×

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 Details Revealed

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the searching-imdb-with-my-remote-control-will-change-my-life dept.

Google 180

Today Google provided new information about their upcoming Google TV platform for set-top boxes. Using a video and a demonstration site, they show how apps will look and function, and stressed that users wouldn't be limited in their ability to browse the web on their TV. Google also announced content partners, which include Turner Broadcasting, NBC Universal, HBO, Netflix and Amazon Video. "We have also been working with some leading technology and media companies to optimize their content for Google TV, including news sites like The New York Times and USA Today; music sites like VEVO, Pandora and Napster; information networks like Twitter; and online networks like blip.tv. And with YouTube Leanback, we can offer the best experience for you to watch your favorite viral videos and personalized channels on the television." For developers, they put up a guide to optimize websites for Google TV.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

180 comments

Interesting content lineup (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33786678)

Sounds like all the people that turned down Apple or Netflix recently.

First post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33786686)

is a stupid meme.

1995 called... (0, Troll)

nitehawk214 (222219) | more than 3 years ago | (#33786692)

... and they want their WebTV back.

Yeah yeah, I know this will do a lot more than be a TV based browser.

Re:1995 called... (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 3 years ago | (#33786732)

Yeah yeah, I know this will do a lot more than be a TV based browser.

So . . . basically you admit that your premise is wrong and was just an opportunity to throw out a lame joke.

Good to know.

The same wisecracks come out every time a new device comes out. They always point to some failed device in the past and laugh, never realizing that the first device of a particular type is almost never the one that becomes the commercial success. For nearly any successful product there is a long string of failures ahead of it that "did the same thing".

Re:1995 called... (1)

notque (636838) | more than 3 years ago | (#33786828)

Reminds me of the Sega TV. Downloading video games right to your console? Crazy talk. That failed.

Then, XBox Marketplace, it's common.

Or Dreamcast with it's built in modem...

etc etc etc

Re:1995 called... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33787344)

Or Dreamcast with it's built in modem...

You mean "its".

Re:1995 called... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33787120)

The same wisecracks come out every time a new device comes out. They always point to some failed device in the past and laugh, never realizing that the first device of a particular type is almost never the one that becomes the commercial success.

I *know*!

The perfect example of this is how TV was actually invented in Russia in the twenties, but wasn't a big time commercial hit back then. The main reason being just a slight difference in operation compared to our later western TV:s: Instead of you watching the TV, the TV was watching you.

Re:1995 called... (2, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#33787500)

For nearly any successful product there is a long string of failures ahead of it that "did the same thing".

True, but still the point remains that this device is quite poorly conceived, and the target audience is even less understood.

We all know there is not enough bandwidth for every person to be pulling TV across the internet. All of these have to stream on discrete IPs and you can't take advantage of multicast and still provide people with on-demand start times for every program in your video vault.

There is even less demand to browse the web while watching TV unless you live alone in your parents basement. Can you imagine trying to follow a football game with you S.O. surfing lol-cats and getting tweets every few seconds.

The concept of Google TV is foisting much of what is personal and private activities best destined for that device in your pocket to the Family TV set.

As such, it seems destined for singles or dorm rooms, and useless for families.

It seems like a failure to understand the lesson of the huge stereo systems we all abandoned as soon as we could don high quality earbuds, and have our collection in our pocket.

When everyone in the house has a personal iPad or Android Tablet, Google TV might make sense, but it will also be irrelevant, as the tablets themselves will do all of this.

Re:1995 called... (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 3 years ago | (#33787680)

I don't think they stream the TV, or the on-demand programming. That's probably still a function of the cable/satellite carrier and won't change. But now you can search everything, surf the web with flash, and...run a few apps. For a cost of several hundred dollars.

The only thing I really like is the searchable DVR/channel guide/content. Other than that, AppleTV already has it beat. Well, maybe except for the true multi-tasking ie actually watching & surfing at the same time.

Re:1995 called... (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 3 years ago | (#33787514)

maybe it's because allowing someone to browse the web from their tv isn't particularly innovative, even back in 1995?

Re:1995 called... (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33787654)

>>>throw out a lame joke.

I thought it was rather funny myself. Loosen up. WebTV probably would have made it, but it was hampered by the ~440x480 resolution of the Composite analog TV set, and therefore could never display the full pages of the day (almost double that width). Today's televisions don't have that same limitation.
.

>>>never realizing that the first device of a particular type is almost never the one that becomes the commercial success

Yep. Like Betamax. Or video-records.
Or Commodore Amigas that could play music videos.

Re:1995 called... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33786778)

1970 called. They want their joke back.

Re:1995 called... (5, Funny)

Walt Dismal (534799) | more than 3 years ago | (#33786868)

1880 telegraphed. They want their meme updated, but they have no tech support back there.

Re:1995 called... (5, Funny)

rakuen (1230808) | more than 3 years ago | (#33787022)

550 BC mailed. The Persians apologize for delivering this joke.

Re:1995 called... (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33787494)

2012 just tweeted that we only have to put up with this joke for two more years because the world is ending due to th

Sorry, it was cut off.

Re:1995 called... (3, Funny)

pak9rabid (1011935) | more than 3 years ago | (#33787794)

David Spade called...he wants his only good joke back.

Oh yeah, he said to send you a DMCA takedown request too.

Re:1995 called... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33786818)

2001 called...

Derka, derka!

Re:1995 called... (4, Interesting)

CronoCloud (590650) | more than 3 years ago | (#33787154)

Former WebTV user here. I've always considered WebTV an idea before it's time. One of the big problems with it is that from 95-2000 the web grew in capability faster than the little black boxes did. And thanks to the plethora of mobile devices with non-x86 CPU's and lower resolution screens website developers and plugin makers are a little more willing to work with the makers to work with the makers of them. For example Macromedia didn't try very hard to keep WebTV's shockwave plugin up to date, but now with all sorts of Flash devices out there they have more incentive.

U also wonder if Google talked with Iacta (a company that created WebTV oriented websites and did consulting), since their guidelines are similar to Iacta's.

But.....Google TV doesn't do much that a PS3 already can't.

Users per TV? (2, Funny)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#33787574)

Google TV doesn't do much that a PS3 already can't.

In addition, how many remote controls can you use with a Google TV at one time? PS3 supports up to four controllers.

We keep a history of every show you ever watch... (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33786694)

But wait, its Google! We trust them.

Boycott them! (0, Troll)

Jah Shaka (562375) | more than 3 years ago | (#33786696)

I think everyone should boycott google, they are using search to own just about every facet of our lives.

Re:Boycott them! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33786876)

I'm still waiting for the evil. I haven't seen the point of integrating so much together other than to make it easier for people to find stuff while at the same time helping their retailers sell you stuff. It's really very similar to TV/Radio only they're hoping that the commercials might actually be for something you'd buy rather than used car dealerships. Personally, I'd rather hear about PC components than a low-mileage Ford Fiesta.

wow! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33786710)

frosty piss

Settle In Sweetheart (3, Funny)

BabyDuckHat (1503839) | more than 3 years ago | (#33786730)

You: Put the kids to bed and make some popcorn. It's viral video night!
Spouse: Great, I just love watching my favorite viral videos!
You: Me too!
Spouse: I love you honey.

Re:Settle In Sweetheart (5, Funny)

by (1706743) (1706744) | more than 3 years ago | (#33786844)

You: Put the kids to bed and make some popcorn. It's viral video night!
Spouse: Great, I just love watching my favorite viral videos!
You: Me too!
Spouse: I love you honey.

You: I sent you a link to a really awesome viral video, let's watch that, ok?
Spouse: Great idea, my lovey-dov...
Google TV: NEVER GONNA GIVE YOU UP / NEVER GONNA...
Spouse: I'm filing for divorce.

Re:Settle In Sweetheart (1)

bertoelcon (1557907) | more than 3 years ago | (#33787880)

You: Put the kids to bed and make some popcorn. It's viral video night! Spouse: Great, I just love watching my favorite viral videos! You: Me too! Spouse: I love you honey.

You: I sent you a link to a really awesome viral video, let's watch that, ok? Spouse: Great idea, my lovey-dov... Google TV: NEVER GONNA GIVE YOU UP / NEVER GONNA... Spouse: I'm filing for divorce.

You: I thought that song seemed romantic. It was about a guy never giving up, never letting down, never running around and hurting, never making you cry, and never saying good bye.

Re:Settle In Sweetheart (-1, Redundant)

by (1706743) (1706744) | more than 3 years ago | (#33786880)

You: Put the kids to bed and make some popcorn. It's viral video night!
Spouse: Great, I just love watching my favorite viral videos!
You: Me too!
Spouse: I love you honey.

You: I sent you a link to a hilarious video -- let's watch that, ok?
Spouse: Ok, my lovey-dov...
Google TV: NEVER GONNA GIVE YOU UP / NEVER GONNA LET YOU DOWN
Spouse: I'm filing for a divorce.

Re:Settle In Sweetheart (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33786994)

I dunno about where you are but if you check out the "free" Video On Demand items offered by your cable service it's almost 100% viral videos from the 'net, crappy ones, but still...

Re:Settle In Sweetheart (1)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 3 years ago | (#33787474)

You mean like America's Funniest Home Videos? That's more or less what viral videos are. Me and my girlfriend watched Censored Count last night along with numerous other similar videos for a half an hour.

Roku + media streaming (4, Interesting)

yodleboy (982200) | more than 3 years ago | (#33786744)

That's all i really want, my Roku box with the added ability to stream video from my box o' hard drives to my TV. The Roku box is cheap, small, low power drain, silent and can handle new content when they add additional channels such as amazon. Its one shortcoming for me has been that I can't use it to access media that's NOT on the internet.

give me this and i'll buy one for every room with a TV.

Re:Roku + media streaming (4, Informative)

Fnkmaster (89084) | more than 3 years ago | (#33786904)

Have you tried Roksbox [roksbox.com] yet? See also the link [rokulabs.com] from the Roku forums.

It's a bit limited in terms of media formats relative to your average PC, but should handle well-formed MP4, MOV, M4V, or WMV files. So you may need to convert some of your existing video files to get everything working properly.

Re:Roku + media streaming (1)

Enderwiggin13 (734997) | more than 3 years ago | (#33786906)

This is why I'm still hopeful for the Boxee Box. It's twice the price of the Roku but the local/networked media streaming, multiple content sources and QWERTY remote all look promising.

Re:Roku + media streaming (3, Interesting)

wizbit (122290) | more than 3 years ago | (#33786948)

It's called the Boxee Box [boxee.tv]. I know, I know, Google TV et al will eat its lunch eventually, but it basically does everything you claim to want. At $200, it's cheaper than upgrading my home media player (though I don't know about "one for every room").

Re:Roku + media streaming (2, Insightful)

yodleboy (982200) | more than 3 years ago | (#33787012)

well that's where it falls apart, $200 per room. ouch. I got my roku for $99. that's what i'd consider cheap.

Re:Roku + media streaming (1)

Grizzley9 (1407005) | more than 3 years ago | (#33787070)

Or a network enabled BluRay player. Plays all the regular net streaming apps (Netflix, Pandora, BB on demand, Vudu, etc) as well as content on your network. (Plus the obvious media). The only thing it doesn't have is Hulu. And these type of BR players are fairly inexpensive.

Re:Roku + media streaming (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#33787176)

Hulu is easy to fix, just have a computer in your living room that is either hooked to the tv via hdmi or using one of the many applications that can forward to your player of choice.

Then you don't even need hulu premium.

Re:Roku + media streaming (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#33787598)

just have a computer in your living room

So now you have to buy a computer for your living room, and that can get more expensive than even a Boxee Box.

Re:Roku + media streaming (1)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 3 years ago | (#33787142)

Its one shortcoming for me has been that I can't use it to access media that's NOT on the internet.

That's a rather large shortcoming...

DLNA is coming for Roku (3, Informative)

Optic7 (688717) | more than 3 years ago | (#33787600)

According to this article on Engadget: http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/22/roku-xds-review/ [engadget.com]

Roku tells us it'll be adding additional support for DLNA streaming in the future, and with various DLNA-compatible devices like the Samsung Galaxy Tab, the Motorola Droid X, and LG Optimus Windows Phone 7 handset either out or on their way to market, it could present a solid alternative to Apple's AirPlay. We weren't able to test any DLNA features, though, since they're not currently available -- the potential is there, but Roku has to execute.

I wish for the same. The Roku is where it's at right now in terms of an internet TV set-top box. The Google TV could also be interesting, but let's wait to see it working and how much the set-top boxes are going to cost.

Is it going to have a TV tuner built-in? (1)

mdm-adph (1030332) | more than 3 years ago | (#33786766)

Or is it just DishTV users? Because otherwise how is it different from my old desktop running Boxee? :\

Look, I'm usually an unabashed Google fanboy, and even I think this is silly.

Re:Is it going to have a TV tuner built-in? (1)

PsyciatricHelp (951182) | more than 3 years ago | (#33786824)

I think for the time being I will have to stick with my laptop. It is still feature rich and is not codec limited.

Re:Is it going to have a TV tuner built-in? (1)

mdm-adph (1030332) | more than 3 years ago | (#33786838)

Okay, just read on Logitech's website about a sort of "Harmony remote," that will send commands simultaneously to both whatever you're using for tuning AND the GoogleTV at the same time. That might work.

Re:Is it going to have a TV tuner built-in? (0, Redundant)

PsyciatricHelp (951182) | more than 3 years ago | (#33786892)

I think for the time being I will have to stick with my laptop. It is still feature rich and is not codec limited. ATSC Tuner. Web Browser.

Re:Is it going to have a TV tuner built-in? (1)

Just_Say_Duhhh (1318603) | more than 3 years ago | (#33786900)

Now why would it need a TV tuner? It's not going to get the content from from an OTA antenna, and it's not going to get it from DishTV either. It's going to get it from the interwebs!

How is it different from your desktop w/Boxee? It's going to have a power plug, a video/audio plug, and an Ethernet plug. My grand mama can plug it in and watch dancing babies on Youtube. No OS to install, no drivers to load, just grab the remote and surf for brain-numbing "entertainment."

Re:Is it going to have a TV tuner built-in? (1)

kidgenius (704962) | more than 3 years ago | (#33786944)

The nice thing with the Dish interface is that you can search your DVR, as well as the program guide, and setup recordings, etc.

Re:Is it going to have a TV tuner built-in? (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 3 years ago | (#33787240)

But how long until the caps bite grandma in the ass? All this reminds me of the whole "On the Internet!" dotbomb bubble, although this one will probably be worse. You see for all these services to actually work reasonably well you are gonna need massive amounts of bandwidth and I just don't see the cable/DSL duopoly tripping over themselves to run massive fiber everywhere. Hell even Verizon has slowed down FIOS rollout because it so expensive.

So while I wish them luck, as one of those stuck in a "test market" for caps to cable (which BTW is 36Gb!) I foresee everyone ending up on a "pay by the Mb" plan with a lousy cap, which will kill this, that "gaming streamed...on the Internet!" bunch, and pretty much anything else that isn't offered by the duopoly and thus cap free. Must be nice having a monopoly like the cable/DSL companies.

Re:Is it going to have a TV tuner built-in? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#33787304)

Switch to DSL.

DSL how fast? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#33787642)

Is 1.5 Mbps DSL enough to stream 720p H.264? I wouldn't be so sure because Blu-ray Disc allows bitrates over 30 times more than that.

Re:Is it going to have a TV tuner built-in? (2, Informative)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | more than 3 years ago | (#33787454)

I think the issues of bandwidth and data caps need to be separated. Bandwidth issues can be dealt with easily enough with caching. Much in the same way I 'program' my PVR to select the shows I want to 'record' I should be able to just select the programs I want to download. The programs would download and cache on my box 24/7 in the background. Might not work for time-sensitive programming like the Super Bowl or the finale of Survivor, but would work for most everything else.

Data caps are a separate issue - You're correct that an Internet connection with a 4 gig cap isn't going to last long - Heck, downloading a month's worth of Desperate Housewives would probably bump up against it.... And the ISPs aren't going to be that keen to address the issue as they usually provide their own television content anyway.

Re:Is it going to have a TV tuner built-in? (3, Informative)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 3 years ago | (#33787496)

"So while I wish them luck, as one of those stuck in a "test market" for caps to cable (which BTW is 36Gb!) I foresee everyone ending up on a "pay by the Mb" plan with a lousy cap, which will kill this, that "gaming streamed...on the Internet!" bunch, and pretty much anything else that isn't offered by the duopoly and thus cap free. Must be nice having a monopoly like the cable/DSL companies."

Why not do what I do...just get a "business" connection. I do this with my local cable co...is only $70/mo, no caps, no limitations, I can run all the servers I please...AND as a bonus, they can't filter the line (would mess with my contracted throughput amounts)...so, you can get all the free extended basic tv channels, and can scan with QAM tuner for all free (local) HD channels.

At least...that's what I hear one can do.

But really, get a business connection, the fees aren't that much more, and I get a low level SLA and have had no problems getting them to call ME back after leaving a service call when I've had a problem here or there.

Re:Is it going to have a TV tuner built-in? (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33787754)

>>>"business" connection. I do this with my local cable co..
>>>At least...that's what I hear one can do.

So which is it?

Re:Is it going to have a TV tuner built-in? (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33787736)

>>>how long until the caps bite grandma in the ass?

That's grandpa's job, but I see your point. Verizon doesn't cap me (yet) but I'm sure it's only a matter of time. For what it's worth: There's no cap on broadcast television. My DVR can record 2 channels 24 hours a day without limit. Cost: $0.00 monthly

Re:Is it going to have a TV tuner built-in? (1)

mdm-adph (1030332) | more than 3 years ago | (#33787482)

Please tell me how I can watch shows like Mad Men and Trueblood, when they air, using a completely legal method via the interwebs.

I'm waiting. :P

Until then, I'm going to need a TV tuner so I can use my existing cable connection.

I'll stick with torrent TV for now... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33786782)

I can't see how google could improve over the presently available torrent tv (download entire seasons at a time with commercials removed in hdtv quality). My grandmother likes netflix, maybe she will like google-tv too.

Are you shitting me? (-1, Offtopic)

snspdaarf (1314399) | more than 3 years ago | (#33786792)

information networks like Twitter

Information network? Seriously? This must be a different Twitter that the one my kids use.

Re:Are you shitting me? (1)

Abstrackt (609015) | more than 3 years ago | (#33787226)

Information network? Seriously? This must be a different Twitter that the one my kids use.

I don't know what your average person tweets about but there are some institutions worth following on Twitter (e.g. NASA [twitter.com]).

Seems like a lot of effort. (0, Redundant)

PsyciatricHelp (951182) | more than 3 years ago | (#33786802)

For now i think i'll stick to my older laptop. Full web browser. Can play ANY codec. Can get a little complicated for the wife but it works. And hey if there's nothing good on. Solitaire.

Nintendo Wii (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33786810)

Remember when the Wii supported YouTube? WOW! That really changed TV for the world. Wow. Uh - no fuck you, it didn't. Suck my dick.

Nintendo (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33786888)

Remember when the Wii changed the world with You Tube video access? Neither do I you fucking nerds.

The watched video count is stuck (1)

vkv.raju (1285590) | more than 3 years ago | (#33786962)

The "views" count associated with the youtube video linked in this news is stuck at 327!!

Re:The watched video count is stuck (1)

rakuen (1230808) | more than 3 years ago | (#33787056)

The view counter doesn't update in real time. I'm not sure exactly how often it does, probably every few hours.

Like the Nintendo Wii (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33787020)

Remember when the Wii supported YouTube? WOW! That really changed TV for the world. Wow. Uh - no fuck you, it didn't. Suck my dick. And learn how to post a message nerdtard - this fucking script doesn't show shit after it's submitted. What a stupid fucking site. Talk about lag you fucking dumbasses. 1995 called they have some HTML and PERL that you can learn from fuckass.

Re:Like the Nintendo Wii (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33787140)

Holy repressed rage, Batman!

Re:Like the Nintendo Wii (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33787286)

Remember when the Wii supported YouTube? WOW! That really changed TV for the world. Wow. Uh - no fuck you, it didn't. Suck my dick. Remember these Google hits fag? No of course not.

http://blogoscoped.com/archive/2008-03-13-n25.html

Alone? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33787076)

Though I like to think that I'm very, very different in my viewing preferences than the millions of other folks in the country, this is probably not the case.

My favorite genre is science fiction and fantasy, some documentaries, occasional thrillers. Bonus if it's a sci-fi/fantasy thriller.

I got rid of my cable feed because I found that I was only watching a couple channels -- Discovery and Sci-Fi. My daughter watched Disney on occasion but I would pay not to have Zack and Cody's voice ever heard in my household again.

I want to watch Doctor Who, but it's not available. So I catch it on Netflix instant. I wanted to catch Dual Survival and the new Les Stroud series, but it's on at either Monday or Friday but I can't tell because it's switched around all the time. And on Fridays, believe it or not, I'm usually at the movies for my weekly movie night with the family (this week it will be Let Me In). I wanted to catch True Blood because I heard it's great. Alas, to get HBO requires that I get some Premiere package which would cost another $30/month and even then I'm not about to make a television show dictate when I'm home.

I get the distinct feeling that the networks are actively trying to make viewing television a painful experience.

Anyhoo, I'm hoping that Google TV will provide on-demand, current shows. I think viewership will skyrocket if viewers can determine where and when they want to watch a movie. Heck, the ability to choose a target demographic for advertising purposes should make the network execs salivate.

Choices now are:
  Netflix instant, but their selection is pretty atrocious.
  AppleTV - but it's more expensive than I am willing to pay
  Miro - content is of varying quality
  torrents - great content, great price, great picture quality, not legal and risk of malware sites

Re:Alone? (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 3 years ago | (#33787146)

If you think the Netflix selection is atrocious (assuming you live in the USA) then never look at what they offer us up north (Canada).

I'll have watched everything worth watching before my free month is over. And at the rate they're adding worthwhile things to watch, I should be able to pay a single month in about one year to catch up on their list.

To be fair, the licensing rights in Canada are even worst than in the USA. I bet Netflix isn't to blame for the poor selections in either countries.

Re:Alone? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#33787270)

Huh?
They have thousands of old movies and tv shows. I am watching my way through all of Stargate recently. Unless you must have only new material, how in the heck would you get through it in your lifetime much less a month?

Re:Alone? (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 3 years ago | (#33787340)

I think you missed the "worth watching" and "Canada" part of my reply.

www.netflix.ca

Go ahead, search for Stargate all you want. In fact, search Stargate, Seinfeld or even older shows like Cheers. I think Netflix Canada only has 10% of what you get in the USA. And not the good 10% either.

Re:Alone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33787432)

The truly sad part is that Stargate SG-1, Atlantis, and Universe are all made in Canada and endorsed (i.e. subsidized by) the Canadian government.

Netflix couldn't even strike a day-one deal with one of Canada's biggest Sci-Fi (and SyFy..) exports.

Re:Alone? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#33787204)

Netflix has the trueblood dvds, my girl friend is currently eating up all 3 dvds by mail that way.

Re:Alone? (3, Interesting)

Keruo (771880) | more than 3 years ago | (#33787238)

AppleTV - but it's more expensive than I am willing to pay

Is it really? I paid $100 for my 1st gen appletv, threw in $40 for the broadcom crystalhd chip, installed linux with XBMC on it and it works great. It took few hours of tinkering but now it plays 1080p smoothly.

Re:Alone? (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33787824)

>>>I got rid of my cable feed because I found that I was only watching a couple channels --

Ditto. I used to like history and animal planet, but neither is as good as they used to be (History isn't history anymore). So the only channel I was still watching was Sci-Fi and I could stream those shows off hulu, or buy on DVD for much cheaper, so why pay ~$800/year to Comsucks?

Supported codecs (1)

qoncept (599709) | more than 3 years ago | (#33787082)

I'm still exclusively interested in finding out what video formats are available. I have an extensive library of h.264 encoded movies for Apple TV. I don't want to buy or stream movies from these services on my sad internet connection, I want to properly enjoy what I already have. And I'm tired of converting movies.

Oh, and how metadata for my videos will be handled. MetaX for tagging in my iTunes library and Boxee's backwards method both work. What does Google do?

Re:Supported codecs (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 3 years ago | (#33787540)

I'm curious for a similar reason. MythTV, despite supporting multiple tuner types, doesn't fully support multiple tuner types at once (you can't create recording profiles for anything but the first device), so my HD-PVR is stuck recording at the default: 1080i with about 9Mbps average data rate, baseline profile. It is right up against the bounds of what is practical to play back without GPU acceleration, and even then, it sucks up between 1.25 and 1.5 cores of a 2.25 GHz Core 2 Duo.

BTW, if anybody knows a hack to either get proper second tuner profile support in MythTV or to work around the lack thereof, let me know. This one megabyte per second stuff is for the birds.

Re:Supported codecs (2, Informative)

Ingenium13 (162116) | more than 3 years ago | (#33787716)

GoogleTV doesn't support DLNA streaming, so there's no way to play content stored on your network. For me, this is a deal breaker and will drive me to Boxee (or Roku if they add DLNA support soon) when it launches. I was excited about GoogleTV until I learned this...too bad.

Google TV API? (1)

Dan667 (564390) | more than 3 years ago | (#33787084)

I hope they release an API so it can be integrated into MythTV. Get the best of both without having to change devices.

Wow, back to the future (4, Interesting)

alta (1263) | more than 3 years ago | (#33787134)

For so long we've longed for the use of vector graphics in websites because it reduces size so much. We finally have major browsers that fully support SVG. Flash also gives you vector graphics. Now the second to last suggestion... Avoid vector graphics. Use bitmapps because they're easier on the CPU.

Before all we worried about was load time. There was no 'processing' past the intial page load, or at least nothing substantial. Everyone was optimizing the hell out of their gif's and jpgs. Low bandwidth was our enemy. Now Vector images are bad, we have plenty of bandwidth, but ironically they're worried about a weak CPU...

So weird.

Re:Wow, back to the future (3, Interesting)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#33787668)

Now Vector images are bad, we have plenty of bandwidth

Not necessarily. How big would Strong Bad's emails get if they were converted from SWF vector animation to H.264 compressed bitmaps? I've done tests on other SWF animations, and conversion to video bloated them by a factor of ten.

Re:Wow, back to the future (0, Troll)

Jello B. (950817) | more than 3 years ago | (#33787800)

They would be huge, but nobody would care because strong bad is unfunny garbage.

Review of ReVue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33787184)

A review of the actual logitech box Revue - http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/logitech-revue-google-tv-hands-on-impressions/ - So excited that Google will now predict what I should watch, search and soon probably what I should be eating while I watch my shows and who should watch them with me. Welcome Big Brother -- you did not mean to be evil right, RIGHT? Come on into my living room and get out of that stuffy office.

Fake (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33787380)

Cocked up mockup.

TiVo (1)

spudnic (32107) | more than 3 years ago | (#33787384)

So I can't use it as a DVR unless I am on Dish? It says it integrates with my existing cable box? What is it talking about there?

I think I'll stick to my TiVo if this is the case. TiVo paired up with pyTivo gives me everything I need and has for years.

No content (5, Insightful)

StubNewellsFarm (1084965) | more than 3 years ago | (#33787516)

Lest you be deceived by the article summary, let's run down the content:
  • Turner Broadcasting and NBC Universal: No, they're not providing shows. They're just updating their websites, so that you can view them on your TV.
  • HBO: Yes, you get HBO shows on demand. If you already subscribe to HBO. This is perfect for all 10 people who went for the high-end cable package but who don't have a DVR.
  • Netflix and Amazon on demand: Just like pretty much every internet-connected box produced in the last 3 years.

I don't want a web browser on my TV. I do want a way to ditch my cable TV and still get access to shows on demand. So far, at least, this doesn't get us any closer than Apple TV, Roku, Boxee or anyone else.

slashdotbroken (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33787524)

Hey after you post here - you can't read your comment. FIX THIS SLASHDOT - YOUR SITE IS BROKEN. Don't worry I'll post reminders every day on every thread until you do.

Who watches TV anyway? (1, Interesting)

RonTheHurler (933160) | more than 3 years ago | (#33787546)

Hey folks, we can't afford to watch TV anymore. Seriously, think about what would have happened if Thomas Jefferson, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, et al, spent their evenings vegging out to a boob tube. We've got some serious problems to solve! Global Warming, The end of fossil fuels, the looming threat of water shortages, population pressures.... Who's going to solve these problems if we're all catching up on The Amazing Race to Wast the most Time? Come on! If you can't do the chemical engineering, or nano-technology, you can at least help the kids get interested. How about improving education? Getting politically active? Raising public awareness? Not sure if the problems are real? Then put a bullet in your TV and go do some real research. Give yourself an education before you put on the apathy hat.

The house is on fire, are we just gonna sit around and watch it burn?

Google TV is an evil thing. Truly.

Re:Who watches TV anyway? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33787748)

Better stop reading fiction, listening to the radio, doing crosswords, playing video games, riding skateboards, having sex for pleasure . . .

In fact, fuck it. Recreation should be banned!

Moron.

Re:Who watches TV anyway? (1)

alen (225700) | more than 3 years ago | (#33787882)

you need to get laid, and fast

i've noticed that most of the people that are worried about the end of the world and all these problems don't have a gf, wife, and/or kids. the rest of us are too busy with life

Zzzzzzzzz (1)

Ordonator (1539087) | more than 3 years ago | (#33787610)

Hey, I like Google and everything, but this isn't very exciting. My HTPC has been doing these things (and more) for years. Perhaps I'd been just a little more interested if I could easily run this as a platform on my existing hardware.

Price (1)

dbet (1607261) | more than 3 years ago | (#33787626)

Currently, I run a DVI + mini-jack to my TV and just use my computer. That's about $10 for the wires and the DVI goes about 30 feet. It might go more, I haven't tried, but at 30 feet I have no observable signal loss. Add in the possible cost of a second (or third) video card, and a TV box has to beat that to be worth it. Add in other $20-ish for a media remote for your computer.

The best part is it plays every single format with no start-up time (even a DVD takes a while to load, skip commercials, etc.).

This FP 7Or GNAA (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33787634)

continueS to lose
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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...