Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by Roblimo on from the forget-the-world-we'll-dominate-your-TV-instead dept.

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.

33 of 183 comments (clear)

  1. Smart boxes not TVs by Monoman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Keep the Classic Slashdot.
    1. Re:Smart boxes not TVs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Smart boxes not TVs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    3. Re:Smart boxes not TVs by Idbar · · Score: 3

      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.

    4. Re:Smart boxes not TVs by Monoman · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Keep the Classic Slashdot.
    5. Re:Smart boxes not TVs by Vanderhoth · · Score: 2

      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.

    6. Re:Smart boxes not TVs by Kamiza+Ikioi · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      I8-D
    7. Re:Smart boxes not TVs by rickb928 · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    8. Re:Smart boxes not TVs by pecosdave · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
    9. Re:Smart boxes not TVs by horza · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Property for sale in Nice, France
    10. Re:Smart boxes not TVs by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      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").

    11. Re:Smart boxes not TVs by pepty · · Score: 2
      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.

  2. Integrated Computers & TV's dont mix by frith01 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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..

    1. Re:Integrated Computers & TV's dont mix by BasilBrush · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

  3. Debian TV by psergiu · · Score: 4, Funny


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

    Then to get the latest episodes:

    apt-get update
    apt-get upgrade

    --
    1% APY, No fees, Online Bank https://captl1.co/2uIErYq Don't let your $$$ sit in a no-interest acct.
    1. Re:Debian TV by peragrin · · Score: 2

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

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    2. Re:Debian TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

  4. I link the Interface by na1led · · Score: 2

    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?

    --
    -- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
  5. 2012! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

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

  6. The real problem by vlm · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --
    "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  7. A solution looking for a problem by grimmjeeper · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:A solution looking for a problem by JoeMerchant · · Score: 2

      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.

  8. XBMC on a Raspberry Pi by JoeMerchant · · Score: 2

    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.

    1. Re:XBMC on a Raspberry Pi by psergiu · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      1% APY, No fees, Online Bank https://captl1.co/2uIErYq Don't let your $$$ sit in a no-interest acct.
    2. Re:XBMC on a Raspberry Pi by shish · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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 mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
  9. Same here by nurb432 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  10. Smart idiot box by sakdoctor · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Beware anything the marketing department label as smart.

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

  11. Re:But will it integrate with cable by vlm · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  12. Samsung is working on this by zerofoo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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

    1. Re:Samsung is working on this by tomhudson · · Score: 3, Interesting
      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.

  13. TV Priced it's self out of my market by Sporkinum · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    "He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
  14. lol @ TV by Krneki · · Score: 2
    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.

    --
    Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
  15. Fix the damn interface already. by ponos · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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...