[andydumi]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Suntan /forum/post/19435547


I think this would be a boon for Google. But I question its value for Sony.


More to the point, I disagree with the conclusions brought about in that article. The PS3 can already access the internet, etc. etc. Further, the PSN network already allows for lite game downloads that add a good little coin for Sony. Why would they want to share that revenue with Google in a Google game/app deal?


-Suntan

To those who have tried using the PS3 browser for anything involving flash or other complex plugins, a proper Chrome browser with full support for ALL sites would be enough.


And I don't think they would lose out on the games at all, the games would still be sold on PSN, not an Android market. And the games on PSN are not on the Android Market, they are far too complex and involved and consoke oriented.


What you could get on the Market that you do not get right now at all is apps. And that is where Sony could make a lot of money and split it with Google. Allow a proper SDK that uses the PS3's libraries and you could have all the widgets people have been asking for since launch. Anything from calendaring, to weather, to news, media libraries, instant messaging and so forth.


Using the DLNA and media features of the hardware along with a well written app for media play/manage such as Boxee would sell gangbusters I think. So would a skype app, after all the PS3 already does excellent multiparty video/voice chat.

 

[qoncept]



Quote:
Originally Posted by jakmal /forum/post/19434457


There is no difference in Flash, but there is a difference in the hardware. Flash on the Revue will have the same performance as Flash on a 1.2 GHz Atom net-top with respect to non-H264 video flash content. I am pretty sure knowledgeable consumers are aware that Atom in the primary HTPC is a guaranteed source of frustration.

If this is true, that's pretty disappointing. Which Atom processor is it? A single our dual core 1.2ghz? I thought it was pretty well established that they (the dual core at least) could play basically any content on an HTPC as long as everything was properly configured and using hardware acceleration? Obviously no Atom is capable of decoding 1080p MKVs, but with most of the overhead offloaded to the GPU they do just fine.

 

[qoncept]

Hopefully this isn't considered off-topic, but for those on the fence between Boxee and GTV, there have been some Boxee Box features confirmed, including a few new things that probably weren't expected:


supports full DVD menus either from an ISO or folders

supports playback of BD ISO

Boxee Box acts as a NAS via SMB

Vudu's HD On-Demand Movie Service Arrives on Boxee

http://forums.boxee.tv/showthread.php?t=21263

 

[Suntan]



Quote:
Originally Posted by andydumi /forum/post/19435909


To those who have tried using the PS3 browser for anything involving flash or other complex plugins, a proper Chrome browser with full support for ALL sites would be enough.


And I don't think they would lose out on the games at all, the games would still be sold on PSN, not an Android market. And the games on PSN are not on the Android Market, they are far too complex and involved and consoke oriented.


What you could get on the Market that you do not get right now at all is apps. And that is where Sony could make a lot of money and split it with Google. Allow a proper SDK that uses the PS3's libraries and you could have all the widgets people have been asking for since launch. Anything from calendaring, to weather, to news, media libraries, instant messaging and so forth.


Using the DLNA and media features of the hardware along with a well written app for media play/manage such as Boxee would sell gangbusters I think. So would a skype app, after all the PS3 already does excellent multiparty video/voice chat.

You've pretty much made my point. The PS3 already has a browser. If Sony wanted to give you a "good" browser, they could just mae theirs better. If they wanted to give you "lighter" games, they could already do that too.


If they wanted you to have "apps" ...well the thing had the ability to install and dual boot a full blown Linux OS... Until they forcably took it away from owners. So I don't think they want you to have "apps" either.


As for DLNA, if Sony was interested in you using the PS3 for streaming media, they wouldn't have gimped its native network playback support to begin with.


Anyway, the issue isn't whether or not it would be welcomed by the user. The issue is, what benefit would it be to Sony.


-Suntan

 

[David James]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Suntan /forum/post/19436351


You've pretty much made my point. The PS3 already has a browser. If Sony wanted to give you a "good" browser, they could just mae theirs better. If they wanted to give you "lighter" games, they could already do that too.


If they wanted you to have "apps" ...well the thing had the ability to install and dual boot a full blown Linux OS... Until they forcably took it away from owners. So I don't think they want you to have "apps" either.


As for DLNA, if Sony was interested in you using the PS3 for streaming media, they wouldn't have gimped its native network playback support to begin with.


Anyway, the issue isn't whether or not it would be welcomed by the user. The issue is, what benefit would it be to Sony.


-Suntan

My guess it allows them to say "me too". They want the market to consider the PS3 as another option when buying a piece of hardware to deliver their entertainment. They are now tapping into the market of people who never would consider buying a "gaming system" when they are looking for GTV. Gee Mr. Consumer, you want to spend $299 for the Revue, guess what for just 1/3 more you get that and get a BD player and a gaming console, sure you weren't looking for a gaming console but now you'll have one, just in case.



Could they have produced their on version of GTV? Sure, I suppose, but why when they can just license GTV. Maybe they don't want to be in the browser business or the "lite" games business. In fact partnering with Google may mean they get rid that aspect of the business. Perhaps that makes sense to them from a strategic core business perspective. Especially if they think GTV is going to take off. They want hitch a ride.


Or maybe it was simply Google saying, you want GTV on your TV's - include it on your PS3's as well, it's a package, take it or leave it.

 

[arswhat]



Quote:
Originally Posted by dack70 /forum/post/19434363


As for gaming, I do use the Revue sometimes to play some flash games on Facebook. Unfortunately, it is very sluggish. Not sure why though. The Revue has decent hardware. Are there big differences between Flash on the Revue(Chrome) and Flash on a desktop?

Well, it does to an extend depend on the hardware. I know jakmal keeps saying its a crap chip, but I've been reading elsewhere it's quite capable.

The funny thing is that in Android 2.1 on the phones, the flash implementation was a flash "light" version - it wasn't until 2.2 before they got the full thing.


So the question is if GTV has the latest version of flash, or if we are waiting for an update there as well, and if that will help.

Adobe seem desperate to be relevant, so they might work hard on optimizing Flash execution on Android devices, including the Google TV.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David James /forum/post/19435033


It's been discussed before, but I think the next big shoe might be GTV (with a different name) dropping onto an Intel platform allowing it access to the full suite of PC hardware thus eliminating the constraints imposed by TV's and STB's.

It's been dreamt of (Horatio in your dreams), but never promised by Google - and I don't believe it will ever happen. There isn't that much in the way of interface (as some people have loudly been complaining about), its an Android platform in the TV - it will grow and bloom when people (like, say Boxee) start making apps for it.


Would you want to run Android on your computer? You could download it now and start doing the necessary porting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by qoncept /forum/post/19435945


Hopefully this isn't considered off-topic, but for those on the fence between Boxee and GTV, there have been some Boxee Box features confirmed, including a few new things that probably weren't expected:


supports full DVD menus either from an ISO or folders

supports playback of BD ISO

Boxee Box acts as a NAS via SMB

Vudu's HD On-Demand Movie Service Arrives on Boxee

Btw the Boxee Box uses the same chip as Google TV.

 

[jakmal]



Quote:
Originally Posted by arswhat /forum/post/19437335


Well, it does to an extend depend on the hardware. I know jakmal keeps saying its a crap chip, but I've been reading elsewhere it's quite capable.

....

Btw the Boxee Box uses the same chip as Google TV.

I never said it is a 'crap' chip

Any chip can be termed as 'crap' if it is being used for the wrong purpose. What Google is doing with the Google TV is making people think that they have a very powerful HTPC connected to the TV. Yes, the devices do have smart integration between TV and web content, but, in order to deliver the full web experience that people want, I have to say that the CE4100 is 'crap'. It will be the same experience as provided by a nettop with a single core Atom. If the CE4100 is going to be used to deliver the 'full web experience', I am sorry to say, it will be a shadow of the experience that people can get by attaching, say, their notebooks to the TV (Note, I am only talking about 'full web experience' and not the integration of broadcast content with the web).


And, as you note at the end of your post, the Boxee Box uses the same chip. Personally, I think that is a good application where the CE4100 can stand out. The CE4100's strengths lie in video decoding, audio decoding, DRM processing and other such things. Boxee Box taps into the strengths of the platform. Google TV devices, on the other hand, are being marketed in such a way as to 'hype up' the things which the CE4100 is not good at (online web experience).


I think the CE4100 in a Boxee Box type product is better than the CE4100 in a Logitech Revue type product, but that is just my opinion.

 

[David James]



Quote:
Originally Posted by jakmal /forum/post/19437399


What Google is doing with the Google TV is making people think that they have a very powerful HTPC connected to the TV.

Can you provide a link to where Google makes the claim a (or any) GTV is a "very powerful HTPC"?


Thanks.

 

[jakmal]



Quote:
Originally Posted by David James /forum/post/19437453


Can you provide a link to where Google makes the claim a (or any) GTV is a "very powerful HTPC"?


Thanks.

The key words in my statement were: making people think ; I never said that Google made a claim.


Allow me to explain: Take the average AVSForum member. Give him a 'set top box' (in this case, Logitech Revue), tell him it is powered by Intel, put a keyboard in front of him, and encourage him to access and search the web, and utilize the web browser. Eventually, he will start to do things which he would do on a HTPC. Case in point is our friend dack70 who has started out playing some Flash game on Facebook.


Heavy web browsing needs a moderately powerful 'HTPC', not an anaemic single core Atom at 1.2 GHz. OK, I do agree that 'very powerful' may have been exaggerating things a little, but you get my drift...

Edit: "powerful HTPC" can also be taken to mean "ordinary HTPC" + "extra functionality like HDMI input processing / switching etc."

 

[arswhat]



Quote:
Originally Posted by jakmal /forum/post/19437399


I never said it is a 'crap' chip

No, it just sounds like you mean that

Quote:
Originally Posted by jakmal /forum/post/19437399


Any chip can be termed as 'crap' if it is being used for the wrong purpose. What Google is doing with the Google TV is making people think that they have a very powerful HTPC connected to the TV. Yes, the devices do have smart integration between TV and web content, but, in order to deliver the full web experience that people want, I have to say that the CE4100 is 'crap'. It will be the same experience as provided by a nettop with a single core Atom. If the CE4100 is going to be used to deliver the 'full web experience', I am sorry to say, it will be a shadow of the experience that people can get by attaching, say, their notebooks to the TV (Note, I am only talking about 'full web experience' and not the integration of broadcast content with the web).

Well "full web experience" is a somewhat fuzzy concept. Also I have no real notion of what a 'real' HTPC should be able to do.

I would expect that flash found on webpages would generally run smoothly, though I wouldn't want to play games on a Google TV I would expect all media embedding and serving to work.


But do I understand you correctly, that you say it will be fine at media playback (of supported types), including media on the web - but that it might struggle with other aspects, such as flash and javascript?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jakmal /forum/post/19437399



And, as you note at the end of your post, the Boxee Box uses the same chip. Personally, I think that is a good application where the CE4100 can stand out. The CE4100's strengths lie in video decoding, audio decoding, DRM processing and other such things. Boxee Box taps into the strengths of the platform. Google TV devices, on the other hand, are being marketed in such a way as to 'hype up' the things which the CE4100 is not good at (online web experience).


I think the CE4100 in a Boxee Box type product is better than the CE4100 in a Logitech Revue type product, but that is just my opinion.

But Dlink are making the same claims for the Boxee Box, that you can watch the whole internet. That their webbrowser is like IE and "if you can watch it on your computer's internet browser you can watch it on the Boxee Box, only better".

It seems it does what Google TV - except run Android.

 

[jakmal]



Quote:
Originally Posted by arswhat /forum/post/19437878


I would expect that flash found on webpages would generally run smoothly, though I wouldn't want to play games on a Google TV I would expect all media embedding and serving to work.


But do I understand you correctly, that you say it will be fine at media playback (of supported types), including media on the web - but that it might struggle with other aspects, such as flash and javascript?

Flash content with videos coded in VP6 will probably have same performance as that on a woefully underpowered nettop. And, yes, other Flash content and Javascript performance will also have the same issue. Only H264 videos will be decoded in hardware. All other stuff will be the prerogative of the 1.2 GHz single core Atom.

Quote:
But Dlink are making the same claims for the Boxee Box, that you can watch the whole internet. That their webbrowser is like IE and "if you can watch it on your computer's internet browser you can watch it on the Boxee Box, only better".

It seems it does what Google TV - except run Android.

I think they are deliberately underplaying their browser. Their home page for Boxee Box indicates 'TV shows, movies, apps and more'. And any mention of Internet is qualified with 'web video'. No concept of promoting Internet searches. And actually they are bundling most of the web video into apps, so you actually need to use the web browser only occasionally.


On top of that, I hope you are following the Boxee Box thread where elisemory, a Boxee employee, answers technical queries related to the requirements of AV enthusiasts. As I said before, these AV enthusiasts are the ones who can be served well with the CE4100, not the general Internet crowd. Boxee Box looks like it can be a perfect local media streamer, and also encapsulate web video in a format which will shield the users from the shortcomings of the host processor (with respect to browsing)

 

[romper]

Gee Guys, what are you expecting? If GTV was going to do everything your HTPC would do, it would look as big, ugly and with wires everywhere like HTPC's do now.

 

[dack70]

@jakmal,


I see your point,... kind of. Web browsing on GTV is certainly not as fast and rich as web browsing on my desktop (or a HTPC). However, I wasn't expecting it to be. I played around with some flash games for fun, but that is not something I expect to do often. I am VERY pleased with the web surfing experience on GTV so far. It is very complimentary to my overall video/media/tv watching experience. I have had no problems watching flash videos using Chrome on GTV so far either. As a matter of fact, I just got done watching some video game reviews in HD on Gamespot's website, and now I'm typing this post, all from my GTV.

 

[jakmal]



Quote:
Originally Posted by dack70 /forum/post/19438137


@jakmal,


I see your point,... kind of. Web browsing on GTV is certainly not as fast and rich as web browsing on my desktop (or a HTPC). However, I wasn't expecting it to be. I played around with some flash games for fun, but that is not something I expect to do often. I am VERY pleased with the web surfing experience on GTV so far. It is very complimentary to my overall video/media/tv watching experience. I have had no problems watching flash videos using Chrome on GTV so far either. As a matter of fact, I just got done watching some video game reviews in HD on Gamespot's website, and now I'm typing this post, all from my GTV.

As long as you feel you are getting your money's worth with the device, that is all that matters

 

[jm9843]



Quote:
Originally Posted by jakmal /forum/post/19437524


Allow me to explain: Take the average AVSForum member. Give him a 'set top box' (in this case, Logitech Revue), tell him it is powered by Intel, put a keyboard in front of him, and encourage him to access and search the web, and utilize the web browser. Eventually, he will start to do things which he would do on a HTPC. Case in point is our friend dack70 who has started out playing some Flash game on Facebook.


Heavy web browsing needs a moderately powerful 'HTPC', not an anaemic single core Atom at 1.2 GHz. OK, I do agree that 'very powerful' may have been exaggerating things a little, but you get my drift...

Rishi Chandra (Google TV product lead) recently commented in the neighborhood of this and I thought it interesting. He basically drew parallels between what they are setting out to accomplish with web on the TV with how Apple spurred on "Web optimized for mobile" with the iPhone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rishi Chandra /forum/post/0


You need to bring all of the content onto the TV today, even if it's not optimized. Read the article .

The idea being that sites will be increasingly optimized specifically for Google TV as the platform grows. And this would apply not just with Google TV but any Smart TV platform that ships with a capable browser. In this regard, I think that Google did the right thing by focusing on shipping a browser that is compatible with today's Web more than on shipping hardware with specs capable of rendering today's Web with HTPC-like aplomb.

 

[jakmal]



Quote:
Originally Posted by jm9843 /forum/post/19438184


Rishi Chandra (Google TV product lead) recently commented in the neighborhood of this and I thought it interesting. He basically drew parallels between what they are setting out to accomplish with web on the TV with how Apple spurred on "Web optimized for mobile" with the iPhone.


The idea being that sites will be increasingly optimized specifically for Google TV as the platform grows. And this would apply not just with Google TV but any Smart TV platform that ships with a capable browser. In this regard, I think that Google did the right thing by focusing on shipping a browser that is compatible with today's Web more than on shipping hardware with specs capable of rendering today's Web with HTPC-like aplomb.

Very interesting piece. However, I think there is a fundamental difference in the expectations that people have when browsing with a mobile device such as an iPhone and browsing in front of a large screen TV with a keyboard in front.


Any optimization that the web does for Google TV is just going to be in terms of how the data is presented for easy consumption on a big screen at 6 - 10 ft distance. (Maybe packaging into apps like what Boxee is doing with Boxee Box). The mobile web is quite different. It involves simplification in terms of the web page complexity, which makes it easier for the core processor in the smartphones.


Google took the risk in introducing Google TV with a platform not completely suited for this purpose / making it easy for customers to test the limits of the platform. One can defend it for being innovative / doing correct thing by bringing all content to the TV from the web etc., but the real world reception amongst almost all reviewers in the press / end users is pretty lukewarm, at best.


Powerful enough hardware to make 'Smart TV' an enjoyable experience for all is still 2 - 3 years away.

 

[David James]



Quote:
Originally Posted by jakmal /forum/post/19437524


The key words in my statement were: making people think ; I never said that Google made a claim.

Huh, then please provide a link to where Google is "making people think". How does a company make people think? There must be a trail somewhere other then...

Quote:
Originally Posted by jakmal /forum/post/19437524


Allow me to explain: Take the average AVSForum member. Give him a 'set top box' (in this case, Logitech Revue), tell him it is powered by Intel, put a keyboard in front of him, and encourage him to access and search the web, and utilize the web browser. Eventually, he will start to do things which he would do on a HTPC. Case in point is our friend dack70 who has started out playing some Flash game on Facebook.


Heavy web browsing needs a moderately powerful 'HTPC', not an anaemic single core Atom at 1.2 GHz. OK, I do agree that 'very powerful' may have been exaggerating things a little, but you get my drift...

um, no, stop projecting please. I'm an average AVSForum member and have been for about 10 years. Not in my wildest imagination did I think GTV would be a gaming box, a high powered browser or an HTPC, much less a powerful one. Why did I have those crazy ideas. Because I don't believe everything I read on forums like this nor on geek sites. I look at the product literature and form my beliefs. I don't read between the lines and won't hold anyone accountable for things they don't say. Now, should you find GTV doc which says it's a HTPC or a high powered web browser or good for gaming, I'll be happy to retract my comments and join you and the others complaining GTV is not delivering what they say they are.

 

[jakmal]



Quote:
Originally Posted by David James /forum/post/19438369


Huh, then please provide a link to where Google is "making people think". How does a company make people think? There must be a trail somewhere other then...

um, no, stop projecting please. I'm an average AVSForum member and have been for about 10 years. Not in my wildest imagination did I think GTV would be a gaming box, a high powered browser or an HTPC, much less a powerful one. Why did I have those crazy ideas. Because I don't believe everything I read on forums like this nor on geek sites. I look at the product literature and form my beliefs. I don't read between the lines and won't hold anyone accountable for things they don't say. Now, should you find GTV doc which says it's a HTPC or a high powered web browser or good for gaming, I'll be happy to retract my comments and join you and the others complaining GTV is not delivering what they say they are.

You conveniently left out the 'edit' I had in the original post where I indicated that 'powerful' was in the sense that it added some functionality which can't be had in usual HTPCs. It wasn't in terms of being a great gaming box or high powered browser. I still stand by my statement that the Google TV platform is not good enough for browsing in terms of what the average consumer (AVSForum member or not) would expect from a box with a keyboard in front. And it looks like I am not the only one making the statement

As I always say, if you are happy with the product, it is great for you! Our intent is to point out what could be done to make the product better, what are the usage scenarios in which a product will not be able to live up to expectations, how common those scenarios are and so on.


Another thing that I want to emphasize is that GoogleTV disables / doesn't make full use of many of the core features which make the CE4100 great. On the other hand, more time is spent by consumers in making use of the features for which CE4100 is not that efficient. In the end, Google TV remains a gadget that could have been.. By the time any firmware updates come to make it live up to its full potential, it will be time for the next generation product. Hopefully, Google proves me wrong.

 

[babgvant]



Quote:
Originally Posted by jm9843 /forum/post/19438184


Rishi Chandra (Google TV product lead) recently commented in the neighborhood of this and I thought it interesting. He basically drew parallels between what they are setting out to accomplish with web on the TV with how Apple spurred on "Web optimized for mobile" with the iPhone.

There are parallels with the HTPC market (Window Mobile = HTPC

), but I think the problem with this approach is that the iPhone entered an established market where most consumers already had a device and could see the value in their existing phone and music player. The iPhone didn't have to create a new market, it just made the "smart phone" accessible to normal people. So I'm not convinced that Google can make space for GTV in enough living rooms to generate significant demand for a Web optimized for TV.


That said, I do think that GTVs could have a path to success through CE devices like Sony's TV and BD player (note this is not a comment on Sony's execution of these devices, just that for me it is the more interesting approach) by putting extra value in a device that consumers plan to buy anyway.

 

[dack70]



Quote:
Originally Posted by jakmal /forum/post/19438146


As long as you feel you are getting your money's worth with the device, that is all that matters

Now money is a different matter. I've always said that the Revue was priced too high. After spending more time with the Revue, my opinion on this has not changed. I'm certainly enjoying my GTV, and I don't regret buying it at all. However, it feels more like a $149 device, rather than a $299 device. The comments about it being a half-baked product are partly true, but I would say it's more like a 3/4 baked product, but the oven comes with it and it will become fully baked in 2011. I think my biggest surprise is that people who are tech fans and spend time in these forums aren't more receptive to GTV. GTV is an early adopter product. Like any new and groundbreaking technology, early adopters pay more for it, it improves, the prices come down, and then mainstream folks buy it. I've been an early adopter for a while now, and this product is as good or even better than any other product I've paid a lot of money for.