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!

Intel's Rumored TV Plans Would Compete With Apple, Google

samzenpus posted about 2 years ago | from the getting-in-the-tube dept.

Google 82

Nerval's Lobster writes "Google tried to extend its influence to televisions, an effort that largely crashed and burned. Apple executives call Apple TV a 'hobby,' although it's been long-rumored that their company has a television set in the works. And Microsoft's made a muscular attempt to conquer the living room with the Xbox, which now does a lot more than just video games. If current rumors prove correct, you can soon add Intel to that list of IT giants with an eye on televisions. According to TechCrunch and SlashGear, the chip manufacturer is prepping to unveil a first-generation television system of some sort at next month's Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas. TechCrunch suggests that Intel will debut the system on a city-by-city basis, similar to what Google's doing with Google Fiber, in order to maintain 'more flexibility in negotiating licensing with reluctant content providers.' (The publication's information comes from the ever-popular unnamed sources.) In essence, Intel is proposing a set-top box paired with a subscription service, which would provide a mixture of traditional programming alongside streaming content."

cancel ×

82 comments

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

Better than Ultrabook I hope... (2)

erp_consultant (2614861) | about 2 years ago | (#42433963)

Hopefully Intel learned a few lessons with their Ultrabook fiasco. Those things were DOA.

Re:Better than Ultrabook I hope... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42434245)

I don't think they have, much like MS is losing very badly with Windows 8, WP8 and Surface.

With Apple, my content syncs with my iPad, my iPhone, our iPods and the Apple TV. iTunes makes it all work and sync together. The rating and playlists work nicely too. There's a store to buy TV shows and music at decent prices legally but you can still use content from other sources. It works on all Windows and Mac PCs. And it's so incredibly slick and polished too. The new Remote app is incredible. Being able to control what's playing with my iPad with an interface like this is priceless. It's like a dream... albeit a pricey dream!

Intel will have yet another media streaming box. Much like all the DLNA players, gaming consoles and countless other devices like the popcorn hour, WD TV, Roku, etc. People who want that already have it. It's all the *other stuff* that's missing. Make it work with Macs and PCs, Android and iOS devices, give me a store, make it work well with online services like Netflix and Hulu, make it "just work" and all, and even then they'd even have to beat Apple on pricing for it to become a big success.

MS is losing at the game very badly. Their OS got extra DRM for media that people don't watch, FairPlay and Zune are major failures, the new Windows Media Player is unable to play DVDs even if you have the right codecs and hasn't been meaningfully updated in ages, Windows Media Center was supposed to become a paid extra which created huge backslash and that only gets downloaded by pirates as a way to to have a "legally" activated copy of Windows 8... Apple is easily 10 years ahead of them in this game.

Re:Better than Ultrabook I hope... (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42434589)

Apple is also FAR ahead of them in profits and market cap. Basically, Microsoft's era is over. Apple's era is here.

Apple managed to deliver what people WANT, rather than what they were forced to live with for eons: computers that "just work", rather than "computers that are virus infested crashing unintuitive hard to use pieces of crap".

Little surprise to see Apple eating Microsoft's lunch then.

Re:Better than Ultrabook I hope... (4, Insightful)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about 2 years ago | (#42435537)

Don't worry. Intel will need software for any play in media delivery and content management.

They fail this every attempt. As bad or worse than does Cisco.

Failure on the launch pad.

Re:Better than Ultrabook I hope... (1)

thoughtlover (83833) | about 2 years ago | (#42436951)

I'd give you a mod point if I had one! Exactly my thoughts... so, why would Intel **literally** waste money to make something to compete in an already too-crowded market. A lot of this software is being built-in to TV sets, so no one needs another set-top box to attach to their (pick one or two) cable/dsl/satellite box and/or their WD Live+, PopcornHour, TiVO, etc. Plus, they'll have to compete with all the other companies that want to have exclusive content, so that's just going to turn a lot of people off that they can only get a specific movie or TV show if they have to pay for YetAnotherService.

Re:Better than Ultrabook I hope... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42437579)

Intel will need software for any play in media delivery and content management.

You mean like something embedded in hardware? with a built in screen and a speaker?

Failure on the launch pad.

Most unfortunate [theatlantic.com]

I was hoping Intel would become the new Magnavox

Re:Better than Ultrabook I hope... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42438897)

They fail this every attempt.

Almost every attempt. They make a pretty decent C compiler.

Re:Better than Ultrabook I hope... (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about 2 years ago | (#42435043)

> but you can still use content from other sources

Not really. This is where the Apple approach falls down. It is limited and fixated on the whole "walled garden" mentality. Devices are only designed to work with a limited subset of formats. If you try to use anything you will find yourself quickly out of luck or putting in more effort than if you had just used another vendor's product to start with.

There is no media management. Format support is poor. Integration of 3rd party media is actually a disaster.

It's almost like they are trying to discourage you from using anything that you did not buy from them.

WMC may have it's own problems. However, it is at least it is designed to play something besides video from Microsoft's store.

An Apple fanboy snickering at WMC over format support is absurd to Pythonesque levels.

Re:Better than Ultrabook I hope... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42435415)

It is limited and fixated on the whole "walled garden" mentality.

... which is what the majority of people want: something that "just works" and isn't hard to use. Apple gives them this, which explains why they are the most valuable technology company.

Re:Better than Ultrabook I hope... (2)

thoughtlover (83833) | about 2 years ago | (#42437093)

... which is what the majority of people want: something that "just works" and isn't hard to use. Apple gives them this, which explains why they are the most valuable technology company.

Spoken like a true fan boi! And what a total load of tripe! Apple TV doesn't even play "WMV, AVI, DivX, RealMedia (rm), and Flash format files." So I'd say that's a big fat 'it just doesn't work'. Really, my WD Live+ plays anything I've thrown at it and it was cheaper than an Apple TV and it sees all the SMB mounts on our local network plus the Mac Samba mounts. Apple has remained nothing but a slight disappointment to me since the mid 2000s. I used to be the #1 Evangelist next to Guy Kawasaki back in the 90s, but I really don't care too much for them, anymore. Sad, really. Sorry, I digress a bit, but I really did love them tons.... I still don't understand why they won't let me use my iPhone as a mass-storage device like I could with my iPods.. at least, without the assistance of software I have to pay for and wonder if it's stealing my contacts. **Sigh**

divorce from the TV set (4, Interesting)

zerosomething (1353609) | about 2 years ago | (#42433995)

THis isn't the 1950's where the entire entertainment system, TV, HiFi and Phonograph are all integrated into the same box. Some one make a freekin TV monitor without all the tuners and computers in it! I know you can get monitors but could someone make one that cost less than a TV with all that crap in it. Then make the gadgets to attach to the "Monitor". Maybe we could even have 2K and 4K monitors at 50" for less thank $5K?

Re:divorce from the TV set (3, Funny)

Nyder (754090) | about 2 years ago | (#42434105)

THis isn't the 1950's where the entire entertainment system, TV, HiFi and Phonograph are all integrated into the same box. Some one make a freekin TV monitor without all the tuners and computers in it! I know you can get monitors but could someone make one that cost less than a TV with all that crap in it. Then make the gadgets to attach to the "Monitor". Maybe we could even have 2K and 4K monitors at 50" for less thank $5K?

No, this is the 10's where the entire entertainment system, TV, Internet Radio and MP3 Player, Plus camera, computer, mic, and the kitchen sink (not really), Not to mention Internet access are integrated into the same box.

Hmm, shit doesn't change much, does it?

Re:divorce from the TV set (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about 2 years ago | (#42435093)

What you're willing to put up with on your Dick Tracy setup and what you want out of your 60 inch TV or 160 inch projection setup are worlds apart.

Once you get beyond low quality toys, you have serious integration issues because you don't want to settle for 2nd best. You don't want to tolerate the single vendor solution for idiots because you have more taste than that.

They already have Home Theaters for dummies. Apple could simply have their own branded version next to the rest.

Re:divorce from the TV set (2)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | about 2 years ago | (#42434117)

Some one make a freekin TV monitor without all the tuners and computers in it! I know you can get monitors but could someone make one that cost less than a TV with all that crap in it.

It wouldn't cost much less, though. Multiple inputs, with a means to switch between them? You'd want those. Speakers and an audio amplifier? Probably not necessary, but certainly nice-to-have as audio is carried over HDMI. Basically the only thing you'd probably want to remove is the tuner, and that's probably a dollar's worth of hardware in terms of a tuner on a chip and an antenna input.

Re:divorce from the TV set (2)

vux984 (928602) | about 2 years ago | (#42435123)

Basically the only thing you'd probably want to remove is the tuner,

And the camera and microphone, i don't ever plan to video skype with the TV's built in app. Nor do I plan to use its useless gesture controls. Nor do I plan to use its woefully insecure capabilities as a video surveillance system.

And the wifi chip. I don't need my TV on the network. I'm not using skype, and the netflix app is worse then the one on my HTPC, my xbox, and my wiiu.

And without wifi and cameras and what not I can do without the whole app thing too. TV apps are as a bad as those awful DVD games they dump on disney movies.

And DLNA or whatever, lose that too. It doesn't work well, and I stream stuff over to it thtough one of the many infinitely better devices i have attached to the TV.

And the 3d support. Don't need it don't use it.

And the tuner. Don't have an antenna. Never will.

And honestly, i could do without all the inputs too along with the speakers; I bought a modern receiver, everything plugs into it, and I have one HDMI cable running from the receiver up to the TV. I realize I don't speak for everyone here but for me all I want is a large high quality display. The only feature i'm interested in is pictual quality: contrast, viewing angles, refresh rate, etc. That's it.

Oh and a good remote control system. Not that i use the remote they provide -- I have a harmony one. Nothing is more frustrating to integrate with a universal programmable remote than a tv that only has a power toggle command instead of a dedicated power on/power off. Or a TV that only has a command to cycle inputs or modes instead of commands to go directly to a specified input or mode, etc.

I'm not sure how much actual hardware i've shaved off the unit, but its more than a little, and I've definitely shaved a ton off of product development and testing.

Re:divorce from the TV set (2)

LoRdTAW (99712) | about 2 years ago | (#42436089)

The one beef I have with all the bells and whistles on any TV is having multiple HDMI inputs along with a digital audio output but no way to pass the HDMI audio out through the digital audio connector. What is the fucking point of digital audio output then? Surround sound OTR, does that even exist?

That problem bit my friend in the ass when he bought his Westinghouse 47" a few years ago. He wanted a simple setup and figured the TV would act as an HDMI switch for his PC, Xbox and cable box (It has 4 HDMI inputs). Then he could continue using his older dolby 5.1 receiver by hooking it up to the TV's digital audio output. He thought something was broken because he couldn't get any sound from the digital output when using HDMI but analog worked. He emailed Westinghouse who informed him that due to copyright regulations/agreements, digital audio is not enabled when using HDMI. He had to upgrade his receiver to one with HDMI which made the digital audio output and quad HDMI inputs useless. A stupid waste of money.

Re:divorce from the TV set (1)

Kenshin (43036) | about 2 years ago | (#42436229)

Strange. I've never encountered that problem on my Toshiba. I have all my inputs into the TV's HDMI, and digital out from the TV to my receiver.

Re:divorce from the TV set (1)

Wolfrider (856) | about a year and a half ago | (#42453253)

--I've heard Westinghouse is like a bargain-basement brand; this corroborates it.

Re:divorce from the TV set (1)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | about 2 years ago | (#42437543)

I have a Sony LED LCD TV, 40". It doesn't have a camera nor mike. It doesn't have WiFi (I do have it plugged into the LAN via CAT6 for software updates). Doesn't have 3D. As for not having an antenna, you should get one. Lots of good-quality free OTA TV in most regions.

Re:divorce from the TV set (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 2 years ago | (#42440795)

As for not having an antenna, you should get one. Lots of good-quality free OTA TV in most regions.

Not in my region, where you can get 0 DTV stations, and you can now get only 2 of the 4 analog stations that you could kinda fuzzily get before DTV.

Re:divorce from the TV set (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 2 years ago | (#42440793)

You're right that a set without extraneous components wouldn't cost much less, but you're wrong about what can be removed. You need a total of one (1) HDMI connection for a 1080p television if you have a stereo with upconversion. This is where it belongs anyway unless you have a fancy home theater and then you will want a discrete upconverter box so that you can upgrade piecemeal. If you don't use the tuner then it makes much more sense to have a fancy stereo, because everything has to connect to the stereo anyway, and this scheme eliminates the largest number of cables.

Re:divorce from the TV set (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42434687)

THis isn't the 1950's where the entire entertainment system, TV, HiFi and Phonograph are all integrated into the same box. Some one make a freekin TV monitor without all the tuners and computers in it! I know you can get monitors but could someone make one that cost less than a TV with all that crap in it. Then make the gadgets to attach to the "Monitor". Maybe we could even have 2K and 4K monitors at 50" for less thank $5K?

I paid so stinking little for a 42" 1080p Vizio set, that had 3D and a mess of HDMI inputs, that I can't imagine caring that it has some Internet stuff built in that I don't use because I plugged another STB into it that has superior functions. Seriously, they are so cheap anyway, I don't care.

Re:divorce from the TV set (1)

rwyoder (759998) | about 2 years ago | (#42435641)

THis isn't the 1950's where the entire entertainment system, TV, HiFi and Phonograph are all integrated into the same box. Some one make a freekin TV monitor without all the tuners and computers in it! I know you can get monitors but could someone make one that cost less than a TV with all that crap in it. Then make the gadgets to attach to the "Monitor". Maybe we could even have 2K and 4K monitors at 50" for less thank $5K?

Westinghouse used to make exactly that: an LCD monitor-only with lots of video inputs.
It came in 37" (LVM-37W3), and 42" (LVM42W2) versions. I bought the 37".

Consoles are the set top boxes not tvs (1)

dadelbunts (1727498) | about 2 years ago | (#42433999)

Has any of these fancy tvs ever even done well? Consoles have taken over as the set top box. Better interface, already plugged in to the tv and the internet and everyone already has one. Too little too late.

Re:Consoles are the set top boxes not tvs (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42434225)

Has any of these fancy tvs ever even done well? Consoles have taken over as the set top box. Better interface, already plugged in to the tv and the internet and everyone already has one. Too little too late.

Maybe yes, maybe no. For all the non-gamers who don't own a console - there are hundreds of millions of us - these gizmos may be an option.

Intel, Google, Apple, etc. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Re:Consoles are the set top boxes not tvs (1)

alen (225700) | about 2 years ago | (#42434425)

I have an Xbox, ps3 and an Apple TV

Apple TV does AirPlay and buying content from iTunes i get a file I can keep on my computers, stream locally or put on my iPhone or iPad when I go out

How does that cloud work out for you when it rains in Virginia or a hurricane hits and floods all the routing centers?

And Apple TV lets me display content from an app. Like say streaming the Disney channel app to my TV because I don't have cable anymore. Netflix and amazon selection is still pretty bad

Re:Consoles are the set top boxes not tvs (1)

Joehonkie (665142) | about 2 years ago | (#42434509)

Awesome. I'm totally down with that. Can I play that file on my android phone or tablet or other third party boxes? Oh? No? Then I don't own it and I don't want any part of the whole affair.

Re:Consoles are the set top boxes not tvs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42434675)

Can I play that file on my android phone or tablet or other third party boxes?

Umm, of course. I copy mp3s out of iTunes all the time for use on other devices, for example.

What on earth are you on about?

Re:Consoles are the set top boxes not tvs (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about 2 years ago | (#42435165)

> Umm, of course. I copy mp3s out of iTunes all the time for use on other devices, for example.
>
> What on earth are you on about?

He's not talking about music. It's not 2003 anymore.

Sometimes I wonder if Apple fanboys actually do anything meaningful with any of their devices that are supposed to be so fancy and so superior and whatnot.

Re:Consoles are the set top boxes not tvs (1)

Kenshin (43036) | about 2 years ago | (#42436265)

Define "meaningful".

I use my iPhone to make calls, send texts, take and send photos, connect through social media. As a pocket communication device, that fits the meaning perfectly.

I use my MacBook to do graphic design and digital photography.

I use my Apple TV to stream media to my TV, which is what it was designed for.

Re:Consoles are the set top boxes not tvs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42434703)

Awesome. I'm totally down with that. Can I play that file on my android phone or tablet or other third party boxes? Oh? No? Then I don't own it and I don't want any part of the whole affair.

Uhhh I spent 99 cents to get an app off Google Play that let's me do AirPlay to my Google TV box. But if you don't have any Apple stuff, why would you need an AirPlay receiver? Or are you just moaning that your tablet or third party box doesn't have as many apps as an iPad? So it doesn't... oh well, wish you had one.

Re:Consoles are the set top boxes not tvs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42434799)

Yes, actually you can.

Re:Consoles are the set top boxes not tvs (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about 2 years ago | (#42435141)

> How does that cloud work out for you when it rains in Virginia or a hurricane hits and floods all the routing centers?

Yes. How does it work?

Since iTunes glitches when your network has problems, you should already be able to tell us what this situation is like. That is if you actually use this stuff and are at all honest about it.

I will tell you what happens when the network glitches...

        You can't watch your iTunes movies because it can't phone home properly. Non-Apple content is fine though. Although you have none of the nice fancy metadata with that content.

the specs will make you cream your shorts (0)

alen (225700) | about 2 years ago | (#42434021)

for the rest of us we will buy apple TV and google TV is starting to look interesting
Roku will be dead soon

apple TV is a scam to make you stay in the apple ecosystem with airplay. otherwise using bin reject CPU's in a low margin device was genius
google TV seems to be bringing you content to kill your cable sub. but its playing on the niches like international programming. i know people who pay close to $200 a month for cable/internet/tv only for a few international channels

intel will probably have a cool booth and The Verge/Engadget/BGR and all the other blogger rags will hype the specs but it will probably die quick

Re:the specs will make you cream your shorts (1)

vlm (69642) | about 2 years ago | (#42434169)

Roku will be dead soon

Its very cheap... As a dedicated amazon instant prime device its hard/impossible to beat. When the latest mythtv version pretty much ruined the music app into something too complicated for endusers, plex on the roku to listen to music works pretty well.

That's the problem with the endless stream of newcomers. "We're going to do exactly what your $50 Roku does off the shelf, except we're vaporware and will cost $100 more! Hurrah for us!"

Re:the specs will make you cream your shorts (1)

alen (225700) | about 2 years ago | (#42434259)

amazon is losing the content battle to netflix and for everything else Roku doesn't do anything that the other boxes do

Re:the specs will make you cream your shorts (1)

vlm (69642) | about 2 years ago | (#42434475)

Ah my mistake... I only have and use amazon instant prime because it comes with the "free 2-day shipping" thing. Once I saved enough on "free shipping" to pay for the prime subscription, I started saving my free shipping toward some roku hardware. I didn't take long, due to buying a lot of stuff from amazon. The roku does have apps for netflix, hulu plus, pandora, vudu, hbo to go, and a ton of sports stuff, none of which I subscribe to or have any interest in.

I do have extensive personal experience that on the roku, the tunein radio streamer, the amazon video player, and the plex media player work perfectly. I would guess the netflix and hundreds of other player / streamer apps should work equally well, although I've never used any of them.

I'm not sure if the other boxes do anything that the roku doesn't. The next step after that is, 98% of what the roku can do, I don't care about, so a new box that I 99% don't care about, would not be much of an improvement.

I only use itunes to sync apps with my ipad, not for media. I would guess streaming itunes media is the only thing a apple TV could do that my roku can't. It would cost an extra $50 over the cost of my roku to be able to do something I'm not interested in doing, so...

Also you have to be careful with vaporware. "Maybe an intel thing might someday stream XYZ" is quite a bit different from "I can buy a box off the shelf at Target for $50 that streams XYZ, today, as in this afternoon"

Re:the specs will make you cream your shorts (1)

alen (225700) | about 2 years ago | (#42434647)

apple TV will stream from iphones and ipads. you can stream apps.

i stream the disney channel app from my ipad to the apple TV

Re:the specs will make you cream your shorts (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about 2 years ago | (#42435181)

Roku runs Plex without the need for jailbreaking.

That puts it head and shoulders above an AppleTV right there.

Re:the specs will make you cream your shorts (1)

steve_bryan (2671) | about 2 years ago | (#42444221)

Has the Plex app on Roku improved recently? The last time I used it the experience had a definite flimsy, underpowered feel. I find the Air Video Server and corresponding iOS app much nicer. I use AirPlay and Apple TV, of course, to view on a big screen TV. A rather peculiar feature is that Apple TV works on my home network, which is not connected to the internet, while Roku simply fails to function if it cannot connect to the internet.

Re:the specs will make you cream your shorts (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42434349)

apple TV is a scam to make you stay in the apple ecosystem with airplay.

Uh, okay. I don't argue the truth of the matter, but 'scam' is a bit retarded, given that the entire point of owning random Apple products is that they play damned nice with each other.

As it were, I haven't looked at Apple TV in some time, but I passed on it due to not having 1080p support, nor support for external storage (eg, NFS/SMB/AFS spewed out of a NAS). External storage, at least, was possible via "hacking"; however, I'm not a tool and have better things to do on a Friday night than dicking about with my phone, my TV device, and whatever other bullshit kids these days are jailbreaking.

Re:the specs will make you cream your shorts (1)

alen (225700) | about 2 years ago | (#42434459)

It streams content from iTunes so there is your external storage

And the coolest thing is that if your laptop is on VPN it will still stream to your Apple TV on your local network

1080p is there in the latest model and seems to upscale about as we'll as my ps3

Re:the specs will make you cream your shorts (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42434777)

It streams content from iTunes so there is your external storage

Eh, while my NAS can theoretically support iTunes streaming, I do not support iTunes - it's fairly meh outside of OS X, and I've Win7 and Linux boxes to consider.

I should mention I'm lazy and have no desire to manage a method of sharing per destination. :p I'm certainly aware of why Apple (and a number of other TV device manufacturers) aren't keen on providing NFS/SMB/AFS (support costs from consumer-level folks, oy!), but for me, lack of it is a dealbreaker.

1080p is there in the latest model and seems to upscale about as we'll as my ps3

Good to know, as it's one of those things I've had to reluctantly point out in the past to people. I keep hearing that the 720 v 1080 argument is moot, but I've traditionally found it to be quite the opposite. I suppose my non-tech friends can comprehend numerical values far better than the pros and cons of various codecs (and support or lack thereof), heh. :p

Re:the specs will make you cream your shorts (1)

OffaMyLawn (1885682) | about 2 years ago | (#42434649)

I have a 2nd gen Apple TV (which is only 720p) but I believe the 3rd gen does support 1080p.

Only reason I bought one is ease of use. Wife and youngest daughter both have iPhones, and we have an iPad 2. Oldest daughter and I are both running Android phones (mine being an S3 and hers being some cheap LG thing that her grandparents bought for her out of the blue without consult). But both my wife and youngest daughter can pick up either of their phones, or the iPad, and quickly and easily do what they need/want to, both being too easily frustrated to really play with anything too complicated (in their mind).

The Apple products do play very well together. The lack of external storage did bother me at first, but having a NAS store the family iTunes library, with an el cheapo laptop running iTunes pointed at the NAS, and everything is accessible from the Apple TV. Entire ripped DVD library, all the music we've bought, and pictures through Photo Stream don't even need iTunes to be running.

I may not be one of Apple's biggest fans, but the ability to work within the ecosystem is quite nice. And the ability to stream an interesting video I may be watching on the iPad to the TV with a couple touches is a very nice feature.

There are drawbacks, such as the remote app on the phones and iPad randomly decide that I no longer have an Apple TV. And the Apple TV itself needs reset more often than I care for, even to get it to connect to Netflix to watch a movie. The slender little Apple remote is also a big piece of junk too, being on my 3rd one and the menu button is already flaky.

All in all, I would just as soon replace it all, but that would be a costly endeavor at this point. And it would need to work as seemlessly. And, no, I do not own any consoles.

Re:the specs will make you cream your shorts (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 2 years ago | (#42435237)

I may not be one of Apple's biggest fans, but the ability to work within the ecosystem is quite nice. And the ability to stream an interesting video I may be watching on the iPad to the TV with a couple touches is a very nice feature.

AirPlay really is the killer feature for AppleTV - it's not surprising Google's trying to come up with an alternative. And if most of your stuff is Apple gear, as you said the ecosystem works very well together. I've got all my DVDs and Blu-Ray discs ripped and living in iTunes so I can stream them to the AppleTV. I haven't bought more than a handful of movies or TV shows from them, though, since NetFlix is available on the box and the DRMed electronic versions of new stuff often costs as much or more than the physical discs (not to mention that, if it weren't for Requiem, I wouldn't buy electronic at all).

My 3rd gen AppleTV doesn't have the stability issues you mentioned elsewhere - not sure why it should be different since its the same software (except mine supports 1080p).

Re: the specs will make you cream your shorts (1)

OffaMyLawn (1885682) | about 2 years ago | (#42437025)

I could have a defective unit, which would not surprise me. It works reliably enough I haven't struck it with any blunt objects yet. They really are minor issues mostly.

AirPlay really is the killer feature for AppleTV (1)

tuppe666 (904118) | about 2 years ago | (#42438021)

I cannot use this product on my android phone; 5 year old router, and Ubuntu box attached to my TV!!! Like say Upnp/DNLA the standard that everyone else uses. Apple propietaruy crap just "doesn't work" well with anything other than other Apple kit.

Re:the specs will make you cream your shorts (1)

clarkn0va (807617) | about 2 years ago | (#42435135)

Roku will be dead soon

All existing tech will be dead soon. That's the nature of tech.

That said, however, I'm rather fond of my Roku. It's not perfect; seeking more than a couple minutes at a time is labourious, it won't play from a NAS without crappy add-on channels, and it won't let you control the refresh rate of your output. These shortcomings aside, I find my Roku to be an adequate means of bringing Netflix and a tonne of great free programming to my living room without the commercials and other obnoxious intrusions of traditional tv.

So what makes you think Roku is especially doomed?

Hardware (1)

Jeng (926980) | about 2 years ago | (#42434057)

Wasn't Intel working on making better chips for TVs?

I can see Intel doing exactly that, making better chips for TVs, I can't see Intel becoming a content delivery company. It is just so far removed from what they do it doesn't make sense.

Re:Hardware (2)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 2 years ago | (#42434167)

The article seems to imply that Intel will be supply chips for next gen set top boxes rather than make whole products. They currently supply some chips but look likes they are expanding their share. The next gen boxes are supposed to do more; the problem is the content owners still have firm control of content. Getting them to move away from the current model of bundles of channels to a reasonable ala carte system is a challenge. Notice I said "reasonable". The content owners would love to charge exhorbitant amounts for each channel if they could get away with it.

Re:Hardware (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | about 2 years ago | (#42434285)

This is intel saying' we want to get in on the 'make money but produce little bandwagon.' So we'll make some user hostile hardware that you big providers can use to exploit new opportunities in consumer lockdown.

What about the backbone? (2)

MrLint (519792) | about 2 years ago | (#42434119)

It seems of all the folks who want to do TVIP, only Google seems to be taking any action on the sorry ass state of US broadband. The telecomms sure arent. They are in the game of eating taxpayer subsides while lobbying for metered data and data caps. Cable TV has woefully failed at a la carte, instead is a force-fed smorgasbord of rotten tripe, most of which any individual doesn't want.

I just don't know what will be the tipping point for something to change, will it be when watching tv will become too expensive to do for typical family?

Re:What about the backbone? (1)

alen (225700) | about 2 years ago | (#42434145)

TV IP is coming of age in 2013. Disney signed with netflix and dumped starz or whoever they had before

if you pay for cable the only reason you are doing it is for sports, international channels or you absolutely have to watch some shows like Game of Thrones or Breaking Bad

Re:What about the backbone? (1)

aliquis (678370) | about 2 years ago | (#42435249)

TV IP is coming of age in 2013. Disney signed with netflix and dumped starz or whoever they had before

if you pay for cable the only reason you are doing it is for sports, international channels or you absolutely have to watch some shows like Game of Thrones or Breaking Bad

So what's streamed really?

Movies?

Re:What about the backbone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42436737)

If you read the fine print, the Disney-Netflix deal doesn't really kick in until 2016 (except for older releases).

i don't get all this push for tv boxes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42434149)

do people even watch tv? i haven't had a tv in years. i think intel would be better off looking forward to something innovative instead of just making a cable box with streaming pornos.

Re:i don't get all this push for tv boxes (4, Funny)

Sponge Bath (413667) | about 2 years ago | (#42434235)

do people even watch tv? i haven't had a tv in years.

Like you, I am too superior for video entertainment. I just meditate and think deep thoughts, unlike TV watchers who wallow in their own filth and poke sharp sticks in their ears.

Re:i don't get all this push for tv boxes (1)

Macrat (638047) | about 2 years ago | (#42434293)

i haven't had a tv in years.

My TV is really just a big computer display.

Re:i don't get all this push for tv boxes (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 2 years ago | (#42435261)

i haven't had a tv in years.

My TV is really just a big computer display.

"Big" is the operative word. I've never seen the draw of watching a movie on a little tablet or computer screen. I'd much rather watch it on my 47" television (and bigger would be better).

Except your closer to it. (1)

tuppe666 (904118) | about 2 years ago | (#42437985)

I include this link to a Father Ted its brilliant on its own but it emphasises a fundamental point

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25N-4zrk390 [youtube.com] ...small...far away.

Re:i don't get all this push for tv boxes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42434347)

It had to be done [theonion.com] .

Pointless (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 2 years ago | (#42434221)

What do they think people want to do with their TVs that they can't already? Smart TVs, games consoles and even many set-top boxes have network media players and apps covering all major streaming services (iPlayer, Netflix, Hulu, YouTube etc.).

There are other apps on those platforms but no-one uses them. View web pages, Facebook and weather reports via a fiddly remote? No thanks, I'll just whip out my smart phone or tablet. Samsung TVs can run Angry Birds, but do you really want your kids hogging the TV with it?

Besides which we have reached platform overload with Windows RT/WP8. Unless something earth shattering happens Android is going to win with MS/Apple staying in the game by throwing masses of cash at it and producing proprietary hardware, at least until they turn into the next Sony (remember Betamax/Minidisc/MemoryStick/UMD?)

Re:Pointless (1)

Sloppy (14984) | about 2 years ago | (#42436437)

What do they think people want to do with their TVs that they can't already?

Pay Intel.

Let TV die (1)

chthon (580889) | about 2 years ago | (#42434229)

Don't care for moderation: just let TV die, the golden age of TV was the 60's and 70's, all the rest sucks. TV must die!

TV Live (1)

tuppe666 (904118) | about 2 years ago | (#42437959)

...except there is very little wrong with TV. It does need more time-shifting, and less advertising, but solutions have been constantly improving since the VHS/Betamax wars. Todays set-top boxies/Tivos/Hard Disc Players are already very good, and yes there is room for improvement.

intel is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42434249)

a *hardware* company -- i can't see them doing a consumer SERVICE. they're better off sticking with hardware, but they've been faltering in that regard as well in non-PC consumer devices: video game consoles, set top boxes, cable / satellite boxes, tivo.... none of them use intel anything anymore (or never did to begin with).

Apple was a computer company... (1)

tuppe666 (904118) | about 2 years ago | (#42437945)

...it became a electronics company. Microsoft is a software company....wanting to become a electronics company.

To be fair right now I think all electronics/hardware companies need to have more Software on their portfolio as that is where a lot of the advantages in this new smart world come from. Steve Jobs as he moved the company into an electronicvs one always stressed they were a software company.

Randon Steve Jobs Quote
"If you look at the reason that the iPod exists, it's because these really great Japanese consumer electronics companies who kind of own the portable music market, invented it and owned it, couldn't do the appropriate software, couldn't conceive of and implement the appropriate software. Because an iPod's really just software. It's software in the iPod itself, it's software on the PC or the Mac, and it's software in the cloud for the store. And it's in a beautiful box, but it's software. If you look at what a Mac is, it's OS X, right? It's in a beautiful box, but it's OS X. And if you look at what an iPhone will hopefully be, it's software." - All Things Digital conference, May 30, 2007

It won't succeed without content (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42434489)

Current content owners like the status quo and will let this new distribution channels they have no control over die rather than support it. Only way I see that changing is by companies like Intel, Google, Apple, Microsoft (they are getting there) to produce their own content that will satisfy the consumers. Just like how RCA produced their own content to sell their radios. Only then will internet TV providers have leverage at the bargaining table with existing content owners.

Intel, Microsoft, Dell..see a pattern here? (1)

erp_consultant (2614861) | about 2 years ago | (#42434607)

All three companies are scrambling to find their way in the IT world of today. The momentum has gone from PC's to tablets and smart phones. Guess what - those devices don't need intel chips or Windows. Intel will continue to sell plenty of chips for high end servers and Microsoft will continue to have it's monopoly on office related software so they'll be ok. Dell, in my view, is in the worst spot of all. They are stuck in a commodity PC business and their recent move into the services business via their acquisition of Perot Systems has been by and large a flop.

You see dead companies! (1)

tuppe666 (904118) | about 2 years ago | (#42437879)

All three companies are scrambling to find their way in the IT world of today.

I think you have been asleep. The interesting think about these companies interact with each other has changed. Intel...have their own OS without Microsoft...Tizen[I suspect the OS they would use]; Microsoft produced a tablet without Intel, and as its own preferred OEM!. Dell announced they will do nothing, Nada, Zilch its sitting like a little bitch doing nothing while everyone else old fashioned competes [knives in backs/fronts everywhere]....Now HP on the other hand.

The reality is the desktop actually is unchanged...its damaged a little for its mobile push, but its still the crappy monopoly it always was just a little more touchscreen.

Late. (1)

Seumas (6865) | about 2 years ago | (#42434771)

Getting into televisions in 2013 seems a lot like getting into the radio business post 2005.

Re:Late. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42435051)

Radio is a multi-billion dollar industry. People have been proclaiming end of radio ever since the invention of the TV but it is still around.

Re:Late. (1)

Seumas (6865) | about 2 years ago | (#42439205)

Radio has been in dire straights for most of the past decade. Mass layoffs all over the place, fewer local and regional programs in favor of more mass syndication and automation. Stations shutting down left and right. Consolidations. I have many friends in the radio business (broadcasting, programming, managing, etc) and it has only become worse as time goes on. The only niche that isn't on life-support is talk-radio, which pretty much reduces the medium to the comments section of any news article linked to by DrudgeReport.

silicon dust is going to announce at ces (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42434773)

silicon dust is going to announce at this coming CES: a new 'project connect'. i wonder if intel and silicon dusk are jointly announcing something together...

Future of TV (3, Insightful)

gr8_phk (621180) | about 2 years ago | (#42434857)

The only future I see for TV is when they gain wireless DLNA or some such (Like Apple TV but standardized). Then there's this big screen in the room that anyone can stream stuff too from their phone/whatever. Portable devices then need to be able to encode video for streaming to the big screen so you can use it as a large monitor (with codec dependent latency of course). That's it. All TVs and computer monitors should get this capability in the future. Wired connections should remain available for higher quality and low latency, but TV as display server is the only thing that makes sense IMHO. They'll need to keep tuners for quite a while too.

Imagine (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42435175)

A perfect system, one which we realize that radio and the tv were never dead. They were in the infancy of their computations. Now they come marching out of the waves and clawing from the earth with silver platters filled with goodies for every palette. Maybe you realize, when you see the moment escaping; when you mistook empty pleasure for perfection. Perhaps buying a new-incredible-machine or a tiny tap to the tree of knowledge could but satiate the gaping void that is... The Twilight Zone

I wish them luck (1)

PPH (736903) | about 2 years ago | (#42435235)

The reality is that the cable companies consider themselves to be the gatekeepers of broadcast television content. And since they control the primary broadband pipe used by most people in this country, its not likely they will allow that to change. If Apple/Intel/Microsoft/Google manage to break the stranglehold that cable holds over the broadband last mile, that would be great for the rest of us wishing to offer services over it.

content pricing, not hardware is the problem (1)

peter303 (12292) | about 2 years ago | (#42436907)

Right now you have to buy a huge of channels (and shows) to get the 20 hours you might want to watch each month. Or you have to do delayed broadcasts (not good for sports & news) or pirate to get the individual shows.

What can intel offer ? (1)

giorgist (1208992) | about 2 years ago | (#42437711)

If all they will do is show Google content. Hardware is now much like beige boxes. If they don't show youtube, they have nothing. So whatever intel comes up with or even Apple, they will simply show youtube content and so will line Google bottom line. They can try and create content outside the Google ecosystem but we know where that went with apple maps.

Google the only Media Provider!? (1)

tuppe666 (904118) | about 2 years ago | (#42437799)

they will simply show youtube content and so will line Google bottom line. They can try and create content outside the Google ecosystem but we know where that went with apple maps.

I remember TV being about well Movies and Soaps and Scu-fi, Dramas, Reality shows etc etc Internet Video is just part of that...and exists outside Google and youtube [albeit very successful], the reality is Google will simply integrate their services inside whatever platform is dominant...its ecosystem is OS agnostic.

Ironically Apple not only removed Google Maps it removed the link to youtube...nobody made such a big deal about youtube.

Please come to my area (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42445883)

Central Utah, home rural and urban areas -- including the fastest growing city in America -- eagerly awaits.

Please, please, please, for God's sake, please.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?