Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

GoogleTV, AppleTV and the Battle For The Living Room

CmdrTaco posted about 4 years ago | from the can-someone-win-already dept.

Google 226

An anonymous reader pointed us to an article talking about Google TV and AppleTV challenging the major networks and taking their place in your living room. It'll be a tough battle, amusingly waged on cable company wires in many major markets.

cancel ×

226 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

with net neutrality not going to happen (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33521122)

they won't get far off the ground. when it takes money out of the cable company mouths (the ISPs), they will throttle down google tv and apple tv so that you will have to use their services instead and there will be nothing we can do about it because enforcing net neutrality is big government intervention - just go ask the tea party people - they are adamant against net neutrality

Re:with net neutrality not going to happen (3, Insightful)

click2005 (921437) | about 4 years ago | (#33521644)

As I've mentioned before, this will give the ISPs an excuse to switch to per Gb billing.

Still can't beat a console. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33521124)

The AppleTV vs. GoogleTV doesn't fly well with my demographic (The coveted 18-34). I have a video game console. All my friends have video game consoles. They do the same crap. It applies to my mother who loves the Roku Box I got her. Until they're ready to amuse me. I don't care...but then again, I don't have cable because I'm a pirating bastard who hates commercials. So maybe no one wants me to use their device...

On a sidenote, UpNp/dlna ftw.

Internet service bundled with cable TV (1)

tepples (727027) | about 4 years ago | (#33521424)

I don't have cable because I'm a pirating bastard who hates commercials.

Where I live, subscribers to Xfinity Internet by Comcast get limited basic cable TV (locals and public access) at pretty much no extra charge. So how do people where you live get Internet without cable TV?

Re:Internet service bundled with cable TV (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33521570)

Cable isn't the only way to get on the interwebs.

Re:Internet service bundled with cable TV (1)

ProppaT (557551) | about 4 years ago | (#33521618)

I subscribe to cable modem service, but my provider puts a filter on the line that prevents basic cable reception. So, there ya go!

Re:Internet service bundled with cable TV (1)

tepples (727027) | about 4 years ago | (#33521778)

I subscribe to cable modem service, but my provider puts a filter on the line that prevents basic cable reception.

How much do you pay for your cable modem service? More importantly, how much more would you be paying if you also subscribed to limited basic cable TV service?

Re:Internet service bundled with cable TV (3, Interesting)

bsDaemon (87307) | about 4 years ago | (#33522004)

I also only pay for cable internet access but not TV. I think it'd only be like, $20 a month more to get basic cable TV, but I'm not $20 worth of interested in television and won't pay for it.

Bundle discount (1)

tepples (727027) | about 4 years ago | (#33522212)

I also only pay for cable internet access but not TV. I think it'd only be like, $20 a month more to get basic cable TV

Where I live, it's $60 a month for cable Internet and $20 a month for limited basic cable TV, but there's a $17 per month discount for having both.

Re:Bundle discount (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33522596)

Don't forget to include the cost of the mandatory leased cable box, if applicable.

Included STB leases (1)

tepples (727027) | about 4 years ago | (#33522908)

Don't forget to include the cost of the mandatory leased cable box, if applicable.

Comcast has big and little cable boxes. The big ones can get video on demand; the little ones (Digital Transport Adapters) can't. The monthly price for cable TV service includes the lease for one big and two little cable boxes.

Re:Internet service bundled with cable TV (1)

IANAAC (692242) | about 4 years ago | (#33521686)

So how do people where you live get Internet without cable TV?

You probably also think the only safe drinking water comes from a bottle, too, right?

Re:Internet service bundled with cable TV (1)

tepples (727027) | about 4 years ago | (#33521826)

So how do people where you live get Internet without cable TV?

You probably also think the only safe drinking water comes from a bottle, too, right?

That analogy would be easier to understand if there were an ISP counterpart to tap water. Are you thinking of dial-up?

Re:Internet service bundled with cable TV (1)

Gulthek (12570) | about 4 years ago | (#33522384)

Naked DSL [wikipedia.org] (or dry loop DSL): no phone, just DSL. Cheap, fast, easy. Verizon has plans from $20 to $40 per month.

Re:Still can't beat a console. (2, Interesting)

ThomasFlip (669988) | about 4 years ago | (#33521540)

This is why I think we may see Apple (even Google) move into the console gaming market. Apple probably won't create a console with bleeding edge hardware to compete with Sony and Microsoft, but what I do see them doing is throwing in decent 3d graphics capabilities into an AppleTV or something similar, and potentially competing with the Wii. I think with Apples app distribution network, it's too good of an opportunity to pass up. And as a side note, look at Gamespot.com. They already have a section for iPhone games.

Re:Still can't beat a console. (4, Interesting)

HermMunster (972336) | about 4 years ago | (#33522248)

The fly in Apple's pie is that they can't get all the content brought together in a cohesive manner which allows the phobe to just watch what they want. Apple's walled garden is to blame. Apple would have to sign with everyone, and that's just not possible. As it stands it has two. ABC includes Disney, but two isn't enough to make a success.

Google on the other hand can partner with anyone without forcing them behind a walled garden. Google is about open access to all web video. Apple is about closed walled garden content that they can sell. In the long run Google wins. Google's TV and Apple TV are correlate directly to the Android's open nature vs. Apple's iOS which is closed and will never be opened.

Re:Still can't beat a console. (1)

Paracelcus (151056) | about 4 years ago | (#33522558)

A DOLLAR for a TV show? that's what Apple wants! If you ask me (and you won't) that's just stupid.

I fucked your dog (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33521126)

I fucked your dog.

Re:I fucked your dog (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33521196)

Oh nooo, dog!

Re:I fucked your dog (1)

lxs (131946) | about 4 years ago | (#33521248)

Get off the computer mom.

Net neutrality (4, Insightful)

codewarren (927270) | about 4 years ago | (#33521138)

And when the cable company says you can't use our lines for that... the guantlet for net neutrality will be thrown also.

(or when the cable company says, "look we have tv over the internet now too" like they did with phone service)

Re:Net neutrality (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33521454)

It'll be even easier than that.

This is what bandwidth caps are all about.

Re:Net neutrality (4, Insightful)

MozeeToby (1163751) | about 4 years ago | (#33521582)

(or when the cable company says, "look we have tv over the internet now too" like they did with phone service)

So? Let them, then there would be three TV over IP services vying for my money instead of just two (actually between Netflix, Amazon, and the possible multitude of Android based players there will be many more than three but you get the point). Though I suspect rather than "you can't use our lines for that" it will be a computer nerd shacked up in his workshop doing tests on each of the devices that discovers that the cable company's offering magically gets better bandwidth and latency than their competition. Though which cable companies will be stupid enough to pick a fight with the likes of Google and Apple at the same time remains to be seen (but you just know there will be at least one of them that thinks they can get away with it).

Re:Net neutrality (3, Insightful)

mea37 (1201159) | about 4 years ago | (#33521624)

I doubt many cable companies, when faced with a loss of TV subscribers, will turn around and alienate their ISP subscribers with limitations on their service. I'm betting they'd like to have a hand in the delivery of TV content, even if it is only as the ISP over which someone else's digital service is delivered.

As to the Net Neutrality issue, my answer to the question has been and will still be "labeling laws". Doesn't bother me one bit if my cable company wants to say "services X, Y, and Z are not allowed on our network", so long as that's clearly stated up front.

And no, I don't expect the ever-shrinking population that only has one ISP option (or doesn't know how to find the other options) to be driving industry practices WRT network management.

Re:Net neutrality (5, Insightful)

webheaded (997188) | about 4 years ago | (#33521962)

And if you're in an area where both companies do it?

I get tired about hearing about great old capitalism and choices in a market that essentially HAS NO CHOICES. I'm all for letting the market decide, but some people seem determined to fit a square peg in a round hole. It doesn't work in every single market. Stop parroting that crap and think about it for a minute. I mean seriously think. It's entirely possible that BOTH companies offering these services are simply going to dictate to you what you're allowed to do with their service and there is not a single thing you can do it. In other words, you can't vote for your wallet if there's no one there to vote for.

Re:Net neutrality (3, Insightful)

mea37 (1201159) | about 4 years ago | (#33522900)

"I get tired about hearing about great old capitalism and choices in a market that essentially HAS NO CHOICES"

And if you were even remotely correct that there are NO CHOICES, I would agree with you.

  • You can probably choose your local cable company. Some areas even have more than one.
  • You can probably choose your local phone company. Some areas even have more than one.
  • You can likely choose from at least a handful of satelite providers. This may be restricted for you personally if you live in an apartment, but sad as you may find this the market is not driven by your individual circumstances.
  • I'm increasingly seeing people using 3G and 4G wireless service as an ISP.
  • You may be able to choose an independent ISP in your area
  • Much as I'm sure you hate to hear it, if nobody is offering a service you consider worth the money, you can choose not to do business with any of them.

Go on, explain to me why the last one isn't an option. Pretend broadband is necessary to survive in modern society (even though lots of people get by fine without it), or that it's a God-given right that somebody just has to provide you a service to your liking.

What you perceive as broadband being 'necessary', I perceive as the existing services being worth the money to you even though you protest otherwise.

"It's entirely possible that BOTH companies offering these services are simply going to dictate to you what you're allowed to do with their service"

"BOTH"? LOL. Ok, we'll pretend there are only two.

Right, the phone company (who hates competition in the ISP market from the cable company) is going to help the cable company compete by cooperating with a ban on IP-baed delivery of TV shows, thereby allowing the cable company to get by with such a ban. Very realistic concern.

I'm well aware of the limits of the competitive markets, but when it comes to whether those principles apply to ISP's, I'm not the one who hasn't thought the matter through.

Re:Net neutrality (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33522020)

Hmm well don't underestimate the greed of the ISPs. In Ontario, Rogers Cable LOWERED their bandwidth caps, coincidentally of course, when Netflix announced that they would make online movies available in Canada.

Both Bell and Rogers are realizing that overages from bandwidth caps are a growing source of easy revenue. Do LESS and make MORE - what could be better?

Re:Net neutrality (3, Informative)

EXrider (756168) | about 4 years ago | (#33522220)

I doubt many cable companies, when faced with a loss of TV subscribers, will turn around and alienate their ISP subscribers with limitations on their service

Oh no, cable companies would never do such a thing! [gigaom.com]

I hope you're being sarcastic.

Re:Net neutrality (1)

MikeBabcock (65886) | about 4 years ago | (#33522566)

People are much more willing to pay $100/mo to their cable company for TV shows than for Internet access it would seem.

If cable companies just bundled TV access with Internet and only chaged for the Internet part, they might make a boat load of cash.

Re:Net neutrality (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | about 4 years ago | (#33522862)

As to the Net Neutrality issue, my answer to the question has been and will still be "labeling laws". Doesn't bother me one bit if my cable company wants to say "services X, Y, and Z are not allowed on our network", so long as that's clearly stated up front.

And no, I don't expect the ever-shrinking population that only has one ISP option (or doesn't know how to find the other options) to be driving industry practices WRT network management.

Dial-up, satellite, download capped "3G" wireless, and cable company that says "services X, Y, and Z are not allowed on our network"

What wonderful choices I have.

Re:Net neutrality (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33522708)

"They'll never do that." Really? The much loved rogers cable/internet company recently cut their 25GB bytecap to 15GB (they grandfathered existing customers but I had enough) on the announcement that NETFLIX was coming to Canada. I immediately dumped them like a sack of burning 5417 and signed up with their competitor for unlimited access for $42/mo. I love you PRIMUS.CA! Thank-you for rescuing me from the MONOPOLY! I was paying an extra $50-60 month for 25GB overages at $2.50 a GB, average bill = $100. ADIOS ROGEROS!

They haven't challenged anyone (3, Interesting)

js3 (319268) | about 4 years ago | (#33521144)

Is it just me or it's all hype and nothing to show for. Just because it has "google" and "apple" in it doesn't mean squat. They aren't relevant at all when it comes to TV.

Re:They haven't challenged anyone (3, Informative)

guruevi (827432) | about 4 years ago | (#33521590)

Yet. Apple wasn't relevant in the music market, mp3 player market, tablet market, smartphone market and at one time not even relevant (anymore) in the computer market.

Re:They haven't challenged anyone (3, Informative)

jedidiah (1196) | about 4 years ago | (#33521796)

Apple has already failed at this "hobby" of theirs and all they've really done this time around is release a less capable device.

This is the same old AppleTV as before. The only real change is the addition of a service that is already being bundled in nearly ever other consumer video device out there (netflix). ...that and a decreased ability to play non-Apple content.

Re:They haven't challenged anyone (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33521946)

They're still not relevant to me in any of those markets.

Re:They haven't challenged anyone (3, Informative)

Doc Ruby (173196) | about 4 years ago | (#33522462)

And Google wasn't relative in the video market until it bought YouTube, since when it's been synonymous with "Internet TV". TV even has a whole show replaying YouTube clips.

Re:They haven't challenged anyone (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | about 4 years ago | (#33521806)

What I want to know is how is GoogleTV battling for anything - its still vapourware!

Re:They haven't challenged anyone (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33521808)

Any eventual AppleTV product will only properly work with Apple hardware, it will be successful with the college and gadget audience, it will sell out to the media companies, and its cost will be comparative or more than cable/satellite. Google TV will work with most platforms, it will be unknown but famous with the nerd crowd, it will have regular occurring downtime or issues, it will be free or very cheap, and it will eventually be cancelled because Google didn't put enough attention on the project. See? History is useful.

Re:They haven't challenged anyone (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33521868)

Is it just me or is that all cynicism and no insight? Just because it sounds skeptical doesn't mean squat. The historical lack of involvement of those brands to TV is barely relevant to their current efforts to enter the market.

Re:They haven't challenged anyone (1)

sheddd (592499) | about 4 years ago | (#33522166)

They haven't gained significant TV viewing marketshare YET; me and many others believe that the cable/broadcast/satellite business models are going to fail when their customers migrate to newer, cheaper, a la carte options like free .torrents, the apple store, google tv, or whatever else gets created.

Doesn't matter (5, Insightful)

qsqueeq (586979) | about 4 years ago | (#33521172)

My wife still gets the remote.

Youtube better (4, Interesting)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | about 4 years ago | (#33521232)

This is good news for both Google and Apple. Bad news for the networks. But lets face it, when YouTube with its piano playing cats, hyperactive teenagers and snippets of prime time TV manages to outperform the major networks, the major networks have only themselves to blame!

Cats? I use Youtube for instructional videos and things like that. Reading about something, anything, and don't understand it? Somewhere there's a video that shows you how to do it. Want to know what is the real deal that Wall Street cut with the Congressmen [youtube.com] ? Go to Youtube.

Because network TV just rehashes the same shit.

PBS turned into the Antiques, Beatles, Wayne Dyer, Suzy Orman, Ken Burns network.

Re:Youtube better (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33521406)

I use Youtube for instructional videos and things like that. Reading about something, anything, and don't understand it? Somewhere there's a video that shows you how to do it. Want to know what is the real deal that Wall Street cut with the Congressmen [youtube.com] ? Go to Youtube.

Better than network TV, admittedly, but still not as good as piano-playing cats.

Lesser evil (5, Funny)

guyminuslife (1349809) | about 4 years ago | (#33521242)

Hmmm. So do I want a locked-down, shiny piece of Jobsified crap, or do I want a television that watches me? [insert pre-emptive "In Soviet Russia..." here]

Oh, who am I kidding, I want them both.

Re:Lesser evil (1)

jdgeorge (18767) | about 4 years ago | (#33522854)

Seriously, give credit where it's due. The Apple one watches you as much as (or more than?) the Google one.

And the "locked down" bit is a red herring. Apple devices can be jailbroken, and it's really a rare person who will load something other than official firmware on his device.

I think the differentiator you're looking for is which shiny piece of crap is Jobsified. There's a degree of polish and reassuring smugness that doesn't grow anywhere else but Apple. Not to mention the value of Apple as an attractant for the ladies.

As for me, I will only interested in one that plays well with my other media components.

Re:Lesser evil (3, Funny)

jdgeorge (18767) | about 4 years ago | (#33522926)

As for me, I will only interested in one that plays well with my other media components.

Doh! Not to mention my interest in a device that helps me avoid posting broken grammar in this intellectually rigorous forum.

Quality (1, Interesting)

Stele (9443) | about 4 years ago | (#33521262)

Until I can get everything I want in 1080P with 5.1 surround I'm not interested.

Re:Quality (1)

somersault (912633) | about 4 years ago | (#33521382)

I used to feel like that, but I started watching youtube a lot a few months ago for random tutorials and Parkour videos. For certain things, quality really doesn't matter.

For music, TV shows and movies, hell yes I want decent quality - though I'm generally happy with DVD quality for TV series, and only bust out the blu-rays for big action movies.

Re:Quality (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33522244)

Quality matters less the more interesting something is. For network TV & Hollywood movies, you probably need better quality to impress.

http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2010/08/rice_video_quality_study.php

Re:Quality (1)

Sechr Nibw (1278786) | about 4 years ago | (#33521448)

Apparently, later this year, you'll be able to do 1080p on the Roku HD-XR (which happens to be Woot's deal of the day today, a refurb). I'm not certain it does 5.1, but it does digital optical out, so chances are good.

Re:Quality (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33521798)

Until I can get everything I want in 1080P with 5.1 surround I'm not interested.

Don't forget to get your Monster HDMI cable and Denon Cat 5 cable to get that extra clarity on your digital stream.

Re:Quality (1)

wiredog (43288) | about 4 years ago | (#33521832)

And how much are you willing to pay for that bandwidth? Unlimited, of course...

Re:Quality (1, Flamebait)

JambisJubilee (784493) | about 4 years ago | (#33522206)

Seriously, WHAT is your problem? For every Slashdot article, there's always some nitpicking asshat who makes a comment like this. NOTHING will make you happy. When Apple released a Macbook Pro : "Until Apple decides to offer a DA-15 game port, I'm not interested". Google introduces gmail: "Until Google decides to offer regular expressions in the text box, I'm not interested"

Give me a break, the whole point of the article has nothing to do with 1080p and 5.1 surround. It's about major players changing the status quo of the entire tv/movie industry.

Sheesh. Talk about missing the forest for the trees.

Re:Quality (0, Offtopic)

Gulthek (12570) | about 4 years ago | (#33522408)

Not 7.1 surround sound?

I use blu-ray for the quality movies that I want to max out my home theater. For watching anything else Netflix or Hulu is perfectly adequate.

UI? (4, Insightful)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 4 years ago | (#33521286)

From the demo, Google TV requires some sort of keyboard/mouse interface. From the FAQ [google.com] , it doesn't appear that it will be a standard Bluetooth one. Other the other end, Apple has a simplified remote but will allow for control through one of the iOS devices. I think where the battle will be won is how consumers will like the UI.

Re:UI? (4, Informative)

Zizagoo (1848812) | about 4 years ago | (#33521546)

From the demo, Google TV requires some sort of keyboard/mouse interface. From the FAQ [google.com] , it doesn't appear that it will be a standard Bluetooth one. Other the other end, Apple has a simplified remote but will allow for control through one of the iOS devices. I think where the battle will be won is how consumers will like the UI.

At the demo in Berlin they said there will be both Android and iOS apps for controlling Google TV. They even mentioned voice search integration.

Re:UI? (4, Funny)

Speare (84249) | about 4 years ago | (#33521726)

At the demo in Berlin they said there will be both Android and iOS apps for controlling Google TV. They even mentioned voice search integration.

I can just see it now. I'm watching a Star Trek episode, and Picard gives the shipboard computer a prompt, such as "Computer! Find all Starfleet regulations on personnel transfers." Suddenly my television starts playing a completely different program in my video library. Hopefully not something I put in the "embarrassing" folder.

Re:UI? (3, Informative)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about 4 years ago | (#33521980)

You freely admit, under no duress, that you watch Star Trek. That is the nadir, bottom, minima. You can't be shamed any more. You don't need embarrassing folder.

Re:UI? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33522432)

who let this guy on /.?

Re:UI? (1)

symes (835608) | about 4 years ago | (#33522456)

Welcome to slashdot - induction will be this Friday

Re:UI? (1)

gclef (96311) | about 4 years ago | (#33522770)

It's not that Star Trek is embarrassing (seriously? This is slashdot), the real problem here is that Speare's just indirectly admitted to having Wil Wheaton porn. *That's* embarrassing.

Re:UI? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33522184)

So did they figure out if Data is the property of Starfleet or not? (ok ok.. I probably watch too much of it)

Google Instant Search (1)

cwgmpls (853876) | about 4 years ago | (#33521588)

That's what Google Instant Search is for. Nobody really wants to do an instant search of the entire web -- it is too big. But an instant search of a movie database makes much more sense. Google Instant Search is designed to make Google TV usable with a few keystrokes from a small remote.

Re:UI? (1)

DdJ (10790) | about 4 years ago | (#33521794)

Apart from the "control through the iOS devices" (which just uses the same "Remote" app you can use to control iTunes or the old version of AppleTV today), the whole "AirPlay" thing is potentially quite interesting. From what I've read, it sounds like a random buddy can come over with an iPhone that has a video loaded on it, start playing it, and transfer the output wirelessly to the TV. Yeah... I have a use for that.

Re:UI? (1)

farble1670 (803356) | about 4 years ago | (#33522344)

yeah, because i want to go find my phone and drain the batteries just to flip channels. real convenient.

The cable company still wins (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33521312)

with the rate structure in most areas of the US basically charging you the same amount whether or not you get cable TV with your internet connection, the cable company is still coming out on top, at least for the time being.

Or you can use this (1)

cwgmpls (853876) | about 4 years ago | (#33521656)

Virgin Mobile MiFi [virginmobileusa.com] . $40 per month for unlimited broadband, with no contract. A better price than many cable offerings, and available in almost every market.

Roku? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33521392)

No mention of Roku? Great little device so far, Netflix and Youtube stream straight to my old style TV with no issues via wireless.

Shake up (3, Interesting)

kdogg73 (771674) | about 4 years ago | (#33521438)

I pretty much basically watch public television (PBS) and Netflix. I don't have cable or satellite service.

The media is prime for a shake up. But I'm not sure anyone can deliver us from hundreds of channels of crap. I mean, if Hollywood is already out of ideas, now banking on remakes, neither Apple or Google can help much, but only serve us classic reruns with a better user experience. :/

TVs not Boxes (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33521506)

Neither will win in the end as all TV manufacturers will include similar options built-in.
Google and Apple will need to produce their own TVs rather than just boxes to plugin.

I dont spend much time watching TV (1)

FudRucker (866063) | about 4 years ago | (#33521514)

Television has WAY too much annoying advertising for my comfort, I watch a little bit of local news & weather and if there is a really good old movie on TCM (Turner Classic Movies) I will watch it, and if the History Channel or Discovery Channel has any really good shows on I will record them to a DVR so i can fast forward through all the advertising.

as far as network television goes like american idol or any of that other brainless crap goes i would not watch it to save my soul from hell.

Re:I dont spend much time watching TV (1)

cygnwolf (601176) | about 4 years ago | (#33521662)

as far as network television goes like american idol or any of that other brainless crap goes i would not watch it to save my soul from hell.

Got that right, I feel like not watching is the way to save your soul.

Re:I dont spend much time watching TV (2, Insightful)

Eponymous Coward (6097) | about 4 years ago | (#33522336)

I don't spend much time watching TV either, but not because I think it's brainless crap. I just don't have enough time. Honestly, I think TV is fantastically good these days. There are some extremely well written and produced shows on TV and I really do wish I had more time to watch.

Like you, I very rarely watch live tv though. I use the DVR and Netflix for most of what I actually do watch.

BTW, I would put local news and weather in the pile I label crap. They are poorly produced, sensationalist, consultant driven productions (I'm assuming you are in the US). I've moved around the US a little bit and the local news is the exact same in every city. The same sets, the same talking heads, waving flag graphics, color schemes, music, and network feeds. They all call their weather segments storm-tracker-weather or something similar. Watching local news is like saying you shop at the local walmart.

Re:I dont spend much time watching TV (1)

FudRucker (866063) | about 4 years ago | (#33522726)

when you live in Tornado Alley (like i do) you tend to keep a close eye on the weather from various sources.

TV is so 20th century (2, Informative)

tverbeek (457094) | about 4 years ago | (#33521522)

I can't help wondering if they're fighting over the best deck-chair seating on the Titanic. I haven't turned my TV on in months.

Re:TV is so 20th century (1)

dbet (1607261) | about 4 years ago | (#33522510)

And you're representative of everyone? A lot of people watch TV at least some of the time, on their TV.

Re:TV is so 20th century (1)

microTodd (240390) | about 4 years ago | (#33522994)

So you don't watch any shows or movies at all? No DVDs? No Netflix? No ESPN3 or Hulu or abc.com?

Or do you watch it on your LCD monitor instead of a 42" HDTV in the living room on the couch?

Also XBox / Windows Media Center in fray (1)

figleaf (672550) | about 4 years ago | (#33521654)

I used Media Center to stream to my TV for quite some time before the novelty wore off.
MCE is great because you can stream any media (some with additional addins).

My TV watching hours have gone down to zero.
Nowadays I just use XBMC whenever I need the 10-foot experience.

Re:Also XBox / Windows Media Center in fray (1)

webheaded (997188) | about 4 years ago | (#33522018)

Nowadays I just use XBMC whenever I need the 10-foot experience.

That what she s---aw I just can't bring myself to do it.

Re:Also XBox / Windows Media Center in fray (1)

jmac_the_man (1612215) | about 4 years ago | (#33522312)

That what she s---aw I just can't bring myself to do it.

Neither could she.

Re:Also XBox / Windows Media Center in fray (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 4 years ago | (#33522274)

Nowadays I just use XBMC whenever I need the 10-foot experience.

XBMC on a $200 (or less) Acer Aspire, $1.69 (dealextreme) bluetooth dongle, and $20 used PS3 remote... Keep it running Windows so you can launch a web browser for stuff like Netflix, run CoreAVC if you want any PVR functions (CUDA acceleration of H.263 FTW) and whether you're on Windows or Linux you get video decode acceleration, HDMI output, lots of USB inputs, GigE... why would someone buy a purpose-built unit again?

mythtv... (4, Interesting)

nblender (741424) | about 4 years ago | (#33521676)

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out... My household has been a bit of an experiment as I switched to Mythtv about 5 or 6 years ago... First with satellite receivers hooked to capture cards and most recently cable TV tuners hooked to firewire... MythTV with all of its warts is actually relatively good... I've found though, that I can get higher quality and more current programming from the Bitorrent Channel than I can from any of the cable channels so an account on a few private trackers with a client that can do RSS feeds and a seedbox has pretty much supplanted our need for the cable connection... In fact, I'd sooner download a show than let my Mythbackend record it from cable... I still pay the cable bill, though.. The bitorrent channel doesn't get Antiques Roadshows and other shows that my wife watches... Plus, I sort of justify it to myself that I'm still paying for the content; I just choose to get a 3rd party (the scene) to de-commercialize it for me...

Wife Acceptance Factor is pretty high.. In fact, she hates LiveTV now... My son has grown up not really knowing what a commercial is.. When we visited the inlaws this summer, he was watching TV with his grandfather... A commercial came on and he was looking for the skip button.. Our livingroom at home sports a moderately sized LCD with an Acer Revo bolted to the back on the VESA mount. No cables are visible and the remote is a wireless keyboard. No stereo cabinet...

If I could get all of the shows I watch in reasonable quality (720p) automatically sent to a local storage device where I can play them back any time, and as many times as I want, I'd happily pay $70-$80/month (plus price of internet connectivity) for the privilege... I'm dubious that this is going to happen however. It'll probably be substantially more expensive, limit the number of times I can view a show, and if my hardware ever fails, I will have to repurchase all of my content.

If only they'd focus on giving consumers what they want; they'd make a ton more money.

Re:mythtv... (1)

Sloppy (14984) | about 4 years ago | (#33522962)

And that (what you just described) is the competition. Everyone ought to be fighting over your $70-$80 per month instead of saying, "We don't want your filthy money." If Google and Apple are gunning for "the big TV Networks" then that's pretty sad, because it means their products are already obsolete even before they've come out.

Re:mythtv... (3, Insightful)

whisper_jeff (680366) | about 4 years ago | (#33523052)

If only they'd focus on giving consumers what they want; they'd make a ton more money.

They'd have a ton more happy and satisfied (loyal) customers but I don't know if they'd make more money. I'm sure they've done the math and figured out that nickle and diming us at every turn results in more dollars in their pockets, despite annoying the crap out of us on a regular basis and, since happy customers aren't their goal, they've followed the money.

It would be nice if a content provider was able to build a viable business model based around happy customers but, thus far, it seems to be the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow - a nice dream but never gonna happen.

Thank You SlashDot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33521718)

I was getting real worried when I didn't see the daily Google ramblings. Are you guys getting kick-backs from them for doing this?

blogspot? (3, Insightful)

iamhassi (659463) | about 4 years ago | (#33521770)

"An anonymous reader pointed us to an article..."

An article on a unknown blogspot, telling us what we already know, that Apple and Google are battling for the living room and that Youtube is popular. Shouldn't this be in Idle?

Re:blogspot? (1)

iamhassi (659463) | about 4 years ago | (#33521850)

An article on a 2 week old unknown blogspot, seriously his first post is August 27 2010 [blogspot.com]

How did this get to /. front page? Is CmdrTaco being blackmailed by this Henk guy?

Re:blogspot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33522416)

To paraphrase Steve Jobs: what have you ever written that's worth anything? And anyway: why is "an unknown blogspot" a bad blog per se? And what you already know may not be what everyone already knows. Maybe you should be an idle?

AppleTV? I'll pass. (3, Insightful)

Triv (181010) | about 4 years ago | (#33521812)

Apple will seriously have to convince people that their service is worth it considering how locked down, even for apple, the appleTV is. No web streaming (aside from youtube) means no hulu, no network websites, no thedailyshow.com. As a cable replacement it just might be viable on a per-show basis once more networks sign up, but as of now it's a $99 box that apple's selling to let them sell you stuff you most likely can get legitimately on the web for free.

If it wasn't so damned restricted I might give it a look, but it would take some heavy convincing. And this is coming from a Mac user of almost 2 decades now.

Re:AppleTV? I'll pass. (1)

nblender (741424) | about 4 years ago | (#33521950)

Not only that; renting a show for $.99 is 'ok' if I can watch it as many times as I want... There are shows that I pre-screen for my son so I want to be able to watch the show and keep it hanging around for a few days before I get a chance to sit with my son and watch it together. If I have to pay $.99 each time, then the concept becomes a lot less interesting... Plus, my son likes to watch shows a few times... Ignoring the increased cost of on-demand re-viewing of individual episodes, the bandwidth waste is deplorable... At $.99 per episode, the cost of a season of a single show rivals the cost of the DVD you can purchase when the season is over.. I can watch the DVD whenever I want and however many times I want...

Nope, not a good deal.

TW is Already Gone (2, Interesting)

MrTripps (1306469) | about 4 years ago | (#33521838)

I canceled my cable TV service a few months ago. My living room TV gets by with an antenna (whose picture is better then cable), PS3, PlayOn, Netflix, and uTorrent.

Apple is out to hunt bigger game than cable (5, Insightful)

joeflies (529536) | about 4 years ago | (#33521864)

It looks like that Apple TV is out to replace cable companies, but I think that's only a superficial view of the long term plan. There's been no announcement to date that Apple plans to offer any channel that appears on cable .. rather they go through online content providers. They complete skipped the major gripe of cable, i.e. to offer a "subscribe to channels you want ala carte", and changed the game to "buy what episodes you want to see, on demand".

Which leads to the question .. so what role do the networks play in the grand scheme of things ... NBC / ABC / CBS / FOX are not all developing their own content, they buy that content from a show producer. If Apple develops enough mindshare and living rooms, you don't need NBC to order the episodes of a new show, Apple can buy it directly from the show's producers.

This could be a great play to cut out all the middlemen, not just the cable company or the satellite monthly fee, but the entire tv network system as well ... it's possibly the biggest change in the business of TV in 50 years, and frankly none of the TV networks seem to notice yet.

Re:Apple is out to hunt bigger game than cable (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33522208)

This doesn't cut out the middlemen, this makes Apple _the_ middleman. I'm sure they'll pass the savings on to you... HAHAHAHAHA

As Usual, I Don't Get It (2, Insightful)

BigBlueOx (1201587) | about 4 years ago | (#33522046)

It doesn't seem to me that the delivery mechanism as big a deal as what product is being delivered. My fancy-schmancy digital-HD cable box with DVR and on-demand programming and bagels with cream cheese delivers over 500 channels of unmitigated crap. Hell, if it weren't for BBC America (Top Gear & Dr Who), I wouldn't watch anything at all. How is having an JobsBox or a GoogleFlooby going to change that? I'm going to spend my time watching YouTube? Really? That's the big plan? YouTube?? What am I missing?

Re:As Usual, I Don't Get It (1)

N1XRR (1631281) | about 4 years ago | (#33522820)

It doesn't seem to me that the delivery mechanism as big a deal as what product is being delivered. My fancy-schmancy digital-HD cable box with DVR and on-demand programming and bagels with cream cheese delivers over 500 channels of unmitigated crap. Hell, if it weren't for BBC America (Top Gear & Dr Who), I wouldn't watch anything at all. How is having an JobsBox or a GoogleFlooby going to change that? I'm going to spend my time watching YouTube? Really? That's the big plan? YouTube?? What am I missing?

Top Gear is available on iTunes for purchase (for a reasonable price), and also available in torrent form from a large Top Gear-oriented website. I suspect you can find Dr. Who in the same fashion. Imagine if the cable companies where to take all the bandwidth current digital/analog signals take up and go 100% IP based distribution. Speed increase much?

Re:As Usual, I Don't Get It (1)

microTodd (240390) | about 4 years ago | (#33522966)

Because there are multiple ways via Internet to get all the content you want WITHOUT needing cable. ESPN3, Hulu, Netflix ondemand, even abc.com stream their shows.

Wouldn't it be cool if you could just aggregate all those services into a single interface, plug it into your 38" HDTV in the living room, and be able to drop your cable or satellite TV? And wouldn't it be cool if you had a Google search interface on top of all that content to find what you want?

And wouldn't it be cool if you could just do this with an appliance instead of building out a small-profile box and installing XBMC?

You lost already (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33522246)

We all have Sky in our living rooms and FreeView.

Why do we want more? Either integrate or die.

Mac Mini (1)

Thyamine (531612) | about 4 years ago | (#33522438)

Maybe I'm too geeky, but I have a Mac Mini because it does all the things the Apple TV does, plus more. I guess for a simple consumer device it is more than most people want, but it lets me watch/stream/etc all those things I want it to. And my PS3 does my BluRay as well as DVD so I don't need another disc player. There are so many options out there that I think we are going to see this slowly take over as more viable, but I don't see it taking off over night so much as slowly build.

What about live sports? events? (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | about 4 years ago | (#33522548)

What about live sports? events?

ESPN 3 does not have all sports and there are ISP limits as well.

different purposes (1)

bananaquackmoo (1204116) | about 4 years ago | (#33522802)

I'm surprised that nobody has commented so far on the fact THEY SERVE TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT PURPOSES. One works with traditional TV networks and supplements them with internet content. The other is for interfacing with the apple store to rent movies and shows. There is a tiny bit of overlap since both can do Netflix streaming, but then again what can't these days? Even phones can.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>