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!

Neuros Solicits Help From AppleTV Hackers

CowboyNeal posted more than 7 years ago | from the little-help-here dept.

Programming 59

JoeBorn writes "Highlighting the fact that Neuros officially encourages contributions to its open source device (GPL), it has published an open letter soliciting the help of AppleTV hackers. 'The transition to IPTV creates a golden opportunity to ensure that the gateway to the TV set becomes open to all.' Neuros draws a connection between open source and free media, and attempts to articulate why an open box can extend the freedom of the internet to the TV set."

cancel ×

59 comments

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

Twofo GNAA 0wns j00 (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18911783)

Apple is for faggots. [twofo.co.uk]

                        GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
                              Version 2, June 1991

  Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
          59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA
  Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
  of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

                                Preamble

    The licenses for most software are designed to take away your
freedom to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public
License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free
software--to make sure the software is free for all its users. This
General Public License applies to most of the Free Software
Foundation's software and to any other program whose authors commit to
using it. (Some other Free Software Foundation software is covered by
the GNU Library General Public License instead.) You can apply it to
your programs, too.

    When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not
price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you
have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for
this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it
if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it
in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.

    To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid
anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights.
These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you
distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it.

    For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether
gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that
you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the
source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their
rights.

    We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and
(2) offer you this license which gives you legal permission to copy,
distribute and/or modify the software.

    Also, for each author's protection and ours, we want to make certain
that everyone understands that there is no warranty for this free
software. If the software is modified by someone else and passed on, we
want its recipients to know that what they have is not the original, so
that any problems introduced by others will not reflect on the original
authors' reputations.

    Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software
patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free
program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the
program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any
patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.

    The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and
modification follow.

                        GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
      TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION

    0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains
a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed
under the terms of this General Public License. The "Program", below,
refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program"
means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law:
that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it,
either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another
language. (Hereinafter, translation is included without limitation in
the term "modification".) Each licensee is addressed as "you".

Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of
running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program
is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the
Program (independent of having been made by running the Program).
Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.

    1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's
source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you
conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate
copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the
notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty;
and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License
along with the Program.

You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and
you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.

    2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1
above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:

        a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
        stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.

        b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
        whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
        part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
        parties under the terms of this License.

        c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively
        when run, you must cause it, when started running for such
        interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an
        announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a
        notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide
        a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under
        these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this
        License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but
        does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on
        the Program is not required to print an announcement.)

These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you
distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based
on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of
this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the
entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.

Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest
your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to
exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or
collective works based on the Program.

In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program
with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of
a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under
the scope of this License.

    3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

        a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
        source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
        1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

        b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
        years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
        cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
        machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
        distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
        customarily used for software interchange; or,

        c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
        to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is
        allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
        received the program in object code or executable form with such
        an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source
code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a
special exception, the source code distributed need not include
anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary
form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the
operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component
itself accompanies the executable.

If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering
access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent
access to copy the source code from the same place counts as
distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not
compelled to copy the source along with the object code.

    4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt
otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is
void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.
However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under
this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such
parties remain in full compliance.

    5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are
prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by
modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the
Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and
all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying
the Program or works based on it.

    6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to
these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further
restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to
this License.

    7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),
conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot
distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this
License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you
may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent
license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by
all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then
the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to
refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.

If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under
any particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to
apply and the section as a whole is intended to apply in other
circumstances.

It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any
patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any
such claims; this section has the sole purpose of protecting the
integrity of the free software distribution system, which is
implemented by public license practices. Many people have made
generous contributions to the wide range of software distributed
through that system in reliance on consistent application of that
system; it is up to the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing
to distribute software through any other system and a licensee cannot
impose that choice.

This section is intended to make thoroughly clear what is believed to
be a consequence of the rest of this License.

    8. If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in
certain countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the
original copyright holder who places the Program under this License
may add an explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding
those countries, so that distribution is permitted only in or among
countries not thus excluded. In such case, this License incorporates
the limitation as if written in the body of this License.

    9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions
of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will
be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to
address new problems or concerns.

Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program
specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any
later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions
either of that version or of any later version published by the Free
Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of
this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software
Foundation.

    10. If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program into other free
programs whose distribution conditions are different, write to the author
to ask for permission. For software which is copyrighted by the Free
Software Foundation, write to the Free Software Foundation; we sometimes
make exceptions for this. Our decision will be guided by the two goals
of preserving the free status of all derivatives of our free software and
of promoting the sharing and reuse of software generally.

                                NO WARRANTY

    11. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WARRANTY
FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN
OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES
PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS
TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE
PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING,
REPAIR OR CORRECTION.

    12. IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING
WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY MODIFY AND/OR
REDISTRIBUTE THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES,
INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING
OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED
TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY
YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER
PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.

                          END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS

                How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs

    If you develop a new program, and you want it to be of the greatest
possible use to the public, the best way to achieve this is to make it
free software which everyone can redistribute and change under these terms.

    To do so, attach the following notices to the program. It is safest
to attach them to the start of each source file to most effectively
convey the exclusion of warranty; and each file should have at least
the "copyright" line and a pointer to where the full notice is found.

        Copyright (C)

        This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
        it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
        the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
        (at your option) any later version.

        This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
        but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
        MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
        GNU General Public License for more details.

        You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
        along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
        Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA

Also add information on how to contact you by electronic and paper mail.

If the program is interactive, make it output a short notice like this
when it starts in an interactive mode:

        Gnomovision version 69, Copyright (C) year name of author
        Gnomovision comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `show w'.
        This is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it
        under certain conditions; type `show c' for details.

The hypothetical commands `show w' and `show c' should show the appropriate
parts of the General Public License. Of course, the commands you use may
be called something other than `show w' and `show c'; they could even be
mouse-clicks or menu items--whatever suits your program.

You should also get your employer (if you work as a programmer) or your
school, if any, to sign a "copyright disclaimer" for the program, if
necessary. Here is a sample; alter the names:

    Yoyodyne, Inc., hereby disclaims all copyright interest in the program
    `Gnomovision' (which makes passes at compilers) written by James Hacker.

    , 1 April 1989
    Ty Coon, President of Vice

This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into
proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library, you may
consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with the
library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Library General
Public License instead of this License.

100% Karmawhore FREE (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18911797)

is this better than an XBMC? (3, Informative)

QX-Mat (460729) | more than 7 years ago | (#18911859)

I've been debating for a while now whether i want to get an XBox 1 to stream videos etc off the lan at home. At it stands, neither cd changers, dvd changers or "media pcs" have really made me happier or content easier to access. We have far too many controls at home, far too many user interfaces, and stupidly crippled hardware (we've got a sony dvd/harddisc-based recorder that doesn't interface with any kind of tv catalogue - useless!)...

I've seen a modded xbox happily navigate windows' shares, ftps, even RSS feeds, and even download videos from the net on the fly. I've seen them transparently mount .isos, decompress rars and zip files. Amazing stuff. No software players I've seen yet can do this.

Here's the crux tho: the Neuros OSD is ~ $200... I can get an xbox for £50 (~notalot) with games and a controller, then softmod it to my specs in a few hours. I know what the xbox does, ive seen it do it.

If the neuros had a 1gig ethernet port (im not sure it does?), i'd almost certainly invest simply to use it as a NAS (there's a mod for this on the OSD website) as I have 3 x 300Gb USB2 hdds lying around needing a gige link to justify disconnecting them from the PC.

I've seen other gige NASes around too, but they cost far too much. The xbox 1, of course, doesnt sport gige (does it?!). I suppose I could hard mod the xbox usb and plug in a usb gige adaptor, but does the xbox support usb2??

Nonetheless,

I personally think its fantastic seeing a product that wants to utilise OSS this way! I've long wondered why the proprietary vendors try to cut out modding if they're pricing their product to make money through sales (think wifi boxen etc - not xboxes, their business model needs you to buy games). Its weird when their product lines and life expectations usually fall far short of incorporating any "user inspired" features. I've yet to see "successive" versions of products actually take features from the unsupported mod market and sell in a new product. Clearly they're just trying to thawt innovation at home, because there's a very thin line between breading up a small SoC and selling it!

Matt

Re:is this better than an XBMC? (2, Interesting)

casings (257363) | more than 7 years ago | (#18911977)

http://wiki.neurostechnology.com/index.php/Neuros_ OSD [neurostechnology.com]

The ethernet port is only 10/100, and I highly doubt that it is upgradable via firmware.

Re:is this better than an XBMC? (1)

ncc74656 (45571) | more than 7 years ago | (#18929461)

The ethernet port is only 10/100, and I highly doubt that it is upgradable via firmware.

Also, it only offers composite output. It doesn't even do S-video, let alone component or DVI/HDMI. Lame.

Re:is this better than an XBMC? (1)

reub2000 (705806) | more than 7 years ago | (#18912001)

I've long wondered why the proprietary vendors try to cut out modding if they're pricing their product to make money through sales
Good point. Modding adds a lot of value to a product. Think of Half-Life. How many copies do you think Valve would have sold without the mods? Counter-Strike seemed to be more popular than Half-Life ever was, yet Valve still made money on copies of Half-Life.

Re:is this better than an XBMC? (1)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 7 years ago | (#18912035)

Because Microsoft didn't price to make money through sales.

Re:is this better than an XBMC? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18912015)

Connecting a Gigabit Ethernet adapter to a USB port, what a great idea, how come no one thought of that before ?

Re:is this better than an XBMC? (1)

DinZy (513280) | more than 7 years ago | (#18912039)

NO. It doesn't have component outputs and thus it is not even capable of 480P. The xbox can output higher resolutions but can only really decode 480p. The interface is a bit odd with a controller, but you get used to it really fast. The only weird parts are the advanced menu features like syncing audio and subtitles. I doubt any CE device even has these super useful features.

Re:is this better than an XBMC? (1)

sycomonkey (666153) | more than 7 years ago | (#18914341)

That's only an issue if you have an HDTV. Very few people do.

Re:is this better than an XBMC? (2, Insightful)

in5ane (961406) | more than 6 years ago | (#18917561)

Surely this isn't true any more? People have been saying this for ever, and it was believable in 2003...

I realise my friends and family are mostly nerds, but most of them have HDTVs, and this is in the UK, where apparently our uptake of HD is lower than the US.

Re:is this better than an XBMC? YES (3, Interesting)

WarwickRyan (780794) | more than 7 years ago | (#18912047)

It adds one significant feature: it can record.

Otherwise, there's nothing else on the market that is as good as Xbox Media Center.

Personally, I've bought a spare Xbox (on the £50 deal you're talking about) as a backup for my current XBMC box.

Re:is this better than an XBMC? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18912061)

xbox is only usb1 iirc, and 100mb ethernet not gig, but that said it works very very well. xmbc is updated regularly. i`ve got an lg drive + drivemod for fast disc reading (xbox drive can be shit for seeking on dvds) and chucked in a 120gig drive. if you don`t mind rehousing the xbox or can modify the case you can quite easily add extra IDE drives. it handles everything i throw at it - but it will have problems on high def rips. playing files through usb/controller port cable (the ports are standard usb, so i used an old controller cable and an old usb printer cable with some older stickers to connect them) from ide hdd on usb adapter works fine. i tend to copy them to the xbox hdd through the usb or ftp them first...

get a mediacentre type keyboard for browsing youtube etc. on it, super lush.

xbmc has saved me lots of money, given me lots of entertainment and is just there. with MCE2006 skin the whole family love it. not one product i can find will match what this does for us, and for £25 from local paper ('bout the cost of a cheapo dvd player)

Downside of OSS (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18912245)

I really have a distrust of OSS projects in general, especially high profile ones. They always seem to turn out like Netscape, which throws the source out there and may as well say "our programmers suck, please fix our buggy product for us". And when someone is throwing out an open letter to "the community"... that's essentially what is written in any kind of open letter.

FOSS has it's place, but when zealots view it as some kind of realistic alternative to real products, it ends up being quite laughable. For example, Linux hasn't ever been ready for the desktop, and it probably never will. They are still chasing Windows 95's tail lights, and here MS went and released six operating systems since then.

Don't get me wrong, it's admirable that people are continuting to improve a free operating system, and some people have done impressive things. It's just that some people (most of whom are unable to program, and thus unable to contribute to improving Linux) turn into rabid anti-MS zealots, and delude themselves into thinking somehow this class project is going to turn into something world changing which will bring about some kind of utopian future, like Bill & Ted's music.

Not gonna happen. Get with the program, live in the real world: MS has thousands of advantages when it comes to making a business case for them, and tit for tat you can make comparisons to applications fulfilling a specialized need, MS has gone and put all of that in a single product, and made sure it all works. Free software isn't free, especially when you have hundreds or thousands of computers to support. Every piece of software you add brings with it a potential problem, so the secret of intelligent network management is to install as few pieces of software as possible... and Windows truly does let you do more with less.

Woah, blast from the past! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18912519)

Where the hell of you been? It's 2010, and everyone owns a Mac and prays daily to the Great Steve.

Now take your iSoma and chant your iMantras.

Re:Downside of OSS (1)

Kz (4332) | more than 6 years ago | (#18918647)

Every piece of software you add brings with it a potential problem, so the secret of intelligent network management is to install as few pieces of software as possible... and Windows truly does let you do more with less.


what a sad world here there's people that actually beleive that

Re:is this better than an XBMC? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18912283)

If all you want to do is stream content off of your LAN then go with XBMC.

If you want to record TV shows to add to your library of media or have a PSP or iPod that you want to watch any of said content on then it sounds like this device would be better than XBMC.

I've become a big fan of XBMC since I've started using it but I would love the ability to record the few TV shows I like to watch.

Re:is this better than an XBMC? (1)

hansamurai (907719) | more than 7 years ago | (#18912445)

My wife and I use XBMC almost daily. It's such a great piece of software on a pretty nice piece of hardware too (for the price). I haven't updated the hard drive or DVD drive, as I pretty much stream everything off my PC, but it works so great. I don't think I could ever own another media center, but you never know, we got rid of our DVR a few months ago and I do miss recording.

Re:is this better than an XBMC? (1)

interiot (50685) | more than 7 years ago | (#18912671)

The XBMC can't decode HD content. (it can decode SD content and upscale it to HD, but doesn't have enough CPU to decode HD source material)

Re:is this better than an XBMC? (1)

BLKMGK (34057) | more than 7 years ago | (#18936649)

1080 no, 720 YES! Looks damned good too. XBMC is awesome and revised regularly - love it.

Why? (3, Informative)

RalphBNumbers (655475) | more than 7 years ago | (#18911979)

Quoth their own letter on their set top box:

The embedded components that are typically needed are quite often not nearly as open as many of the components in PCs.


The AppleTV -is- a PC, it's got a 1.0GHz Pentium M-based based x86 processor, a GeForce Go 7300 GPU, a 40GB HDD, 256MB of RAM, USB, 100B-T Ethernet and 802.11b/g/n WiFi, with HDMI and component outputs...

Why should anyone interested in developing open solutions for set top boxes limit themselves to the OSD's closed embedded-style hardware, when Apple has provided a full PC that you can run whatever you want on (Mac OSX, linux, MythTV, etc...) in a nice neat package for almost the same price ($229 vs $299)? Especially when the AppleTV is sufficiently powerful to do HDTV divx/xvid decoding in software, whereas the Neuros OSD needs to use it's closed DSP core to handle even SDTV.

Re:Why? (1)

Tickletaint (1088359) | more than 7 years ago | (#18912031)

Not to mention, what makes them think any self-respecting Apple TV hacker would be caught dead with such an example of tasteless undesign as the Neuros [neurosaudio.com] ? I mean, just look at that remote. My God.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18912045)

You'll notice that the AppleTV is only useful for playing media. the OSD is really a Set Top Box. It records and plays media in several formats with no modifications.

    Why buy a AppleTV again? what does it do? Plays apple content out of the box.. and?

Re:Why? (2, Insightful)

Afecks (899057) | more than 7 years ago | (#18912077)

Why should anyone interested in developing open solutions for set top boxes limit themselves to the OSD's closed embedded-style hardware

No, the question people should be asking is why buy the AppleTV if it's just another PC? I don't know about everyone else but whenever I get a new PC, my old PC becomes the media hub. It costs nothing extra and has more power than AppleTV could ever hope for. This seems like a product in search of a need.

Re:Why? (3, Informative)

molarmass192 (608071) | more than 7 years ago | (#18912467)

How about because ATV has a much smaller form factor than any other PC based solution, is dead silent (completely fanless), has TV out built in, and has wireless built in for $300? The only downside I've found, 1 USB port so you need a USB expander, and a minuscule 40G HD that pretty much has to be replaced. To me, this is the ultimate hack friendly media center for the price and form.

Re:Why? (1)

yanos (633109) | more than 6 years ago | (#18918985)

The only thing that keeps me away from apple tv right now is that it doesnt have a dvd player. This is stupid. I don't want to have a standalone dvd player AND a apple tv to stream divx. It's yet another remote, another set of inputs taken behind the tv, another electronic appliance that drains electricity even when turn off...etc

Re:Why? (1)

Afecks (899057) | more than 6 years ago | (#18920095)

Size? Noise? Wireless? That's odd, because none of those things matter in the closet where I keep my media PC. I'm also not sure how $300 is less than FREE thanks to recycling a PC I kept instead of throwing away. I'm saving money and helping the environment.

Just wait for your light bill (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 7 years ago | (#18915615)

It costs nothing extra and uses more power than AppleTV could ever hope for.
Fixed, all the way to the power company.

Re:Why? (2, Interesting)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | more than 7 years ago | (#18912457)

Wow, that's great! So I just put the Ubuntu disc in the CD-ROM and... uh... Ok, I plug a USB drive in the USB connector and... WTF? I guess I have to mount it as a network share... um... Well, then, it must have a serial port for debugging and reflashing... fuck!

Re:Why? (1)

RalphBNumbers (655475) | more than 6 years ago | (#18918577)

Actually, you got it right on the 2nd try.
You can enable full network access via SSH [awkwardtv.org] , or boot another OS [hackint0sh.org] , just by booting from a USB drive these days, without opening the AppleTV.

Re:Why? (1)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | more than 6 years ago | (#18919971)

Wow, congratulations, you defeated Apple and after all that effort managed to accomplish the sort of thing the OSD does by design.

Re:Why? (3, Insightful)

Slashcrap (869349) | more than 7 years ago | (#18913475)

Why should anyone interested in developing open solutions for set top boxes limit themselves to the OSD's closed embedded-style hardware, when Apple has provided a full PC that you can run whatever you want on (Mac OSX, linux, MythTV, etc...) in a nice neat package for almost the same price ($229 vs $299)?

Sorry, just a minor correction - Apple have actually provided a full PC which they will do everything within their power to stop you running Mac OSX, Linux & MythTV on.

The fact that Apple are shit at that kind of thing, and their protections usually end up being defeated within a few days by a bunch of 15 year old Romanian hackers does not make them a champion of open platforms.

I know it's difficult to see the difference when you have been blinded by the intense sunlight eminating from Mr Job's ringpiece.

Re:Why? (3, Insightful)

NMerriam (15122) | more than 7 years ago | (#18915031)

Apple have actually provided a full PC which they will do everything within their power to stop you running Mac OSX, Linux & MythTV on.


Huh? Since when has Apple made even a token effort to stop people from running different software on their hardware? They do try to stop running OS X on foreign hardware (but they don't waste a lot of developer resources on it) but that's a very different thing.

Compare how easy it is to load a completely different OS on the AppleTV:
1) write new OS to drive.
2) Apple publicly says they won't do anything via updates to try and stop people from doing it
2) Done.

vs what it took to turn the XBox into a standalone media device:
1) Order potentially illegal mod kit
2) Solder delicate wires to tiny holes
3) Flash hacked firmware (pray you don't screw up, or goto 1)
4) Boot from illegal CD/DVD
6) Install illegal software.
7) Be sure never to load any dashboard updates from MS, since they will all try to brick the machine
8) Done!

Re:Why? (1)

IntergalacticWalrus (720648) | more than 6 years ago | (#18920181)

I second that. When my last DVD player broke I was thinking of buying an XBox recently so I can make myself a cheap media center, but the XBox hacking community is mostly made of warez monkeys and developers who pirate the official XBox SDK instead of making free legal solutions.

In the end I bought a PS2 instead, which has a pretty good built-in DVD player, and games that don't suck. I may buy an ATV in the future if the costs go down, because it really seems like the perfect hackable media center appliance.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19051127)

Huh? Since when has Apple made even a token effort to stop people from running different software on their hardware? They do try to stop running OS X on foreign hardware (but they don't waste a lot of developer resources on it) but that's a very different thing.

Compare how easy it is to load a completely different OS on the AppleTV:
1) write new OS to drive.
2) Apple publicly says they won't do anything via updates to try and stop people from doing it
2) Done.

vs what it took to turn the XBox into a standalone media device:
1) Order potentially illegal mod kit
2) Solder delicate wires to tiny holes
3) Flash hacked firmware (pray you don't screw up, or goto 1)
4) Boot from illegal CD/DVD
6) Install illegal software.
7) Be sure never to load any dashboard updates from MS, since they will all try to brick the machine
8) Done!



Clearly you have not be around the xbox modding scene in a long while. If one would like to use myth tv as your media service on the xbox then you do not have to do ANY of the items you listed. Should one wish to run XBMC the only on required is #6. Your making modding your xbox into a much more difficult scenario than what it really is. A 13 year old with the proper instructions could mod a box in about 10 minutes.

Re:Why? (1)

NMerriam (15122) | more than 7 years ago | (#19080493)

Clearly you have not be around the xbox modding scene in a long while. If one would like to use myth tv as your media service on the xbox then you do not have to do ANY of the items you listed. Should one wish to run XBMC the only on required is #6. Your making modding your xbox into a much more difficult scenario than what it really is. A 13 year old with the proper instructions could mod a box in about 10 minutes.


*shrug* If you say so. Last time I modded a box, softmods were still notoriously unreliable and temporary, broken by every hardware and software update that MS put out. If, after 4+ years of development, they finally work perfectly, then fantastic.

It really makes no difference to my point, which was that Apple really doesn't care what you do with their box in terms of software (and has said so officially, much like TiVo's policy in regards to their series 1 devices), while MS has actively worked for many years to try and brick machines that show any signs of being modified from the factory version, and that continues to be their publicly stated official policy.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18915603)

Especially when the AppleTV is sufficiently powerful to do HDTV divx/xvid decoding in software, whereas the Neuros OSD needs to use it's closed DSP core to handle even SDTV.

Ahahahahahahaha!

That's a good one!

Oh, wait. You're being serious?

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Re:Why? (1)

JoeBorn (625012) | more than 6 years ago | (#18917381)

Because the PC's architecture is not right for every application. There are tradeoffs, certainly there's no doubt that, given the x86's legacy, it has a more robust OSS support system, but it can't touch the DSP's price performance levels. With a DSP a silent, High def PVR (simultaneous encode and decode) for $100 is a possibility, and that's much harder, if not impossible on x86. Personally, I'm a believer that the future of multimedia appliances is making "embedded" devices more open, rather than trying to make the x86 a CE device. This process is already a long way along, while it's true it's not "as open," I think few would argue that ARM and other embedded devices are rapidly approaching the critical mass support levels for OSS, and I think most would say they are already there.

if neuros had dvi, appletv would not be needed (1)

GodWasAnAlien (206300) | more than 7 years ago | (#18911985)

the nueros has no digital video out AFAIK, so its worth is limited.

Re:if neuros had dvi, appletv would not be needed (2, Informative)

_LORAX_ (4790) | more than 7 years ago | (#18912089)

Neuros also doesn't have/support..

AVC because of it's underpowered CPU/GPU
HDTV output, hell the thing can't even do s-video out
Storage of media locally
Interaction with iTunes

and so much more

Re:if neuros had dvi, appletv would not be needed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18912141)

storage of media locally / interaction with iTunes?

you can hook up a usb external hd and it will record there, which is pretty much local...

interaction with iTunes is a hard sell because of the DRM involved, but since that is just a software problem rather than hardware capability, there could be a work around in the future...

as with HDTV output, does that even matter right now considering how fairly limited the demand is for it, right now normal tv is enough to satisfy most of the population, hell processing hdtv with the cpu afaik is going to be a hell of a task.

Admirable goals? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18911995)

Or just an attempt to keep their company in business?

Looking around their web sites, I don't get the feeling these guys are F/OSS evangelists by choice. That said, I hope the OSD is a success for them.

Go away (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18912041)

Get the hell out of here, and go away. Please...thanks, I'm glad you are considering this offer. Get the hell out, Thanks.

Re:Go away (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18912073)

Shut up, you cock.

Extend the freedom of the internet to the TV set (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18912121)

The guy is right: this is a unique opportunity to extend the freedom of the internet to the TV set.
But others are right to point out, that these efforts should not be tied exclusively to Apple's on any other vendors specific hardware.
A message to "decent Apple hackers": yes, we all know that other companies remote controls, etc. may look like a pre-historic piece, compared to Apple's sophisticated style - but let's not fail the "big picture" for the look of a remote control.

Different motivation (4, Insightful)

iamacat (583406) | more than 7 years ago | (#18912193)

Apple TV hackers focus is legally running Cocoa applications on a $300 device. If you just want a Linux set top box, your best choice is probably a slightly used notebook. You get to customize hard drive space, gaming capabilities and so on according to your needs. Neuros attitude is golden, but does their hardware bring any additional value into the picture?

HDMI hack (3, Insightful)

iheartbeer (982619) | more than 7 years ago | (#18912247)

Quick, someone hack HDMI into it.

Re:HDMI hack (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18912843)

I'm probably missing the joke here... But, the AppleTV box already has HDMI output, along with component video.

Re:HDMI hack (1)

iheartbeer (982619) | more than 7 years ago | (#18913977)

"I'm probably missing the joke here..."

Yup.

Max Headroom future here we come! (1)

ArhcAngel (247594) | more than 7 years ago | (#18912605)

'The transition to IPTV creates a golden opportunity to ensure that the gateway to the TV set becomes open to all.'

Why does this statement make me think of Max Headroom [maxheadroom.com] re-runs?

The Neuros Technology Looks a Bit Outdated (3, Interesting)

Junior Samples (550792) | more than 7 years ago | (#18912629)

According to their Wiki http://wiki.neurostechnology.com/index.php/Neuros_ OSD [neurostechnology.com] The Neuros product doesn't support ATSC or any of the High Definition formats.

I would be extremely interested in a set top box that can play files directly from my network drive in any format that WinDVD is capable of playing, and output video in 1080i, 720p, 480i, and other popular TV line rates. I don't want to have to download the file to the STB's local drive or have to run special video streaming software. I just want to mount the network drive to the STB and point to the file to play. Fancy menus and play lists are optional.

Hardware outputs should include the latest version of HDMI, DVI-D/I, VGA, Component and Y/C (S-Video). I want it to work with any monitor or TV that I have laying around. Optionally, an ATSC tuner can be added for digital recording / PVR capability. And of course, there should be no trace of DRM.

Apple-TV isn't there. The hacks are a start, but there's a long way to go.

There's a big market out there for this type of equipment waiting to be tapped.

Re:The Neuros Technology Looks a Bit Outdated (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18930269)

I would be extremely interested in a set top box that can play files directly from my network drive in any format that WinDVD is capable of playing, and output video in 1080i, 720p, 480i, and other popular TV line rates. I don't want to have to download the file to the STB's local drive or have to run special video streaming software. I just want to mount the network drive to the STB and point to the file to play. Fancy menus and play lists are optional.

Hardware outputs should include the latest version of HDMI, DVI-D/I, VGA, Component and Y/C (S-Video). I want it to work with any monitor or TV that I have laying around. Optionally, an ATSC tuner can be added for digital recording / PVR capability. And of course, there should be no trace of DRM.

Apple-TV isn't there.


Sure it is. Just yesterday, I got my AppleTV. It took me perhaps two hours to put together a Patchstick (including finding a copy of the appropriate boot.efi file). The first things I put on it were sshd and Perian. Perian lets QuickTime play a remarkable variety of formats in all kinds of file wrappers. I'm not sure it can do everything that WinDVD does, but it plays all of the files I have (a mix of mostly DivX, XviD and AVC with a few other oddballs) with no problem at all.

Next, using SSH, I copied two plugins to it. The first sets it to automount network shares based on their description in an XML file in the main user's home directory. The second lets me browse the filesystem and play files that way. Using these two in concert, I can browse the hard drives of the other computers on my network and stream any kind of media I please. So long as the data rate is less than about 8-10 Mbit, there's no need to buffer.

Admittedly, it doesn't have S-Video, but it has component and most current TVs have both. The HDMI can be turned into DVI with a cable. I'm not sure if it can do VGA, since I haven't tested that. Doesn't have a tuner built-in, though they're working on it.

additional outputs needed (1)

jbr439 (214107) | more than 7 years ago | (#18912749)

This looks really interesting. It's something who's time has come. The one obvious problem with this product, however, is the lack of additional outputs. Specifically, at a minimum, component and DVI are needed.

Neuros does it again (sigh) (1)

Devil's Avocado (73913) | more than 7 years ago | (#18913679)

I so want Neuros to make a sensible product, but they just can't seem to get it together. It kills me, because I'm in the market for just this sort of device. Their heart is clearly in the right place, but they just don't seem to understand what people want from products. How on earth can you justify releasing a video device for geeks in late 2006 that:
  • no built-in wireless
  • doesn't support Hi-Def recording *or* playback
  • has no digital audio output
  • has only a composite RGB video output!! Not even s-video! (Strangely, there's an s-video input but no output.)

I don't know who this is supposed to appeal to. Hardcore hackers who don't care about hi-def and don't have even the slightest concern for audio/video quality? I went to the Archos OSD FAQ seriously looking for the "what the hell were you guys thinking?" question... :(

Compare this to the ATV, with built-in 802.11n, hi-def support (even if it's only 720p), digital audio, hdmi, totally buzzword-compliant. Sorry, but being open-source and even open-process can only get you so far, even with geeks.

-DA

Apple TV - Why no conventional TV output?! (1)

sulli (195030) | more than 7 years ago | (#18913819)

I would buy the Apple TV today as a stationary, sync-able iPod with video control (never mind the videos from iTunes, I don't reallly care about those) if it had composite or S-Video output. WTF is Apple thinking limiting it to HD adopters?

Re:Apple TV - Why no conventional TV output?! (1)

Typoboy (61087) | more than 7 years ago | (#18915413)

It has Component out. It also has HDMI out, which you can convert to DVI and run an LCD panel from. It runs fine on a non-HD screen that takes Component [Y'PbPr].

Translation: [whining deleted] (1)

Typoboy (61087) | more than 7 years ago | (#18915401)

Translation: "Apple make money on DRM. DRM evil. Apple have closed code. Closed code evil. Us linux. Linux good. Pay us."

AppleTV is an awesome box that is built upon a ton of open source items, from the kernel upwards. Just check out the legalese page on it if you don't believe it. I think its popularity is just going to grow. The AppleTV doesn't have video in, but is definitely a superior box otherwise. I don't see any reason why it won't handle any 'iptv' thing that comes along in the future - oh, at HD quality also.

Thanks, but no thanks, Neuros.

Signed,
  An AppleTV Hacker

Neuros: Love, Openness.. and IIS? (1)

Typoboy (61087) | more than 6 years ago | (#18915763)

Oh yea, and the Neuros website uses 'open' far too many times.

But what's this? http://www.neurosaudio.com/is/spreadtheneuroslove. asp [neurosaudio.com] = "Server: Microsoft-IIS/5.0"

Hmm, an open web server..

Neuros missing the point of AppleTV & Open Sou (1)

argent (18001) | more than 6 years ago | (#18920577)

There are dozens of other small PCs that can do what the AppleTV or Neuros hardware can do, and which can run open source software, and are above all cheaper than either. People whose goal is running open source software above all else aren't generally going to be "Apple TV hackers", but for the ones who are... what is it that Neuros offers them? One thing that hardcore open source people are worried about is finding themselves locked in to a single source. Who else is making embedded set-top boxes with a dual-core ARM9 processors they can go to if Neuros goes casters-up?
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

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