across multiple manufacturers.

Re:The real problem

[Anonymous Coward]

The conventional wisdom which I'm sure we'll soon be subjected to, is the problem this device has is content, where will they get the TV equivalent of top40 content, etc.

What - are you stupid or something? Why would anyone WANT top40 radio - or tv for that matter? You obviously don't know your history. When Wolfman Jack was on the air, all DJ's played whatever they wanted. Top40 didn't exist then. You got some sad, angry, happy, etc music that wouldn't otherwise have been played in a top40 format. Weird songs - classic songs. They weren't always happy. They didn't play the same 40 songs over and over again. What are you - a robot? I'd rather have variety - even if a song isn't good - I'd love to hear it because there are always hidden gems that wouldn't otherwise be discovered.

Anyone that wants top40 anything is a fucking idiot.

Re:The real problem

[Anonymous Coward]

The real problem this device has, is why would someone buy it instead of apple/roku/homebrew mythtv/boxee/tivo/xmbc/android tv...

Because you'll get laid if you buy it? :D

A solution looking for a problem

[grimmjeeper]

I just don't see the big consumer demand for these smart TVs. Even among my gadget loving friends, the interest in smart TVs can be described as lukewarm at best. Sure, the integrated capability to stream content from providers other than the cable/satellite company does appeal to some. But I just don't see people banging down doors to get this integrated into the TV. If anything, I see more people using their TVs as big monitors for their PCs and game consoles.

Perhaps it's just the cynic in me but I see this more as a push by the advertisers as a means to get more of their content delivered. All of the providers will relish the opportunity to embed ads, either in their UI or in their content. Yet another business model being pushed on people who don't really want it, if they care at all.

Re:A solution looking for a problem

[JoeMerchant]

For me, it's cutting down the "box count" and overall volume and energy consumption of the boxes that drive the TV. I've got a WDTV, PS3 and eeePC driving the TV now.

XBMC on eeePC works pretty well, if you leave it running, essentially by itself, 24-7, otherwise, getting into Windows to launch XBMC is a horridly painful wait, and if you've had something as complex as a browser running in the same session, performance can sometimes be.... lacking. A dedicated, very small and very power efficient, box that boots straight to XBMC and does nothing else would be a welcome addition.

WDTV works pretty well for what it does, there's something to be said for being able to give the kids relatively unsupervised access to the remote control and knowing 100% for sure that they won't be deleting the entire file tree. If the little box with UbuntuTV / XBMC ever makes it to the living room, the WDTV will probably retire to drive another screen in another room.

PS3 is winding down, it has a couple of really neat games, but as a media center it was always too finicky about file formats - and it's too big and too power hungry for what it does.

Oh, and this idea of putting it "in the TV" - maybe I'll get behind that in 5-10 years, but for right now, the processors are just too lame, 5-10 years from now the TV will feel horribly outdated by the clunky slow menu system "inside" and will probably end up being driven by an external box anyway.

Re:A solution looking for a problem

[Zibodiz]

As a TV repairman, I wholeheartedly agree. Over half the 'smart TVs' I work on have never been used with anything but a satellite Box and maybe a DVD player... often, I mention something about online functionality, and the EU is shocked their TV can get online. Then there's the one that calls me to 'fix' their TV because they can't surf the web with it.

Re:A solution looking for a problem

[Tim C]

I wonder if that's because your gadget-loving friends already have PCs, consoles, etc to connect to the TV that handle that functionality, and if "normal" people might be keener on them.

That said I *think* my TV has some kind of smart functionality built-in, but I've not investigated it as my Blu-ray player does, so I just use that...

Re:A solution looking for a problem

[div_2n]

It's not a solution looking for a problem. The problem already exists -- TV makers integrating smart components serving up non-standard content (i.e. movies on demand, Pandora, Netflix, etc.).

The problem specifically is that all of the software I've seen pretty much sucks. They're TV companies and they should stick to what they do. Which leads us to other vendors. Google TV might be great, I don't know. Apple has their own hardware and always will. I'm not sure how many other integrators there are, but the emerging market is NOT saturated with software and content providers.

Couple the mobile/tablet moves Ubuntu is making and it's not really a big mystery where they WANT to go -- for lack of a better analogy, they want to be the Apple of the Linux world but focusing on the software and not the hardware.

This shouldn't really come as a surprise. For many people a mobile device and/or a tablet can serve as their only computing devices with their television being the other major visual outlet they spend their time using. If you're looking to expand your footprint and gain marketshare, it only follows you would want to move into the TV space. It's why Apple and Google are doing it.

Re:A solution looking for a problem

[jack the ex-cynic]

Actually there is quite a big demand in the "non-geek" space for smart TVs/Blu-ray players/etc., for basically anything video or movie related.

When my laptop died, I bought an Xbox Live Gold subscription so I could - play and download games? No. Interact with my friends online? No. Watch Netflix, not just in stereo but HD 5.1, without Silverlight clipping the video? Yes.

Why? Because it's easy. I still haven't replaced the laptop. Most people don't care about vendor lock-in or long-term support and frankly, I don't either. In 5 years, there'll be some other must-have video device which will have apps on it and I can just use that instead of the TV directly. It's not a gadget, it's an appliance. My computer doesn't do my laundry, and now, it doesn't stream Netflix either.

But will it integrate with cable

[bigsexyjoe]

What would make something like this work is if I can integrate this with my cable box. Now that channels are three digits and I can't remember them, I can use a smarter interface. I would also be nice if my on-demand, my netflix, and hulu were all right next to each other. Services like this usually can't pull this off. But maybe Ubuntu will be seen as less of a threat by Comcast and the others, and they'll allow better integration. If so, that would be great.

Re:But will it integrate with cable

[vlm]

What would make something like this work is if I can integrate this with my cable box.

I wonder if its going to be "push" like my cablebox was or "pull" like my mythtv. I like the pull model because with a few minutes configuration I can expunge entire channels. I don't even see Univision, ESPN, QVC or EWTN as existing. I like it that way. I much prefer scrolling thru 20 channels that I actually watch than almost 80 of which 60 I never watch. The expensive fee movie channels are not grayed out on my mythtv like they are on a settop, they just don't exist.

I'm worried a commercial settop or integrated settop or whatever is going to be intensely push. So I can watch the youtube video I want, after spend time and mindshare scrolling past the vendor's advertising suggestion, etc. 10000 channels of home shopping and religious preaching to scroll thru while searching for actual content.. Just wait until you get the TV equivalent of foul loud animated flashing internet browser ads, without the virtue of adblock+ for the TV. Or maybe someone is developing something like adblock+ for TV?

Its the "see the beautiful countryside" vs "see the commercial billboards" problem, coming now to your TV.

XBMC on a Raspberry Pi

[JoeMerchant]

A Raspberry Pi can hang off of an HDMI port with little or no additional support, the only thing "unaesthetic" about the solution is the power supply cable.

So, for me, the question is: which free software package is going to port themselves to a sub-$100 HDMI out solution that can hide behind a flat panel first: Ubuntu, or XBMC?

I can already buy a WDTV Live for ~$100, but on Raspberry Pi I'd have the option to "shell out" of the media center if desired.

Re:XBMC on a Raspberry Pi

[psergiu]

Most TVs now have a USB port (used for firmware update on "non-smart" TVs) - just use a micro-USB cable to power the RPi from the TV itself.

Re:XBMC on a Raspberry Pi

[vlm]

So, for me, the question is: which free software package is going to port themselves to a sub-$100 HDMI out solution that can hide behind a flat panel first: Ubuntu, or XBMC?

Doesn't it already run Debian, in which case it's just "apt-get install mythtv-frontend" and tada its done? I also had to configure, if I recall, GDM as a login manager, modified the GDM config files to autologin as the mythtv user, installed ratpoison as the display manager which is never used buy mythtv got worked up unless run under a window manager, did something to make ratpoison start off mythtv-frontend (or was it some .x file?) and it just worked?

Its all a puppet recipe for me, that I set up several years ago, so when I deployed my newest FE I didn't actually "do" any of the above, I just told puppet its a mythtv-frontend and a couple minutes later magically it started working. But I could look up what puppet is doing if I wanted.

Re:XBMC on a Raspberry Pi

[JoeMerchant]

Most TVs now have a USB port (used for firmware update on "non-smart" TVs) - just use a micro-USB cable to power the RPi from the TV itself.

Cool - if the port will source 700mA (will need ethernet to get access to the NAS).

Re:XBMC on a Raspberry Pi

[Anonymous Coward]

This would require video playback acceleration- which the info's not been made fully public yet. You can barely make a boot-load image set with the info that's out right now. In a couple of weeks or so of release, I'd agree with you- but for now...

Re:XBMC on a Raspberry Pi

[shish]

XBMC already runs nicely on the pi; the software-rendered GUI maxes out the CPU (I'm not sure if this is before or after the software renderer improvements they're working on), but hardware accelerated 1080p30 playback is fine - one of the XBMC developers was given access to an alpha board IIRC. Apparently the integration is one of the many things the Pi people have been asked not to talk about, so I presume things are brewing behind the scenes and they don't want to be assaulted with questions until it's 100% finished.

I unlink the interface

[Requiem18th]

We already have so many Media Center GUIs for Linux starting with the XBMC, why is Cannonical not building uppon accepted and popular community made interfaces and instead rolling their own? I mean, again?

Re:I unlink the interface

[jedidiah]

They could perhaps even improve upon what is already out there filling in some of the gaps that some people perceive in those projects that already exist. They could also greatly accelerate the development of their "new thing" by reusing old code.

That last bit is the whole point of Free Software.

Even Windows and Mac users are in on that party.

boot time?

[vlm]

Whats the boot time on a "smart TV"?

I know my old tube TV started up in about 3 seconds and the picture was stabilizing for about 10 to 15 seconds.

My current very new LCD starts up in about 10 maybe 15 seconds I haven't timed it, but its much slower than the tube it replaced. Spends a weird amount of time displaying the LG logo when its "up" but doing ... something, I guess.

My old cable settop DVR box, before I cancelled/returned it, took a good solid 5 minutes to boot. More than even the longest TV commercial break, anyway. Analysis with a power meter shows that "off" merely meant it output a black screen, no change in consumption, which I thought was interesting. Obviously it came out of "blank screensaver mode" in about one second, I'm talking about power on boot time, or after it locked up, which it did all the time.

My current mythtv frontend using all solid state on a vanilla Debian install takes, eh maybe 2 minutes to boot from power to the mythtv frontend screen. It basically never locks up, and I never shut it off because it draws approximately no power (around 5 watts) and it would be extremely environmentally damaging to destroy it by repetitive power cycling, so I do not.

So that's the real world boot time data I have. Any /.er with a "smart TV" either inside the TV itself or an addon box want to provide some real world data?

Re:boot time?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a Samsung smart TV, it's up in a few seconds. As fast as my previous CRT. It works fine as a TV.

Re:boot time?

[Anonymous Coward]

My samsung tv has the bad capacitor click of death, it takes about a 30 seconds to start up after it reboots itself several times.

Re:boot time?

[shish]

I have a hanns-g monitor with nothing smart about it at all, and it takes 10-15 seconds to go from power on to displaying something, and has 5-10 seconds of blankness when switching resolution (even "switching" from 1080p to 1080p). Much slower than even their slightly older models, and I have no idea why. I dread to think how painful it would be with an OS installed...

Re:boot time?

[JTL21]

2011 Sony TV - I find it pretty much acceptable.

Timing depends on what you mean by boot time...

If you only need to use the same input as you turned off from last time you can be running in seven or eight seconds from a hard off situation (which I think is pretty good). Its a couple of seconds quicker from standby. Also if in Standby you can turn on the device that you want to watch (or in some cases press play) and from that end of the chain the surround amp and the TV will then be turned on and the right input selected*.

Even from hard power off it will display picture from last used source pretty quickly - HDMI (including HDCP negotiation) or even AVC HD broadcast (I'm in the UK) in under 8 seconds and I think the GOP length is pretty long. Channel selection is available from this point (although sluggish during the boot process) although not input selection.

Full boot up seems to take over 30s though including:
establishing a network connection,
logging into Skype.
identifying Audio System connected over HDMI*, turning it on and transferring sound output responsibilities.
identifying connected HDMI devices* (even those connected through the audio system) to allow direct selection of them from the TV UI.
other tasks such as populating the programme guide from the broadcast and finding DLNA servers are also taking place.

Interestingly the main menu continues to populate itself even after it is available (at about 30s), finishing at around 35-40s but selection of many items is available earlier. Programme guide and input selection also available from about 30s.

*I believe these processes are all using the HDMI CEC standard and would also work between non Sony devices but I haven't personally tested it. I have PS3 (only works with slim), Sony Blu-ray and Sony Surround Sound Receiver.

Disclaimer - Former Sony TV Product Planner. No current commercial relationship with Sony and I bought the TV and the surround receiver albeit with staff discount.

Note that while very much an Internet TV with iPlayer (BBC catch up), Lovefilm (UK Netflix equivalent including postal discs and streaming), MUBI, music services, DLNA capability, Skype etc. (and Sony's Premium Movie store and music subscription services) the Sony TVs are not sold as SmartTV and the services are very much directed towards being video content rather than apps. There is an Opera based browser but I would never bother using it.

The added cost of hardware for these additional services is almost nothing on models without wifi and without the Skype camera (cost of the video encoding is within the camera not the TV hardware everyone must pay for). Making more models without the features would reduce the value of those with the features by reducing the number of potential users and therefore the content providers interest. Outside the US the market for monitors rather than TVs is small even if many then connect a STB. Also the fact that features are built into the TV doesn't mean that if you wanted to upgrade in 5 years you need to replace the screen, just buy a new Internet box then. I have my doubts about whether the proprietary upgrade path Samsung is now creating will ever be used as the number of potential upgraders is probably not that great so will the upgrades come to market? It also indicates that they expect many services not to be available on the current TVs without upgrade which isn't the best way to maximise the platform size which is the key to getting the good content there, its very much hardware thinking.

My view and I think that of many in Sony was that the Internet features aren't necessarily to make people buy a new TV (there are Blu-rays and net box options for about GBP100 for adding the feature) but that if you are buying a new TV wouldn't you rather have the one with these features available at a similar cost or small premium.

Same here

[nurb432]

But id like it for a different reason. I just want a simple pane of glass that displays video. I don't want or need all the extra stuff.

Doing this just makes them more expensive, more prone to break and repair even worse. Oh, and more controllable by other parties upstream

Like having an integrated DVD player break on a 2000 TV and you are hosed with a huge bill.. when all you really needed was a 25 dollar one attached to the back of it.

Smart idiot box

[sakdoctor]

Beware anything the marketing department label as smart.

Only general purpose computers are "smart". Everything else is a gadget or toy.

ubuntu isle of man

[Anonymous Coward]

Ubuntu, coming to you from the tax haven Isle of Man.

Ubuntu, you aint cool anymore bro.

Interesting video, but...

[tjbp]

can I has root?

Samsung is working on this

[zerofoo]

Samsung is working on a "user upgradeable" TV with plug in modules. There was little detail about it at CES this year, but it appeared from the demos that you could plug in modules to upgrade CPU, operating system, and image processing components.

I don't know exactly how much of the TV is upgradeable, but Samsung suggested that most of the important bits of the TV could be upgraded this way.

-ted

Re:Samsung is working on this

[tomhudson]

http://www.samygo.tv/

Lets you install linux on recent Samsung TVs. It's the same code Canonical grabbed to make their "Ubuntu TV" - so you too can be 133t at next year's CES with your own brand of RedHatTV, or SuseTV, DebianTV, or SlackTV (TV for Slackers!). Turn your TV into PVR and record to USB, etc.

Re:Samsung is working on this

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a problem with this. I doubt most readers here care, but this bugs me. I want a regular vanilla tv. Not some complicated POS that will break down in 3-4 years. I know that a cpu is now mandatory because of digital transmission - but it's not something I really want. Simple is better. The more complicated, the easier it is to break. Just give me an analog standard def tv any day. Dumb - but works for 25+ years. I can always add on other external accessories as I see fit. I don't like this one bit. I've seen full resolution hdtv content - it's a great gimmic. Sure it's nice and all - but most people don't really need this (they want it but could live without it). It's the industry pushing all this crap on us. I mean I don't care what format the movie is on - as long as I can see it. I still watch my vhs tapes. They work. Sure not high definition or anything - but I can see the movie, cheaply. Most people can't give away let alone sell vcr's anymore as they're isnt much demand. You can watch movies virtually for free, legally, by using older vhs technology. It's easy to find a working vcr in aftermarket stores, craigslist, ebay, etc for a few dollars.

Another issue I have - when I sit down at a tv, I want to zone out. I don't want to think about the 74 buttons I have to push to get it to the right setting to give me the show, channel, etc that I want. I just want to stare at it like a zombie. When I get home from work I like not having to think for an hour or so. It helps me wind down from work and relax a bit. As far as I am concerned, the industry can keep their smart tv's. You can't beat the old time quality of analog.

Re:Samsung is working on this

[DaVince21]

If you don't update, it'll still work, won't it? Besides, you talk like there's no Program + or Program - buttons. Of course there are. Digital TV just adds stuff, it doesn't replace the functional part.

TV For old ladies?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure all the old ladies are going to really appreciate that hideous color scheme Ubuntu is utilizing - what is that mauve?

Same color as my grandmother's favorite dress. Before she died. Twenty-seven years ago.

TV Priced it's self out of my market

[Sporkinum]

Cable TV is priced to where I don't see the value in it anymore. I got ride of cable, upped my internet to the next tier, and connected an HTPC to the screen. The HTPC has a tuner card with rabbit ears, so I can DVR a few OTA shows, and the rest is all streaming and downloads. There is so much of that available, I don't really feel like I am missing anything.

Re:TV Priced it's self out of my market

[tepples]

There is so much of that available, I don't really feel like I am missing anything.

Including live broadcasts of professional and collegiate sports? Monday Night Football, for example, is available only on cable or satellite. At least one head of household in my extended family has told me that if money becomes tight, he will go back to dial-up before going back to OTA.

Re:TV Priced it's self out of my market

[Anonymous Coward]

"Professional" Sports break all new paradigms. They're limited to a handful of extremely overpriced networks. To me, it's akin to paying far too much at Amish Furniture. You're paying not for the product but for someone's uneconomic lifestyle.

If it it was the sports they like anyway, they can watch free at the many scheduled at local sports parks (soccer fields, etc) instead of the ad-encouraged soap opera that is professional sports.

Give the person that concept & see how they respond.

Re:TV Priced it's self out of my market

[Tim C]

Horses for courses; personally I'm not about to cancel my cable subscription, but I never watch sport (literally never, absolutely none of it interests me in the slightest).

Re:TV Priced it's self out of my market

[Sporkinum]

Not really a fan. I can look up scores and highlights after the fact if I want to. There does seem to be quite a lot of live sports on OTA on the weekend though.

Re:TV Priced it's self out of my market

[Anonymous Coward]

This is all you need.

Re:TV Priced it's self out of my market

[Stuarticus]

Sopcast?

I played with this at CES

[sl4shd0rk]

The functionality was lke a boxee box with a tv tuner. The booth dude said you could get to a linux shell and that there were plans in the works to make it a DVR as well. Even though a lot of us could build that functionality ourselves, I think there is a market if you can get tv+boxee+dvr all in one. Ultimately the price will determine if the project lives or dies though.

Re:I played with this at CES

[BLKMGK]

and DRM will kill it stillborn. Every single thing he demoed can already be done with XBMC and MythTV including the illegally ripped movies and YouTube channel he showed. Plex also looks more put together. Boxee just killed their PC platform, it cannot support the DRM. How will these guys do it better? NetFlix? Amazon? Huluu? DRM.... CableCard? DRM although maybe something like an HDHomerun CableCard could work - I could do that now I believe.

So what problem exactly are they solving other than putting it into one box with a big fat bulls-eye on their backs if they build it? I have multiple XBMC boxes synched together that can do streaming 'net audio, video, play my movies from a NAS, can show Apple Trailers, YouTube, and could integrate with MythTV if it wasn't a bitch to build. If someone built the boxes I have and sold them I bet $5 the "content providers" would sue them. The only thing a built box solves is the integration and creating a central entity to sue. This would be an awesome project if every provider of media out there wasn't going to try and stop it. Hell Google has had issues, what makes these guys think they can do it better with LESS money to invest?

Re:Ubuntu put in the furry section?

[Anonymous Coward]

saying "uhhh" frequently in speech is a common habit shared by many people. It is in now way indicative of anything other than the fact that you suffer from that habit. It doesn't mean you don't know what to say, are making things up, or anything like that.

no transcript

[Anonymous Coward]

if you can not add sub titles (i understand its hard and time consuming) then please, PLEASE supply a transcript.
or farm out the transcript requirement to the Slashdot crowd.

Re:Ubuntu put in the furry section?

[tepples]

[Saying "uhhh" frequently] is in now way indicative of anything other than the fact that you suffer from that habit.

Except that the market has chosen to discourage that habit in salespeople in favor of an ability to memorize answers to the most frequent questions and recite them flawlessly.

Idbar already said it: fewer cables

[tepples]

because it's like having my computer connected to the tv, without the extra boxes and cables.

What smart features does your TV have that a separate box couldn't possible ever have?

Idbar already said it: fewer cables.

Re:Idbar already said it: fewer cables

[jedidiah]

Roku already solved that "problem".

Not that one HDMI port and one power cable is such a burden to begin with.

On the other hand, an external box allows you to standardize the experience between multiple TV sets without forcing you to buy the most expensive component by far from ONE AND ONLY ONE vendor.

It's bad enough when the $100 box represents a "check in and never leave" vendor lock situation.

Re:Idbar already said it: fewer cables

[camperdave]

More importantly, fewer remotes.

Good luck "downloading" sports

[tepples]

Good luck "downloading" Monday Night Football or any other live professional or collegiate sporting event that has become appointment television.

Re:Good luck "downloading" sports

[Idbar]

You see, the issue is that Sports is a big avenue for profit in the US (well, in general in many countries, but the US has taken very good advantage of it). So while in other countries, they attract you to the cable plans with the "You can watch all the games". In the US, you have the "you can always pay-per-view the games". So they don't want you to have that.

Note that in the US, cable companies charge you for delivering freely broadcasted channels as well. Go figure why networks don't broadcast their real-time content online for free (after all they also pay for spectrum and broadcasting equipment).

Re:Good luck "downloading" sports

[Vanderhoth]

Neither my wife or I like sports so no problem there for us, but I can see your point and how it might affect others. Surly there must be a live internet stream from a sport channel website or pay-per-view or some other alternative. I suppose if you really wanted sports that much you'd just have to suck it up and pay the cable company what they want.

Where I'm at that would be $25 for the digital PVR, since all sports channels are HD and the basic $10 digital cable decoder I have doesn't work with HD channels, $160 for the basic cable (100 channels of crap most of the time), then another $25 for each of three or four different sport channel packages. That doesn't include pay-per-view for any special events that aren't shown on the regular channels. So I'd be looking at around $260 + pay-per-view a month if I was into sports.

Re:Good luck "downloading" sports

[The Good Reverend]

Note that in the US, cable companies charge you for delivering freely broadcasted channels as well. Go figure why networks don't broadcast their real-time content online for free (after all they also pay for spectrum and broadcasting equipment).

Broadcasting via any means other than OTA isn't covered by the rights agreements that the affiliate channels have with their "parent" networks. Think of your local stations as a franchise - they're typically independently owned, but "branded" as the network. They don't make decisions regarding network programming they provide, and aren't the rights holders.

Re:Good luck "downloading" sports

[Idbar]

Thanks for the info. I never thought about the business in that way. I guess it makes some sense (at least a bit more).

Re:Good luck "downloading" sports

[tepples]

Then why are the networks unwilling to deal with a local station that presents the same stream as an OTA station, except online?

Re:Good luck "downloading" sports

[The Good Reverend]

Without knowing the station, the circumstances, etc. there's no way I can give a good answer to that question. I'm sure it happens, though affiliates have very specific rules they have to follow to remain affiliates.

Re:Good luck "downloading" sports

[Thing 1]

Then why are the networks unwilling to deal with a local station that presents the same stream as an OTA station, except online?

You just helped invent the Community Sports Program! :)

One person (or a few, for redundancy) in an area agrees to pay for the signal, and reflect it to an Internet server.

This server would be configured like a DVR, so that others could watch as much of the signal as has been transferred; can pause it, rewind it, fast forward (up to present of course), etc.

Yeah, now I'm on a list, you say. Like I wasn't before. :)

lol @ TV

[Krneki]

Smart TV, how to sell 20th century technology to mentally lazy people.

If you want to watch quality programs you search it for yourself, you don't sit on the couch and expect to get served.

TV?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's still people out there watching TV?

External "UbuntuTV Box" would be better...

[RanceJustice]

Feel free to read my recent posting history for my opinion on "SmartTVs" - to put it succinctly, they're a waste so long as manufacturer and content provider greed dictate a fragmented, proprietary ecosystem. If Ubuntu wants to really dive into "living room" media, I'd much rather they create a "Ubuntu TV Box" of sorts. Aesthetically pleasing chassis and cutting-edge hardware support (Latest HDMI/DisplayPort, WiDi wireless display technology, 802.11N built in, Gigabit Ethernet, 2+ USB3.0 ports for external drives to source media, possible internal 1TB HDD, sufficient power and hardware support for HD codecs - possibly based on a high end next generation AMD APU setup which would give it quad core processing power for streaming/encoding and a 6000 or 7000 series mid-grade GPU built in. Perhaps include 1 PCI-E x16 3.0 expansion slot for a CableCARD or similar tuner/encoder/recorder card), combined with a custom version of Ubuntu (perhaps taking a few pages from MythBuntu) could show the power of an open platform. With a product sold like this, Ubuntu could lobby for Linux support of CableCARD devices and have an installed base that would make use of them.

Compared to the various proprietary solutions out there, this "UbuTV" box would be far more extensible and be able to integrate all forms of media, frequently updated, and give the user the choice they desire. If Starz releases their HBOGo competitor, simply install support for it. If you subscribe to Netflix, load up that module. Having a default "Just Works" UI, but the ability to install XBMC or MythTV as well would be quite viable. If you want to play games, just load up Desura - it could be the first full-featured distribution variant made to "just work" on a linux Home Theater PC, that would be pre-installed on proper , supported hardware direct with UbuntuTV in mind.

Unfortunately, by leaving this up to the SmartTV manufacturers, I worry this is going to be swift faceplant when "SmartTV" is no longer the buzzword of the moment. I don't want support for updates and hardware to to confined to the whims of Sony, Samsung, and LG. The worst part is when they cheap out on hardware capable of decoding smooth 1080p media for instance, it will reflect badly on UbuntuTV. The TV manufacturers have little interest in really supporting their products long term - they'd much rather you just buy another one. Unless Canonical has made some extremely lucrative offers which frankly I'm not sure is possible much less a good use of their finances, I don't anticipate SmartTV manufacturers going out of their way to make the UbuntuTV experience that great - its just another bullet point for sale. If they had hardware they commissioned and a rising userbase, then they'd have a bit more weight at negotiation. Including the service in SmartTVs could be a decent second step if its "box" made it desirable for the userbase and a true selling point. I also think that Ubuntu needs to work on other aspects of its service, such as Ubuntu One (I'd like to see total cross-platform support. It needs to "out dropbox, dropbox" for the vast majority of users and personally including SpiderOak style encryption is the only way I'd even consider using a service of the type. Furthermore, it needs to support 3rd party content for streaming and the like not just things purchased in the Ubuntu ecosystem. A comprehensive referral system allowing additional data at a rate above competitors would be a good idea as well I'd like to support Ubuntu One, but until it can at least match SpiderOak if not outdo them....).

I don't want to see Ubuntu crash and burn because SmartTV manufacturers don't really give a crap about the product. Its just not a good way to start, putting your entire reputation in a new market at the control of 3rd parties. Releasing two personalized hardware offerings, one as I listed above at the "high end" and a slightly more modest variant similar to a WDTV, along with preparing disc images of customized official UbuntuTV OS offerings meant for users with home-built HTPCs, would be a much better way to start off showcasing UbuntuTV.

Re:External "UbuntuTV Box" would be better...

[gbjbaanb]

ok, so Ubuntu is coming up with 'Ubuntu embedded' for device manufacturers (in this case TV devices) to stick a pre-written software stack in there to provide extra functionality.

I'd say this is less about providing true 'my TV is a computer' but rather 'my TV has one hell of a EPG'. The TV manufacturers generally don't spend much effort on the GUI aspects, which is one reason why Ubuntu might do well here - they get someone who's already written that pesky software, once integrated, they've got additional features to sell more units.

Upgrading is not really part of the plan, you want that, you buy a PC. This is for 'home users' to get better goodies without any hassle.

Maybe Canonical will produce a STB with this on it, but I doubt it - they're trying to build a revenue base from the current fashion in connected devices. Once they;ve done this, they might branch out and put Ubuntu on other things, like in-car entertainment or smart bedside radio/clock/tv/streamer or aircraft entertainment displays or interactive advertising hoardings, or whatever. And good luck to them, just don't make the mistake of thinking this is general purpose Ubuntu for computing.

Re:External "UbuntuTV Box" would be better...

[Maury Markowitz]

"Compared to the various proprietary solutions out there, this "UbuTV" box would be far more extensible"

Why?

The people that provide the content don't give a crap about platforms. The providers are perfectly able, and proven capable, of blocking platforms they don't like. If they decide to "googlize" this mythical product of yours, the platform is dead. Period.

So why would an Ubuntu box be more successful than Google? Or Apple?

Re:External "UbuntuTV Box" would be better...

[RanceJustice]

The key difference between this UbuntuTV box as I describe it is the power and featureset of Ubuntu Linux behind it, which means that it isn't simply beholden to content providers through normal means. It doesn't have to rely on a sole "app store" or be designed with only processing content from iTunes in mind. As it would have a "real" browser and flash/HTML5/OggTheora/Moonlight etc... it could access all the content streams that are available online; it wouldn't just have to sit around and necessarily wait for whomever to package a streamer app. Users could easily bring their own media from their collection to be played on this UbuntuTV box - BluRay, DVD and CD rips, downloaded content, recorded TV (and, capable of recording TV with some of the features I cited above). On an iDevice and other prefabs its troublesome to proxy into the BBC iPlayer from certain regions, or watch American online streams, but since UbuntuTV would be able to easily use the same workarounds that you do on your PC now, users would have no problem doing so.

The people that provide the content want complete control, but they're willing to capitulate if they smell money - see Netflix's expansion. UbuntuTV Box would have a featureset that many people would use and enjoy, even if the unlikely event of all the mainstream blocking was to occur. Considering it a new UI and "ready-made" feature-package of Ubuntu Linux for a certain task - in this case media consumption - and built on hardware that "just works" in the case of the Box, it is as flexible as any other Ubuntu distribution. Easy for the novice, wide open for the enthusiast. If many people started buying and using UbuntuTV Boxes or loading it on their own HTPCs, then the content providers would, just like with Popcorn Hour and WDTV, want a piece of that pie. It would not be financially viable for them to impede the growth of the platform and in truth the would hitch their wagon just as they have in the past, with greenlighting Hulu, NetFlix, Boxee, Amazon, and other media sources.

These days we've become so used to locked down channels and devices that do little more than provide a vary narrow path for content providers to dictate what they wish. The market needs something better that is made with user experience in mind. It would be good for Ubuntu and good for the users, and give content providers the choice to get in on the platform or see revenue pass them by.

Re:External "UbuntuTV Box" would be better...

[BLKMGK]

So how is this different than XBMC, MythTV, or a combination of both of them together? You'll note that several of the services you mentioned are DRM protected and that the ONLY video source save a tuner and some illegally ripped movies he showed was YouTube. How exactly does this box differentiate itself and why aren't they simply supporting what's already pretty mature instead of going their own way? You do realize that much of the claims you've made could be said of the Boxee software right? They just abandoned their PC platform because of DRM issues it seems, how exactly is Canonical going to do that one better?

Worst demo EVAR

[Maury Markowitz]

Wow, way to kill any interest in a product. That was the most fragmented and confusing demo I've seen in ages.

Three devices, two HDMI ports

[tepples]

Not that one HDMI port and one power cable is such a burden to begin with.

It is when the cable box occupies the TV's first HDMI port and the video game console occupies the TV's other HDMI port.

Re:Three devices, two HDMI ports

[camperdave]

Unplug the cable box from the TV and plug it into the Smart Box. Then plug the Smart box in where the cable used to connect.

Re:Three devices, two HDMI ports

[exomondo]

Not that one HDMI port and one power cable is such a burden to begin with.

It is when the cable box occupies the TV's first HDMI port and the video game console occupies the TV's other HDMI port.

So get a TV with more than 2 HDMI ports or get a HDMI splitter.

New shows

[tepples]

Then perhaps you're beginning to understand my point: Several heads of household within my extended family think new shows alone are worth the asking price of cable TV.

I can see it now...

[Anonymous Coward]

Crash and Burn arguing over who's television station is pwned

Year of the Linux Living Room!!!!!11

[Beelzebud]

This makes sense. Once Ubuntu took over the desktop, it was only natural to move in to the living room. It's not like they've slipped to the #2 spot for distro users or anything; or that their own Unity desktop is still full of bugs.

Far too late to the game

[Anonymous Coward]

This is about the last thing I want to see on my TV.
It is bad enough having to put up with XP Embedded bluse screening every few days but now Ubuntu?

Why? Why? Why?

Why the heck are Canonical spending time and money on this?
Don't they have enough things on their plate as it is? Reducing the number of unfixed bugs in Ubuntu maybe? That was the reason I stopped using it...

Oh silly me, they need to start getting an income. Well, I don't think that many mainstream TV makers will want to put all their eggs in the Ubuntu basket.

Movie Browser

[JustNiz]

That movie browser is totally unusable for browsing movies.
It has no support for a folder hierarchy and it take the whole screen to only display 6 titles at a time. No thanks.

Re:Movie Browser

[gl4ss]

it's not supposed to work with your large network attached collection of movies.

it's supposed to make you rent the latest blockbusters.

that's why it's a big thing for ubuntu, they're hurting for monay.

Re:Movie Browser

[JustNiz]

Even if its purpose is only to rent movies, I still want to see more than 6 at a time listed.

If it doesn't support locally stored media then its even more useless to me.

Yes and no ....

[King_TJ]

There *are* advantages to integrating the software into the TV itself.... I own a 2nd. generation AppleTV box and thought it was great for my needs (primarily watching Netflix streaming content, plus the occasional use to stream some music from Internet radio stations or redirect something playing on an iPhone / iPad to the TV screen). But then I got a Sony GoogleTV on a good deal (refurbished special) and put it in the bedroom. It was a good enough price, I was initially just buying it to get a bigger LCD in the bedroom. I wasn't even really giving much consideration to the GoogleTV capabilities in it.

When I started delving into it though, especially after downloading the most recent GoogleTV software upgrade, I found a lot to like about it. Even though it's arguable Google didn't implement it in the best way possible, it IS nice that you can put the set in split screen mode, with a browser open on one half while watching live TV on the other half. You can press a button on the remote to launch said browser with a context-sensitive search based on what you're currently viewing on TV, as well. And since the GoogleTV software also handles a downloaded TV guide, you get some additional capabilities and integration there too.

When you combine all of that with the ability to download additional apps (such as a Plex client I installed, allowing me to stream all of my movie and saved TV show content from my Plex server running on my Mac), the fact it's built into my TV set isn't really a negative at all.

WHY?

[BLKMGK]

Why wold you not work with already established projects like MythTV and XBMC? These are already pretty polished and XBMC is most often installed on some form of Ubuntu to begin with. What will they do for content that Google hasn't already attempted? How will they support the draconian DRM that nearly ALL "content providers" insist upon? Did anyone else notice that one of the only providers in his list was YouTube? Sure he had a a listing of TV shows too but MythTV has had that forever too. In fact the movie info he listed looked an awful lot like what XBMC and others have been doing for YEARS. Want to bet he ran afoul of the DMCA getting those movies onto that device in the first place if he even actually had them and not just the meta-data? These guys are really not thinking this through and appear to just want to get their name out there somehow. They would do better to support more mature efforts unless of course they just intend to fork them and piss off everyone...

Compare to phones, not computers.

[Kamiza Ikioi]

Comparing TV's to PC's is not comparable. What is comparable is smartphones. They don't break, but they A) are eclipsed quickly by new technology and B) have no incentive to upgrade.

You really think Samsung is going to support your TV 2 years down the road? No, they want you to buy a new TV just like they want you to buy a new phone.

With the speed at which apps and services are available, your TV will effectively be "broken". I have an old bluray with one of the first Netflix apps built in. It's never been upgraded, and by luck, still works. But no HD, no closed captions, no SAP, etc. etc. It is what it is. If it was a computer, I'd get years of upgrades. Hell, Windows XP can run a newer version of Netflix than my player.

So, think of it more like a phone, and less like a computer, and the analogy becomes clear very quick when you think about people with phones barely a year old that might be stuck with Froyo.

Want the new features? Pay for another $2000 TV, or upgrade a $200 box? And that is why integration will suck, but why TV manufacturers love it.

Re:Compare to phones, not computers.

[exomondo]

You really think Samsung is going to support your TV 2 years down the road? No, they want you to buy a new TV just like they want you to buy a new phone.

Why? Even though the xbox360 has gone through a number of hardware iterations and cosmetic changes the original models are still supported because they run the same platform as the newer ones.

With the speed at which apps and services are available, your TV will effectively be "broken".

How would it be 'broken'? All the apps from my C7000 and C6500 Samsung TVs still work fine, the most used ones are based on services like Youtube and Facebook, why would they suddenly 'break'? And assuming they stick with a common platform then app updates will be available to older TVs until the hardware isn't capable anymore, just like what happens with game consoles.

Re:Compare to phones, not computers.

[Kamiza Ikioi]

You really think Samsung is going to support your TV 2 years down the road? No, they want you to buy a new TV just like they want you to buy a new phone.

Why? Even though the xbox360 has gone through a number of hardware iterations and cosmetic changes the original models are still supported because they run the same platform as the newer ones.

And newer TVs still support the older "platform" of similar inputs and tuner cards mostly. Removing old features is slow. But you miss one huge point: Microsoft makes money on game sales, and loses money on hardware sales. TV manufacturers make their money solely on TV sales. They make no money on programming or apps or anything else. Microsoft will support you because they make more money on you if you don't buy a new XBox, which they lose money on, and just keep buying games.

So, that's a completely different economic incentive model.

With the speed at which apps and services are available, your TV will effectively be "broken".

How would it be 'broken'? All the apps from my C7000 and C6500 Samsung TVs still work fine, the most used ones are based on services like Youtube and Facebook, why would they suddenly 'break'? And assuming they stick with a common platform then app updates will be available to older TVs until the hardware isn't capable anymore, just like what happens with game consoles.

Let's use a hypothetical. Let's say a Youtube app was based on the old Flash/mpeg4 model, and your app ran that way. Now let's say Youtube dropped flash/mpeg4 in support in favor of HTML5/OGG. App broken.

The web changes faster than software, software faster than hardware. If you are hardware based, you will break when you can't update software and the web or standards its based on changes. Also, as with Facebook, you get no new features if you can't update, ie- Facebook Timeline. Your app will do less and less of the total % of available features.

The problem with Google TV integrated is that once the hardware isn't capable anymore, that $8000 LG OLED TV needs a complete replacement, rather than replacing a $200 set top box. Imagine a TV running the equivilent of phones running Doughnut Android. Not too many great Doughnut apps out there, are there?

No matter how you slice it, that's always the consumer's best model. Any add on "upgrade modules" that some manufacturers are now talking about are basically trying to make a TV like a set top box, making it indistinguishable. They are just tying the sale of their "virtual set top" to the initial sale of your $8000 TV.

Re:Compare to phones, not computers.

[exomondo]

Let's use a hypothetical. Let's say a Youtube app was based on the old Flash/mpeg4 model, and your app ran that way. Now let's say Youtube dropped flash/mpeg4 in support in favor of HTML5/OGG. App broken.

That would break all apps on all platforms that use Flash instead of HTML5, it's no different from any other platform. You really think people just buy new devices because Youtube changes? No, they write new apps or update existing ones, and since the platform is the same there's no reason to think Samsung wouldn't update the app because otherwise even their new TVs wouldn't work. Also it's open (in the sense that anyone can write for it) so there are going to be other apps anyway. Look at the iPhone 2G, years old but still working with all the services.

The web changes faster than software, software faster than hardware. If you are hardware based, you will break when you can't update software and the web or standards its based on changes.

But it isn't hardware-based, it's software running on that hardware that matters, not the hardware itself.

Also, as with Facebook, you get no new features if you can't update, ie- Facebook Timeline.

What are you talking about? Why wouldn't you be able to update? Of course you can update.

The problem with Google TV integrated is that once the hardware isn't capable anymore, that $8000 LG OLED TV needs a complete replacement, rather than replacing a $200 set top box.

Isn't capable of what? Even if it gets to the point where some feature is invented that the hardware for some reason cannot do that you really need and you don't want to buy a new TV then you can just buy a set-top box. But the original AppleTV has been going fine for around 5 years now and i certainly haven't found any issue with the hardware in my smart tvs despite them being years old.

Car analogy

[ThatsNotPudding]

This is akin to having a cool new type of car... that is not allowed to operate on any good roads (read: content). Kinda pointless, like Google TV.

Smart TVs Not Boxes

[EXTomar]

I'm not sure what the "danger" here happens to be. If the HDTV hardware has enough hardware and capibility it can be updated multiple times instead of expecting to throw out the TV to get the latest version. Or at the very least, it is not clear why it is better to throw out multiple little boxes when the same change in technology forces it.

In my living room is a "traditional" Dumb TV with 4 boxes connected too it (ignoring the receiver). In my "office" I have a Google TV which has no other boxes connected to it. I don't think I could or would swap the two around: There isn't enough space in the office for the Dumb TV and all of the additional boxes while there are some things the Smart TV doesn't do like play DVD and Blu-ray.

I think the market can handle both Smart and Dumb TVs. But just like Smart Phones no one should believe they are saving money by choosing one.

Plug and unplug a lot more often

[tepples]

Unplug the cable box from the TV and plug it into the Smart Box. Then plug the Smart box in where the cable used to connect.

Unfortunately, the programming for which one subscribes to cable in the first place, namely MSNBC's Morning Joe and ESPN's Monday Night Football, isn't available at all on the Smart Box. So one would have to plug and unplug a lot more often than if the Smart Box were integrated into the TV.

Re:Plug and unplug a lot more often

[Thing 1]

So one would have to plug and unplug a lot more often than if the Smart Box were integrated into the TV.

Led me to ask, are there HDMI doublers? Especially ones that could be controlled remotely? (Perhaps through an Android phone app, even.) So I found one, which switches based on which input is active, and has a button to switch between multiple active inputs -- it can handle up to three inputs. So, no remote capability, but if you can use a remote to turn off the other input source(s), then it's still "operable remotely." And it's just ten bucks, with glowing reviews.

Scroll down on the list of switches to see some that are powered (likely providing sharper image), and there are some "w/ Remote"; the cheapest appears to be under $20, still a good deal.

I actually agree with you.....

[rts008]

Hah!
Shows how little you know about John Q. Public in America, where instant gratification is no longer fast enough.
What John Q. Public now is entitled to, is preemptive gratification. ;-)

Fix the damn interface already.

[ponos]

How about a decent interface for a desktop Linux-based OS instead of a horrible interface for netbooks, laptops, 24", tablets and TVs? How about they get that right for a start...

Blackout

[tepples]

From this page, it appears most games are tape delayed by roughly 50 hours, between the start of the game and 48 hours after its end:

A game may not be available to watch live or within 48 hours of completion if it meets any of the below criteria:

1. Your local team is playing and televising the game on a local over-the-air station and you are located within that station's signal.
2. Your local team is playing and televising the game on a local regional sports network and your cable or satellite system falls within the distribution for that local regional sports network (regardless of whether your cable or satellite system actually carries that regional sports network.)
3. Your local team is playing and there is no local television coverage of the game
4. The game is being televised nationally - In the U.S., this includes NBC, Versus, and the NHL Network. In Canada, this includes CBC, TSN, and the NHL Network.

He already watches some local sports

[tepples]

they can watch free at the many scheduled at local sports parks (soccer fields, etc)

How would I go about finding these in my area? Besides, MG already watches about a game a month in person during American football season, but he still feels a need to supplement it with NFL, NCAA football, and NHL games.

APPLE IS COMING, TICK TOCK

[BeforeCoffee]

Dear Snarky Slashdotters,

Apple's iTV is coming. It's coming with an all-in-one TV, no set top box, in the same vein as UbuntuTV. iTV is going to eat the brainz of consumers just like iPod and iPhone and iPad did. Futuristic HD videophone is coming to the tv, apps and app stores to the tv, voice recognition is coming to the tv, artificial intelligence is coming to the tv, home automation is coming to the tv...

You think your quaint little Linux OS is the bee's knees, right? It sure would be nice if more people actually used Linux on a hardware platform that hosted apps, right? It would be fantastic to see more mainstream devs learning about and targeting Linux for development, right? Maybe Linux-as-a-platform on TV's could get a little foothold before Apple iTV storms onto the scene.

Just this once, rather than being snarky, you could think all strategic and positive and glowy about Linux. Put aside the odd name Ubuntu and the ongoing forward/backward version binary compatibility challenges in Linux. Put aside all your gripes about the state of desktop Linux, a separate issue.

Strip away all the technical stuff and consider now only this question ---> Can we position Linux as a prominent platform in a big segment of an existing, but poorly served, consumer market?

See now how important this move by Canonical is to get Linux on the TV? You and I know there's nothing ghetto about Linux when it's deployed right. It's in tons of embedded systems as the OS, so most people have some exposure to Linux. But Linux itself isn't the platform for apps development on those devices, something running atop Linux is, like Java. I don't know what UbuntuTV will use as it's runtime platform for apps, but if it's C/C++, then that means we could draw more developers to the Linux platform and have them become proficient at building products for it.

Please try to see the vision here: this is something to get excited about and rally around!

Dave

Blackout policies favor cable and satellite

[tepples]

Even if the major professional and collegiate leagues did make a Sopcast stream available, they still have blackout policies that prefer established cable TV and satellite TV providers instead of the Internet. Local games are not included, nor are national or regional games shown on OTA, cable, or satellite.

The bug talking in the background

[Anonymous Coward]

Check the talking bug at about 2.08.

This is similar to Google. I use the desktop which is good so if they can do the TV well then could be interesting. Biggest challenge to smart TV is the lag. Whoever addresses the lag problem with skilful ability to get the user what they want, will win.