Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Google TV Next Month, Boxee In November

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the surf-and-search dept.

Google 132

itwbennett writes "In a WSJ interview, Intel CEO Paul Otellini said that 'Google TV starts shipping this month.' Although, as blogger Peter Smith notes, 'Exactly which devices he means isn't clear. Sony TVs and the Logitech Revue will be the first out so if he is referring to a finished consumer project, he's referring to one or the other of those, but as CNET points out, he might be referring to product shipping to retail rather than being on sale to consumers this month. Either way, it looks like you'll be able to have Google TV in your living room by sometime in October at the latest.' What, if anything does this mean for the Boxee Box, which is still due in November? 'If Google is out there first, and puts marketing muscle behind Google TV (and of course they're including it built into some televisions) it might be hard for Boxee to find its niche,' says Smith. 'Particularly with that bizarre form factor that won't fit anywhere.'"

cancel ×

132 comments

Fuck Islam! Fuck the unholy Koran! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33544384)

I shit on the Koran daily.

Fuck Mohammad, Fuck the unholy Koran, Fuck Allah, FUCK ISLAM!!!!!!

Re:Fuck Islam! Fuck the unholy Koran! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33545124)

Fuck Mohammad

Who is Mohammad? Do you have a picture of him?

Google as a verb (3, Funny)

mathmatt (851301) | more than 3 years ago | (#33544390)

Why do I have to wait until next month to google "TV"?

I want google TV in my TV (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#33544396)

I want the google TV stuff to be IN my next television. This sort of thing is not uncommon today and many televisions will play DivX and similar from a USB stick. The only thing my TV's USB port is good for is firmware upgrades, but it's not meant to provide the entertainment, only to display it. As long as they leave a little headroom in there for upgrades I don't see why it would be a bad idea. Just prevent writes to the program area any time but during firmware update...

Re:I want google TV in my TV (4, Interesting)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#33544458)

I don't want anyone's 'TV stuff' to be IN my TV. I want the option of buying any TV, TV related hardware and TV services I want separately. Bundling seems like a nice feature when it's not available from anyone but when you can only get TV-X with company-Y's TV stuff then the complaints will start streaming in.

Game console resellers are notorious for screwing customers with 'bundling' and I'd hate to see it end up *inside* the TV hardware so I'm forced to use it if I want that particular product.

Re:I want google TV in my TV (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#33544502)

Game console resellers are notorious for screwing customers with 'bundling' and I'd hate to see it end up *inside* the TV hardware so I'm forced to use it if I want that particular product.

Why would you be forced to use it? Just don't switch to that input, or whatever mechanism they provide to activate it. It's a TV, I'm not buying one without many and varied inputs.

Re:I want google TV in my TV (1)

Alastor187 (593341) | more than 3 years ago | (#33545716)

Why would you be forced to use it? Just don't switch to that input, or whatever mechanism they provide to activate it. It's a TV, I'm not buying one without many and varied inputs.

But then you paying for hardware that you don't actually use, where if the hardware wasn't included in the TV the base price could be lower. I hate paying for things that I don't use. My cell phone is a prime example, because I don't/can't use half the features it has. But I still had to pay for the hardware/software to support said features, because they just don't offer basic phones anymore.

Re:I want google TV in my TV (1)

halltk1983 (855209) | more than 3 years ago | (#33546024)

http://www.jitterbug.com/ [jitterbug.com]

There you go.

Re:I want google TV in my TV (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#33546372)

But then you paying for hardware that you don't actually use,

If it runs Android and there's much install base then it will eventually be hacked and I can use it for my own purposes. I don't want my TV to run just anything. WinCE will not do for example because so often the only replacement is Angstrom which on many devices is not a good solution.

Re:I want google TV in my TV (1)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 3 years ago | (#33547476)

"they just don't offer basic phones anymore."

Turn in your nerd license please. In fact that was so bad /. might have to evict you.

Re:I want google TV in my TV (3, Interesting)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33544778)

I agree. I never buy TVs with built-in VCRs or DVDs, because I like to buy a separate player with the specific features I desire (like the ability to record HD on SVHS tape) (or the ability to play DVDs at 1.4x speed with sound). Same with a DVR or NetTV device.

I have to wonder how successful these things will be long term?

In 2009 Comcast, Cox, Time-Warner and other companies met with one another, and agreed to set up a new CATV portal site that would only be accessible to cable customers. Next they laid pressure on Cable Channels by telling them they need to stop providing the programs for free (syfy.com, abcfamily.com, etc), because it was the cable companies that PAID for these programs via subscriber fees and they have first rights to distribution. Virtually all the channels agreed. In 2011 this "cable subscribers only" website will go live and the free net viewing disappears.

While we've not been paying attention, the cable companies quietly signed deals to lock-up these shows behind their own subscriber website. And what's worse: Because they are government-created monopolies, there's not a damn thing we can do to stop them. We have as little choice as deciding which electric, phone, or natural gas company we want. :-|

Aside -

I wonder why Microsoft does not try to revive WebTV? I had one of them in the late 90s, and it was crap because lo-definition analog sets made reading the internet difficult (color blur), but now we have high-definition sets that can produce images as clear as a Super VGA monitor. WebTV could succeed this time.

Re:I want google TV in my TV (1)

Curtman (556920) | more than 3 years ago | (#33545236)

I wonder why Microsoft does not try to revive WebTV?

Because the people who worked on WebTV at Microsoft work at Google now.

Re:I want google TV in my TV (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33544536)

Same. There has been upgrade bays for a while in some TVs as well, but rarely do they get used.
If only they would, maybe we could finally get rid of the need to buy stupid bulky boxes every X years just for a few new features.
Having a standard remote control interface on the front panel of the TVs linked directly to the bay(s) would be nice as well. (just in case the current default controls were too limiting, or bulky for the required inserts functionality)

(mini-rant incoming, ignore if you want)
So many companies waste money making huge bulky boxes just because it is the norm when they could be saving money with smaller bay inserts. (even though it will cost a little more for the more compact design, unless you really screw it up, it should still cost less)
If you've ever looked through some of your common hardware on the media center front, it is shocking how much wasted space is in some of them. VHS players were probably the only ones with a good reason for their emptiness. (don't get me started on the PC industry and "air flow" nonsense, fools, the lot of them, and quite a few companies have proven such now, yet we are still stuck with bulky beige crap)
Not only has the air flow nonsense been debunked, there are already quite a large number of compact devices on the market with much better air flow than all those huge, empty boxes.
Look at PS3 for example, my god that thing is packed. Yet it still runs cooler than my ~65% empty PC case most of the time... and removing the fact that it was a new device with new technology and normalising the prices of hardware between them, probably cost less to make than my almost empty case by about $50-100ish.
(end)

Anyway, weren't the groups behind the Google TV movement trying to establish some sort of standard around this, actually?

Re:I want google TV in my TV (1)

jack2000 (1178961) | more than 3 years ago | (#33545566)

Have you tried to cram hardware in a small PC case? We need that space exactly becouse the PC is modular. If you don't like it get a mini-itx.

Re:I want google TV in my TV (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 3 years ago | (#33544592)

I just want something to win the war. And that something has to be standard across brands and writable by third parties. So it can run the stock media streamer, a 3rd party commercial one, or a FOSS one. Just pick a hardware set, and let the market choose the software.

Boxee (1)

gilesjuk (604902) | more than 3 years ago | (#33544420)

I run Boxee for watching content. It's alright, but the biggest annoyance is a lack of keyboard shortcut for toggling between aspect ratios or a default setting to always override aspect ratio.

Mythtv was better in this sense, just lacked the "slick" interface.

DTVpal Re:Boxee (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33544828)

I like my DTVpal. It's not perfect either, but it has two tuners inside of it so that I can record two channels at the same time (say Big Bang Theory and Vampire Diaries). And it's totally free... no annoying subscription fee... just add a ~70 dollar CM4228 antenna and go.

That plus syfy.com on my PC, and I can tell the Comcast Monopoly to go ____ themselves.

XBMC - Now! (4, Interesting)

luckytroll (68214) | more than 3 years ago | (#33544470)

I dont see the point of either of these "services" when we already have a decent and open solution that solves most of the issues I had with "TV" - advertising contaminating my content.

XBMC with a few plugins (Which is basically what Boxee is) and a well stocked media library from the torrents/usenet gives me all the television I could want, all the web content I can chew - and NO fscking adverts!

What are Google and Boxee except that, plus advertising put back in? What value can they possibly insert that would make it worth my while to get screaming mad ad annoying ads again? None.

Re:XBMC - Now! (4, Insightful)

Jon_S (15368) | more than 3 years ago | (#33544508)

What are Google and Boxee except that, plus advertising put back in?

Maybe the fact that they provide content legally as opposed to illegally from torrents/usenet? Debate all you want whether US Copyright laws make sense, but downloading from torrents/usenet is still illegal. Boxee provides a great way to watch TV on my own schedule, and at least currently with much much fewer commercials.

Re:XBMC - Now! (4, Informative)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 3 years ago | (#33544674)

WRONG. Downloading is NOT ILLEGAL. No one has ever been sued for downloading a single thing. You are not breaking copyright laws by downloading.

Uploading, such as in torrents, is illegal. You are the one breaking copyright because you don't have the right to distribute the work.

Semantics, yes. But there is a difference.

I can't wait for the Boxee Box just because it'll be a prepackaged XBMC box. I'm really hoping D-Link is good with releasing the drivers and such.

SickBeard [sickbeard.com] + SABnzbd + Server in the closet ... It's like having my own Awesome 12.5TB PVR. I'm so far behind on most shows I don't really care if I watch them the night they come out. The automation is amazing. Much better than the manual or RSS only feed I was doing earlier.

Re:XBMC - Now! (2, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33544856)

>>>Uploading, such as in torrents, is illegal.

Okay. Show me a bittorrent client that lets me disable uploading (or sets the upload speed to 0.0 KB/s). Or provide another solution that would make us users legal and untouchable by RIAA/MPAA.

Re:XBMC - Now! (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33544880)

P.S.

Another question about torrenting: Why is it my DSL connection download speed varies with my upload speed? i.e. If I set my upload to 1/3rd maximum, the download speed maxes out but if I change the upload to 2/3rd maximum the download speed slows to half. Why would one interfere the other? (I've never noticed the problem on my old dialup line.)

Re:XBMC - Now! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33545160)

the line is asymmetric and TCP require to send ACK packet,
if you saturate your upload you cant send ACK packet fast enough so the TCP congestion control of the sender kicks in and reduce the number of packet sent to match the rate of ack packet received

Re:XBMC - Now! (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#33545278)

Megaupload and the other dozens of uploading services, combined with JDownloader. No "forced" uploading whatsoever.

Alternatively, renting a seedbox in another country? Don't know if that would work, but it's possible.

Re:XBMC - Now! (1)

Godskitchen (1017786) | more than 3 years ago | (#33545352)

I'm pretty sure Azureus/Vuze and mutorrent both allow you to set upload speed to 0.0 Kb/s. At least they did a few years ago.

Re:XBMC - Now! (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 3 years ago | (#33546212)

Or just don't open the outgoing port and you can't upload because nobody can connect to it.

Re:XBMC - Now! (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33546406)

(1) How do I do that?
(2) Wouldn't that also interfere with my connectability for downloading?

Re:XBMC - Now! (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 3 years ago | (#33548124)

I would just not open the port on my router...

and as far as I'm aware, downloading is you connecting to the seeds on whatever port they have open, and accepting data... and they do the same to get data from you. These connections are on on different ports. People who use torrents but don't upload are usually called leachers.

Re:XBMC - Now! (1)

mule007 (767116) | more than 3 years ago | (#33546692)

Transmission will allow you to set the upload limit to 0.0. I have to use that limit on my connection due to a 20 Gb/mo quota and it does exactly what it says. My total uploaded bytes at the end of each download is always 0.

Re:XBMC - Now! (1)

insufflate10mg (1711356) | more than 3 years ago | (#33544902)

WRONG. Downloading is NOT ILLEGAL. No one has ever been sued for downloading a single thing. You are not breaking copyright laws by downloading.

[Citation Needed]. So you're saying there's absolutely nothing illegal about downloading copyrighted media such as television broadcasts, movies, and music from p2p? As long as I don't enable seeding and make the files available for download FROM me, it's perfectly legal? If you're being serious, you have changed my life, because I will leave right now and purchase a laptop to use as a media center for the living room.

Re:XBMC - Now! (1)

Ironhandx (1762146) | more than 3 years ago | (#33545376)

Depends where you are. In Canada, at least, this is the case. There are similar laws in a few states I've heard.

Re:XBMC - Now! (1)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 3 years ago | (#33546646)

In the US this is true.

Look at every lawsuit the RIAA/MPAA has filed. It's all uploading.

Re:XBMC - Now! (3, Insightful)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#33544958)

Downloading is NOT ILLEGAL.

Downloading creates a copy. If done in the USA without the permission of the copyright owner it infringes the copyright in the downloaded work.

No one has ever been sued for downloading a single thing.

True, so far as I know. Suing people who only download is impractical.

You are not breaking copyright laws by downloading.

If you do it without the permission of the copyright owner you are infringing her copyright by creating an unauthorized copy.

Uploading, such as in torrents, is illegal. You are the one breaking copyright because you don't have the right to distribute the work.

True, and this is where publishers concentrate their efforts for obvious reasons.

Re:XBMC - Now! (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33545114)

>>>Suing people who only download is impractical...... Uploading is where publishers concentrate their efforts for obvious reasons.

It isn't obvious to me. Why would they go after uploaders and not downloaders? Why is the latter impractical. Please explain.

Re:XBMC - Now! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33545362)

It's easier to prove intent; there is more evidence involved, he's liable for far more damages; taking him out has an actual impact on pirating; and in some rare cases, the accuser can push for felony charges.

Re:XBMC - Now! (1)

Stray7Xi (698337) | more than 3 years ago | (#33545838)

The problem is gathering the evidence to say they actually did download:
To demonstrate uploading you request to download from people already in the swarm.
To demonstrate downloading you have to first offer, wait for a request then upload. Can you help someone infringe your copyrights and then sue them for it.

The subpoena would be "These 100 John Does downloaded my art from me, causing me damages, I demand their ISP records" then the obvious response would be "Well stop giving it to them numbskull".

Which is a lot different then "These 100 John Does are offering my art online, I was able to download it from them and demand their ISP records". By purely leeching, they're not contributing to the infringement.

Re:XBMC - Now! (1)

mikeabbott420 (744514) | more than 3 years ago | (#33548212)

Probably impractical. There is the issue of how much money they can extort. if you upload they sue for ten trillion dollars (approximate) a song, but downloading they could only sue you over the one copy and the damages claimed would have to be much smaller and probably not worth the lawyers it would take.

Re:XBMC - Now! (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 3 years ago | (#33546230)

Downloading is NOT ILLEGAL.

Downloading creates a copy. If done in the USA without the permission of the copyright owner it infringes the copyright in the downloaded work.

If you want to get technical, viewing a streamed video via netflix also creates a copy (in memory.) DVRing a TV Show creates a copy. Heck, one could argue that playing a BluRay disc anymore creates a bunch of tiny copies as it pulls the content off the disc into RAM.

Re:XBMC - Now! (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 3 years ago | (#33548000)

Whether or not Boxee is fed by illegal content is entirely up to the end user.

The same goes for GoogleTV or the old AppleTV.

The new AppleTV will be less likely to be playing "pirated" content because it's so poor at playing anything non-Apple.

Most of the stuff out there that people actually want to bother with is still being handled by the likes of Tivo, MythTV and MCE.

Re:XBMC - Now! (1)

klingens (147173) | more than 3 years ago | (#33544542)

GoogleTV and Boxee are integrated software, ready for the masses who want to buy it all in one at the store so that it "just works". Yes it is the same essentially as XBMC, but preinstalled so they don't have to do anything. And yes, one price consumers will pay for it are ads. You had to know quite a lot about TV compatible hardware, connectors, codecs, software installation issues and so on to have a working DVR in the end. This is not something you can assume the average consumer has or wants. They want a TV with a remote. not another computer they need to take to the Geek Squad to fix.

The value you and other users like you get is a hackable TV: if the idea of GoogleTV/Boxee takes off, you can be sure there will be sites like xda-developers.com but for your TV where you can download the newest firmware with all the crap taken out, bugs fixed and so on.

Re:XBMC - Now! (1)

Snaller (147050) | more than 3 years ago | (#33545036)

XMBC is for minority nerds, this is for everybody else.

Re:XBMC - Now! (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 3 years ago | (#33548098)

> XMBC is for minority nerds, this is for everybody else.

Boxee is nothing more than XBMC with a little window dressing.

Re:XBMC - Now! (1)

DCstewieG (824956) | more than 3 years ago | (#33545420)

Nothing that requires a full computer hooked up to the TV will ever be popular outside of geeks.

Plex, which started as a simple port of XBMC for Mac, has morphed into a much more impressive architecture. They separated the media management into a server component allowing different clients to consume it, including Mac (seems a Windows port is coming), iOS, and soon, LG TVs and Blu-ray players. You can read the developer's vision for it here:

http://elan.plexapp.com/2010/09/02/plex-and-the-future-of-television [plexapp.com]

Re:XBMC - Now! (1)

Tacvek (948259) | more than 3 years ago | (#33546150)

Well that is fine. It should be easy enough to make a specialty HTPC-system in a set top form factor.

Take a notebook CPU for its low power utilization. You can use a realatively weak CPU, since it won't need to do much computation. Use a rather low end GPU, but that is capable of hardware acceleration. You don't need anything too powerful, since you won't be running games or anything on it, and you want to keep costs low.

Use a sound-card capable of souround sound output, so people don't need a surround receiver. Include a CD tuner, and a blu-ray drive.

Use a small SSD for the system software, and a large mechanical hard disk for the rest. Have an RF-remote reciver, and Ethernet and 802.11n card.

For the software, have a media center program, providing access to online content, including NetFlix streaming. Have DVR support and integrated blu-ray/dvd playback.

Price it around $300. The result would be a single inexpensive system that acts as your DVD player, blu-ray player, surround decoder, internet content set-top box, and DVR.

Having everything integrated gives you some nice advantages. You don't need to worry about changing modes on all of your devices. You can easily have a single remote to control everything, since all you have is the TV and this one device, and all the remote needs to be able to do with the TV is turn it on and off.

Such a device would have all the benefits of an HTPC without being branded as a PC, but merely as a TV peripheral.

Re:XBMC - Now! (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 3 years ago | (#33548136)

> Nothing that requires a full computer hooked up to the TV will ever be popular outside of geeks. ...except Tivo already took the world by storm.

The idea that a PC-a-appliance can't be successful is not supported by the facts.

Forcing the average n00b to build their own box is the problem. Although that was solved in the PC a long long long time ago.

Where will I put it? (3, Interesting)

605dave (722736) | more than 3 years ago | (#33544500)

"'Particularly with that bizarre form factor that won't fit anywhere"

Bingo. That was my first thought when I saw the shape. It won't fit in anyone's stereo cabinet with the other components.

Re:Where will I put it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33545034)

almost anywhere...

http://blog.boxee.tv/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/IMG_3755-300x225.jpg

Re:Where will I put it? (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 3 years ago | (#33545222)

What shape? I view the three pages linked and all I saw was a Sony television with a crappy videogame-like screenshot...

Re:Where will I put it? (1)

lbgator (1208974) | more than 3 years ago | (#33545408)

He is talking about the ridiculous "sunken cube" shape of the boxee box. [mashable.com]

Re:Where will I put it? (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 3 years ago | (#33545534)

Wow, that is ridiculous.

Re:Where will I put it? (1)

jack2000 (1178961) | more than 3 years ago | (#33545614)

Put it on it's proper edges. It doesn't have to stand the way they are showing you.
Glue GI Joe and Warhammer minis to the sloped edge or something.

Re:Where will I put it? (1)

Godskitchen (1017786) | more than 3 years ago | (#33545380)

Ten years from now, all houses will have built in niches of this shape. These niches will be placed to allow greatest view of the entire room and the televisions will come with a complimentary webcam that is always on.

Re:Where will I put it? (1)

Dzimas (547818) | more than 3 years ago | (#33545454)

The Boxee Box is actually quite small - about 5" wide and 5" high. It'll fit on a shelf in my A/V unit next to my son's Wii and still leave room to store remotes. It's not stackable, true, but then neither is Logitech's GooTV or the minuscule new Apple TV.

The end of cable.. (2, Insightful)

iONiUM (530420) | more than 3 years ago | (#33544540)

I'm pretty happy about this. I think it's time for cable tv (non on-demand) to go away. I also think Netflix is a great way to get movies and tv as you want it. Isn't this how it should be, what you want when you want it?

Re:The end of cable.. (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 3 years ago | (#33544628)

The ironic part is that "cable TV" is how most people get the Internet. As they realize this, and cable companies start reducing channels (that no one is watching) but delivering service for the same price, profits will go up.

Unless someone tries to "legislate a solution" to a problem that does not have to exist...

Re:The end of cable.. (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33544918)

Question:

How would cable channels like Syfy and TNT fund their original programs? If the channels disappear so too do the ~50 cent per channel per home fee that funds about half the cost of making Stargate, Eureka, the Closer, and so on.

Re:The end of cable.. (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 3 years ago | (#33545198)

Sell the shows directly to the viewers. I would have paid to keep Better Off Ted "on the air".

Re:The end of cable.. (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33545840)

Each cable tv episode costs 2-3 million to produce, and is only watched by an average of 1 million households (according to Nielsen). So you're talking about $2-3 per episode per person, or $40-60 for a whole season, just to break even. Times however many shows you watch each year.

Let's say 50. So ~$40-60 times 50 == $2000-3000 each year you'd be shelling out towards shows that used to come "free" with your current CATV or Satellite or FiOS internet subscription.

Re:The end of cable.. (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 3 years ago | (#33546916)

Does Nielsen counts people outside of the USA? Just because a show is not popular in the USA doesn't mean people in other countries don't enjoy it. Seeing as most USA channels show crappy reality TV shows and the like, maybe most people with half a brain already stopped paying to get access to TV content.

As for being "free", I don't have cable or satellite. I think FiOS is USA-only. There's also no TV channels available over-the-air where I live either.

The last problem that I see is: why the hell does it cost 2 to 3 millions to produce a single episode of a TV show?

Taking Better Off Ted as an example, it's not like that show needed thousands of dollars in visual special effects. Sure there are actors, sets, script writers, tech crews and the like to be paid, but if it costs 2 to 3 millions per episode either someone's getting overpaid or someone's wasting money somewhere.

Webkit wins the TV and Mobile Phone now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33544570)

Interesting how Webkit is now the "only" option for mobile phones and television going forward. (Yes There is wahtever-the-crap-it-is in the PS3, and Opera on the Wii, of which only the Opera browser actually acts like a web browser... but a failsuck flash player 9. The PS3 has flash player 9 too... but try using the web browser outside the PSN.. fail.)

Mobile phones? iPhone uses webkit, Android uses Webkit, Nokia (Sybian S60 R3) uses Webkit, some mobile phones allow Opera as an option.

Webkit is available on the PC, so it sounds to me that the "target" web browser if you want to make-once, work-everywhere is now Webkit.

Re:Webkit wins the TV and Mobile Phone now? (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 3 years ago | (#33544816)

The ideal thing for "make-once, work-everywhere" is standards compliance, otherwise we get into the IE fiasco with different companies.

Re:Webkit wins the TV and Mobile Phone now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33544822)

Android has Fennc, Opera, and possibly more. And webkit is not a browser. It is a HTML/CSS rendering engine.

Re:Webkit wins the TV and Mobile Phone now? (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#33545308)

Webkit is available on the PC

Yes, but Trident + Gecko still dominate the market.

Thank GOD (5, Funny)

mayberry42 (1604077) | more than 3 years ago | (#33544648)

'If Google is out there first, and puts marketing muscle behind Google TV (and of course they're including it built into some televisions) it might be hard for Boxee to find its niche

See, may people complain about Google being evil corporate overlords, but I say - you go Google! I mean, do you really want to see this [youtube.com] on your TV!?

Re:Thank GOD (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 3 years ago | (#33544670)

Please do not let this post get posted to 4chan...

Re:Thank GOD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33544808)

I lol'ed at this comment:

omg...whats that? A single lonely braincell exploring the eternity of vacuum trying to say: Help me out of here...

And I feel bad for it. I happen to like people who are uncontrollably energetic.

Re:Thank GOD (1)

The Nipponese (875458) | more than 3 years ago | (#33545322)

We should be so lucky!

Re:Thank GOD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33545694)

Oh come on now, you know you'd slide your connector into her box.

Signed,
Petitioner for the anointment of Internet sensation, Boxxy, as the spokesperson for Boxee, Inc.

Antitrust? (1)

Antony-Kyre (807195) | more than 3 years ago | (#33544690)

Could this be an antitrust issue having it built into a TV? I mean, seriously.

Re:Antitrust? (1)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 3 years ago | (#33544854)

No, I don't think your TV will trust you any less because you like Google. Unless it's a Sony model.

boxee? (0, Redundant)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 3 years ago | (#33544712)

OMG! is this the future of television? [youtube.com]

Web TV? (1)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 3 years ago | (#33544772)

Didn't they try this back in the 90s? As I recall, no one really wanted it. I also recall Java basically being invented for use in digital tv streaming interactive content boxes, which never really came to market, but we got stuck with Java anyway. But whatever, at least no one is being forced to buy these, or buy TV at all, so its OK.

US Only (1)

Alyssey (994477) | more than 3 years ago | (#33544898)

This will most probably go the way Netflix, Hulu, Pandora, Amazon MP3 Store, the Kindle and ALL others go. US Only. So all other people outside the US still have no way of seeing anything they see because of useless copyright annoyances. And I say useless because I (and several others) wanted to pay for Pandora, for Amazon MP3s, for Hulu, for the Kindle and it's books. So, it's definitely news for nerds, but, other than the US, it doesn't matter much for us, or me, at least.

Can I run it in the Android emulator? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#33545078)

I already have a HTPC, which means hulu among others does not make me pay to see shows on my tv. If this does not run on the android emulator, it seems really useless. I do not need more hardware.

Boxee (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33545108)

Boxee is the queen of 4chan

What makes XYZ TV so special? (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 3 years ago | (#33545154)

Google TV versus AppleTV (2nd version coming in about two weeks) versus WD TV Mini / WD TV HD / WD TV Live / WD TV Live Plus.

Discuss.

Re:What makes XYZ TV so special? (1)

jack2000 (1178961) | more than 3 years ago | (#33545650)

Nothing, it's just a damned tvtuner with a remote. a hard disk and connector ports. It's a DVR for those that want to just buy a box and hook it up and have it work.

Re:What makes XYZ TV so special? (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 3 years ago | (#33548168)

It remains to be seen whether or not it is complete enough to be a DVR or if it is good enough to encourage anyone to stop what they're already using.

It might be more popular as something that can be hacked and used with some other solution (MythTV or MCE).

Story needs more explanation (1)

Stiletto (12066) | more than 3 years ago | (#33545168)

Is it me, are /. articles more and more making wild assumptions about the knowledge level of us nerd news readers? Here's a story that mentions "Google TV" and "Boxee Box" with no context and not even a few-sentence description. I guess I'm a retard, but I have no idea what a Google TV is or what a Boxxee Box is. Absolutely none. You have to start navigating through the linked articles if you even want a hope of finding out what the /. article is even about. Indeed, only the second linked article comes close to describing a Google TV as: "Google TV is a combination of hardware and software designed in hopes of achieving the tech industry's long-held goal of breaking into the television industry, currently dominated by cable and satellite companies." No word on what it actually is (besides being a "combination of hardware and software") or does, but it's a start. No word at all about what a Boxee is. Guess I need to have Wikipedia open in another browser...

As someone peripherally interested in audio/video technology, I might be interested in this article (and the linked articles) but the way they are written makes them totally useless to all but a few people already knowledgeable about the products.

Re:Story needs more explanation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33545684)

If only there were some kind of searchable global network filled to the brim with information. Some kind of 'international network' you could avail yourself of.

I imagine it would take around five seconds to retreive a huge list of potential sources. That's what a nerd would use.

Hypothetically, it would've been better to use it than writing a 1000-word post extolling your own ignorance and laziness.

(And yes you have a perfectly cogent point. But god fucking damn it you are one lazy arsehole. If you want to proclaim yourself a nerd, ACT LIKE ONE. Make an intellectual effort.)

Re:Story needs more explanation (1)

Stiletto (12066) | more than 3 years ago | (#33545888)

The point is, who wants to have a browser open in another window constantly doing Internet searches just to figure out what an article is talking about. I don't think it's lazy to expect an author to include a simple one-sentence description of the obscure subjects he's writing about.

Re:Story needs more explanation (1)

CronoCloud (590650) | more than 3 years ago | (#33546450)

You don't use tabbed browsing? Using firefox all you would have had to do is to select Google TV or Boxee in the summary, right click, select search via google and it would put the search results in a new tab.

Re:Story needs more explanation (1)

eldepeche (854916) | more than 3 years ago | (#33547506)

whoosh, jackass

Another product that is mostly USA-only (4, Informative)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 3 years ago | (#33545284)

I just viewed their video (www.google.com/tv/) and frankly, it's just a fancy DVR+Web browser box. The so-called online content is via the channel websites which means it's still limited to the USA. You still need, in a way, to have cable or satellite for Google TV to be of any use, otherwise it's just a browser box for your TV (which I don't mind since it's WebKit, meaning it's not yet another weird browser to take into account).

AppleTV, on the other hand, bypasses the cable and satellite companies (the TV side, anyway) and gives you the opportunity to get only the shows and movies you want. I'm not crazy about the rental pricing, but for some people even at those prices it's cheaper than a monthly bill depending on how many shows you watch.

But for a lot of people, it's still "option 3", driving around in their Pontiac Torrent to get their content.

I just wish media companies would stop with this region-locked and country-based contracts nonsense and go with worldwide releases already. They don't need local distribution networks anymore.

Another product that is mostly Canadian. (1)

Ostracus (1354233) | more than 3 years ago | (#33546742)

I just wish media companies would stop with this region-locked and country-based contracts nonsense and go with worldwide releases already. They don't need local distribution networks anymore.

What makes you think the problem is strictly corporate? [arstechnica.com]

Re:Another product that is mostly USA-only (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33546842)

You viewed Google TV's site which contains little info on the product.

Google TV will have embedded Netflix and Amazon VOD

If you have read any info lately on Amazons VOD service they will be offering 99c tv episode purchases. (Different to Apples 99c rentals) Not much is known about the quality of shows or the length of time from Air date to the point where you can buy/rent.

Re:Another product that is mostly USA-only (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 3 years ago | (#33546936)

And I'm guessing that it's going to be USA-only services once again.

Re:Another product that is mostly USA-only (1)

MikeFM (12491) | more than 3 years ago | (#33546966)

I like my Roku but with the price drop I'm thinking of getting an Apple TV. Despite an official thumbs up they've set the new device to be able to run iOS apps. It's only a matter of time until that happens and that'll kill Roku and the game consoles for me. I have little interest in Google TV or Boxee right now but might be interested if they can top the new Apple TV.

I'm interested to see how the big consoles respond to these new threats.

Re:Another product that is mostly USA-only (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 3 years ago | (#33548200)

> I'm interested to see how the big consoles respond to these new threats.

By continuing to create games that the overhyped and oversold hardware in these glorified ipods can't hope to compete with.

Nintendo already gets flack for being a bit of of a technology throwback and it's got something else innovative going for it.

Succeeding as a device of convenience and going head to head with specialized devices are two different things entirely.

Re:Another product that is mostly USA-only (1)

Councilor Hart (673770) | more than 3 years ago | (#33547998)

Apple TV is also severely limited in the number of available countries.

In europe, you have to wait sometimes years before you can watch the show on TV. If it is broadcasted at all.

DVD's also arrive with a time delay and is at this moment an outdated technology.

Bluray is not supported by Apple. My iMac has the biggest screen in house.

and even so, after having bought a few hundred dvd's I am getting tired of the space it occupies and even more so that I have to play DJ every time I want to see a movie. If I can find it somewhere in my collection.
This has really brought down my buying rate. Where the hell do I store them all?
I could rip them, but that would take me months.

So downloading, the preferred option, is only possible where I live if you do it illegally. Great. I guess they don't want my money.
If it is a good movie or show, I will buy it. I even have unopened dvd packages. I buy it to express my appreciation and in the hope more of that type of movies/shows are made. But it is time to move on to digital downloads.

And... (1)

The Nipponese (875458) | more than 3 years ago | (#33545310)

...Roku today.

Christ. (1)

Godskitchen (1017786) | more than 3 years ago | (#33545312)

Can Google keep its hands off ANYTHING?

Re:Christ. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33545384)

They seem to manage avoiding supporting their products fairly well.
After my experiences with Android Market I'd be very much in favour of not letting them near my tv.

My big question is... (1)

cjjjer (530715) | more than 3 years ago | (#33545404)

How does advertising and user tracking/profiling fit into the grand scheme of things?

I'll pass on google tv (3, Interesting)

Lysol (11150) | more than 3 years ago | (#33546148)

I'm over all this geek complexity crap. Yah, I used to compile all my own Linux OS stuff in the past (read: *everything* so I could get the most performant, tailored install), but now it's boring and a waste of my time - I could be out enjoying life or compiling my os; hmmm... GTV reminds me of the same thing - nerd solutions for nerds that wanna screw around with stuff. I watched the IO demo live for the GTV announcement and was mortified. Honestly, that killed 'Google as great' for me. Felt like it was Bill Gates and co on stage - it was like an episode of the 10 stooges. I'm not an Apple fanboy, but you gotta hand it to them - less is usually more (cept for iTunes) when they're designing and making products. While everyone else is going super complex, with ATV you get 1 remote control with the minimal amount of buttons to control it. Just like the Google search box - minimal, to the point, excellent results; when engineering at Google was used to hide the complexity.

What strikes me as odd most nowadays is the sense of awe at Google's sheer 'engineering prowess'. Sure, they've done a kick as job in search, maps, and email - they're still the best in my mind. But it's like they inherited this M$ sorta view of the widest distribution of some whacky complex idea with some sort of specification and then leave it up to everyone else to implement it. This is great for the implementers, but not for the end user. Why? Because Google more and more seems to be not looking at things as a complete product and end users don't have all day to figure complex shit out - they're not some protocol engineers that think things are neat 'just because'.
Kindle and the iPhone are good examples of how Google is not approaching product design & development. The stupidest thing on the planet - to me - is wanting to watch tv and using a keyboard, trackpad, and remote control to do it. If anything, the tv should be voice controlled or at least controlled by some sort of cool iPad device - something that gives the end user some eye candy/techno lust. Making it into a computer that sits in the living room is a joke and keeps the nerds forever 'teh d0rx'.

Google's whole 'open' sthick and whats starting to happen with Android (carriers own that now) will probably bleed over into GTV. Set, box, and hardware manufacturers will eventually fill everything up with some sort of ad/crapware. This, I think, is the ultimate destination for Google's corporate vision of 'open'. 'Open' if your a corporate partner, suck if you're an end user (I'm not fooled by their plea that they're open as we developers like to think of 'open'). If you need any proof of this, just look at the various Android devices on AT&T or Verizon that don't allow you to uninstall apps and come preloaded with crapware (just like the whole Windows 'experience').

Just like WebTV and Wave, I think this one's gonna go down in flames.

Re:I'll pass on google tv (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33546934)

"Figure complex ___ out"? What do you mean?

Android works out of the box, you click and the application launches. You press play / pause / rewind / ffwd and the video does just that. For GTV, it seems that you just start typing what you want and you get the videos that you're looking for. http://www.google.com/tv/. Now, if you want to go an advanced route, then you might have to delve into the background workings... but even then, most are simply applications. I have "Smart Taskbar" installed that from any program, I can swipe open from any program (old version, new version has more features, different look -http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qrh7NzUcM5g ). All I did was click "Install" from the market, just like any other marketplace.

As for your "open", you're incorrect in your assessment. Android is OPEN. You go to XDA developers, and boom, custom firmware up the wazoo. I have a Nexus One. I press 3-4 buttons when the phone is booting to get to the bootloader. It asks "hey, are you sure you want to install your own firmware? It voids your warranty". I click yes. Boom, completely custom. Yes, there are a few apps on there that you can't uninstall with the stock firmware (Maps, Calendar, etc), but I can swap out an OS or just simply not put them on my homescreen, or if paranoid, have a task manager auto-kill the tasks if they ever start? You try doing that with any other phone. You want a native program alternate market? Market, done. Browser? Done. Alternate home screen? Done. Alternate *DIALER*, Done. GTV isn't open sourced as far as I can tell -- especially if you get the set top box version. It's just under $100 for an Internet appliance.

What handset makers and cell carriers do to the phone can't be helped by Google *BECAUSE* of their open source nature -- anyone can extend it or restrict it. If you don't like the preinstalled cruft (which, for the most part, can be ignored), then go buy directly from the manufacturer. You get it unlocked, no extra crap, etc. Hell, you try doing that with an APL device and you have an entire f__king computer preinstalled with it, since you can't even activate the phone, install music, or backup without a PC. Are there apps for that?

I want my GTV, I want my GTV (1)

Black Gold Alchemist (1747136) | more than 3 years ago | (#33547304)

I want my GTV

Now look at them yo-yo's that's the way you do it
You goof around on GTV
That ain't workin' that's the way you do it
Money ain't for nothin' and your chicks for free
Now that ain't workin' that's the way you do it
Let me tell ya them guys ain't dumb
Maybe get a blister on your little finger
Maybe get a blister on your thumb

We got to install android phones
Custom content deliveries
We got to move these search queries
We got to move these advertising inquiries

See the little nerd with the prius and the linux
Yeah buddy that's his own hair
That little nerd got his own jet airplane
That little nerd he's a billionaire

We got to install android phones
Custom content deliveries
We got to move these search queries
We got to move these advertising inquiries

We got to install android phones
Custom content deliveries
We got to move these search queries
We got to move these advertising inquiries

Look here, look here
I should'a be goofin' round
I watching street view drivin' round
I can haz cheseburger, says the lolcat
And he's up there, what's that?
One red paper clip?
Is that all it takes to make a house flip?
Oh, that ain't workin' that's the way you do it
Get your money for nothin', get your chicks for free

We got to install android phones
Custom content deliveries
We got to move these search queries
We got to move these advertising inquiries

Listen here
Now, that ain't workin' that's the way you do it
You goof around on the GTV
That ain't workin' that's the way you do it
Money for nothin' and your chicks for free
Money for nothin' and chicks for free

Money for nothin' and your chicks for free
Money for nothin' and chicks for free

I want my
I want my GTV


With sincere apologies to Dire Straits.

Video of GoogleTV/Logitech Revue and Boxee (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33547538)

I was really excited about Google's Revue until I saw these pics and videos of it: http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/logitech-revue-google-tv-hands-on-impressions/?news=123 I'm not crazy about a keyboard, the GUI, or the apparent need for a DVR.

Boxee, on the otherhand, looks phenomenal: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06PcGuf_mug

Bandwidth Overload (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33547732)

How will they deal with the 250gig cap Comcast has on there Internet? Add this to the normal Internet usage and lots of people will be going over there cap.

htpc still set-top box (1)

atarione (601740) | more than 3 years ago | (#33547822)

it is too bad the HTPC doesn't get more traction as it is an ideal setup for us

radio reception basically sucks monkey balls here so internet radio streams fulfill our radio requirements (NPR, KEXP, ..etc....yes we drive a Volvo =p)
with a 3rd party plug in we have hulu desktop integrated w/ Windows 7 Media Center (well we can launch it from our remote... Harmony)

every set-top box solution i've seen falls way short of the flexibility and usefulness of my HTPC... except for to some extent price (but i built mine w/ old parts from my last upgrade (had old E4600 and 2GB ram..and mb and Antec midtower with psu.. so only bought 1TB drive and wireless keyboard (htpc keyboard) and a cheap ATI 4550 video card w/ HDMI

since my wife can use it (after a brief tutorial) it may be a bit more complicated than some other set-top options but not too bad and so flexible.

also big screen mame == win

if one of these things could get official Hulu support that would be nice.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...