AVS Forum banner

1001 - 1020 of 1827 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
617 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by jakmal /forum/post/19437956


Only H264 videos will be decoded in hardware. All other stuff will be the prerogative of the 1.2 GHz single core Atom.

And WM9, Mpeg2 and the other format it supports in hardware.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jakmal /forum/post/19437956


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.

What I gave you was a quote from their site:

if you can watch it on your computer's internet browser you can watch it on the Boxee Box, only better.



You don't seem quite objective about this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jakmal /forum/post/19437956


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.

Well I wasn't since I hadn't give the Boxee Box any serious consideration previously. I think it looks ugly and appears to take up unnecessary space, and I don't like that you must make an account to use it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jakmal /forum/post/19437956


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)

Well, you have shown yourself to be a Boxee fan, but not to explain to me why it should be better than Google TV. Same chip, doesn't have Android.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,822 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by arswhat /forum/post/19439738


Well, you have shown yourself to be a Boxee fan, but not to explain to me why it should be better than Google TV. Same chip, doesn't have Android.

Depending on exactly what your needs are comparing GoogleTV to Boxee is like comparing Apples to Oranges...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by dack70 /forum/post/19439315


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.

Right On! I'm an Early Adopter of this product and realize the risks/rewards as such. I've been on this forum for days now and I'm enjoying all the constructive criticism, as well as the positive comments. AND, I'm really enjoying my Revue! But all the bickering back and forth is getting tedious.


If you really HATE the product that's fine and is your right, but please leave. If you have something constructive to add or suggest, and are interested in advancing the technology, bring it on!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,879 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by arswhat /forum/post/0


I don't like that you must make an account to use it.

That's funny, because I remember having to put in a Google account on my Revue....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
617 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by jakmal /forum/post/19438279


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.,

Seems to me a lot of them were sniffy because they expected the device to be something nobody ever said it was going to be.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jakmal /forum/post/19438279


but the real world reception amongst almost all reviewers in the press / end users is pretty lukewarm, at best.

I seem to remember many end users in this thread who said they were happy about it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,334 Posts
Personally, I'm displeased with it because I expected more from Google. For the amount of buzz they were trying to generate, I expected something with more polish and more universal use from the start.


As for you guys carping about the naysayers around here and that you wish would leave. Why keep bringing it up? If you want this thread to clean up and get back to talking about the tech, why constantly keep circling back and commenting about people with negative attitudes about it, then giving your own assumptions about their motives? Seriously, you guys are being disingenuous with your comments.


Anyway, maybe if you would start talking about something interesting, or technically relevant about the different google boxes, maybe this thread would start gaining traction and become something more along the lines of what you say you want to talk about. If you guys would progress on from claiming how stoked you are about being able to post forum posts on your TV and that then inferring that people who aren't jazzed about that should leave, maybe we could make some progress here (Jeez, I don't think I've even seen anyone mention if they have run any REC709 tests or anything like that.) Instead all you're doing is prolonging the bickering by constantly beating a dead horse... The choice is yours.


-Suntan
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,060 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by arswhat /forum/post/19439738


And WM9, Mpeg2 and the other format it supports in hardware.

The post you were quoting was in reference to Flash video, and last time I checked, the only codec used in Flash that can be accelerated by the CE4100 hardware is H264. WM9 and MPEG2 aren't used in Flash videos.

Quote:
What I gave you was a quote from their site:

if you can watch it on your computer's internet browser you can watch it on the Boxee Box, only better.



You don't seem quite objective about this.

I am not saying that Boxee Box doesn't proclaim its Internet capabilities. In fact, the core Internet capabilities can become as good as the Google TV boxes. However, Boxee is also concentrating on the core strengths of the CE4100 by developing a media player solution (which is actually one of the 2 main applications of the CE4100 -- If you look at Intel's marketing slides, it pitches the chip for IP set top boxes and Blu-Ray players).


As for objectivity, I take a look at the base platform (in this case, the CE4100), what the companies are trying to develop on top of it (in case of Boxee Box, a media player -- local and internet, while in case of Google TV, it is primarily delivering a web experience on the TV) and try to analyze whether it can be really effective. In the case of who is using the CE4100 platform better, I believe Boxee / D-Link have a stronger case. Not sure where there is a lack of objectivity when the facts I am considering are clearly presented.

Quote:
Well I wasn't since I hadn't give the Boxee Box any serious consideration previously. I think it looks ugly and appears to take up unnecessary space, and I don't like that you must make an account to use it.

Industrial design is a different thing altogether. My analysis doesn't consider that.

Quote:
Well, you have shown yourself to be a Boxee fan, but not to explain to me why it should be better than Google TV. Same chip, doesn't have Android.

For what it is worth, it might interest you to know that I don't even have a Boxee account. As I said before in this very post, I just try to look at whether the end-goals of a product tie in properly with the capabilities of the platform. Yes, Intel is pitching 'Smart TV', but I don't think CE 4100 is ready to make that vision mainstream.


I don't have anything against Google TV as a platform. I just think Google TV on CE 4100 will not be the experience an average consumer will enjoy (again, just look at all the press reviews). What I would have liked Google to do was to pitch Google TV as a downloadable 'OS' which can be tried out on a HTPC. Of course, for certain functions, an add-on card of sorts (maybe PCI-E or something) would have been necessary. Given that Google keeps their products in beta for a long time, I think they should have done an extensive beta for this too. And the fact that the Google TV would have been running on a PC, the quality of the experience would have only been limited by the capabilities of the HTPC's processor.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
223 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by madpoet /forum/post/19439813


That's funny, because I remember having to put in a Google account on my Revue....

That's true but, unlike Boxee, many users won't have to register a Google account for the express purpose of using Google TV. That is, if they are one of the millions of people who already have a Google account that they've registered for another service. Gmail comes to mind.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,956 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by jakmal /forum/post/19438469


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.

Responded via PM so as not to take this thread off course.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,956 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suntan /forum/post/19439974


As for you guys carping about the naysayers around here and that you wish would leave.

I welcome all opinions, good and bad about the product. What I find less then helpful are those that complain about the product based on what they thought/hoped it would be as opposed to what's advertised.


Of course they are welcome to continue, but shouldn't be surprised if people complain about it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,334 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by David James /forum/post/19440415


I welcome all opinions, good and bad about the product. What I find less then helpful are those that complain about the product based on what they thought/hoped it would be as opposed to what's advertised.


Of course they are welcome to continue, but shouldn't be surprised if people complain about it.

And I find posts that endlessly harp on the notion that only people who think similar to them should be allowed to post in a thread to be tiresome.


So a guy can have an opossing view from yours, but only if that oposing view is one that you find acceptable? That's not how it works.


That said, I like how you took a technical discussion about the merits of the chipset and its applicablity to the intended function of the device "offline," but you are still content to bicker on the notion of allowing people that have a different view than yours. A shame. perhaps if you had posted that view, instead of this post, we'd actually be talking tech right now, instead of continuing to bicker. Like I said, It's your choice.


-Suntan
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
384 Posts
Well, I've read this thread in it's entirety and with due apologies to Rogo I've decided that GoggleTV in it's present development is something I can do without. This is not to say that I won't decide to buy in at some future point.


I do think that it's going to continually improve, and with the amount of horsepower behind it it's bound to succeed in becoming a fixture of most American living rooms within five or so years.


It's called "GoogleTV" but I watched the developer's introductory seminar as I'm sure many of you all did. The CEO's of Google, of Sony, of Intel, of BestBuy, of Logitech, and of DishNetwork (did I forget any?..Sorry) were all onstage in a group participatory intro of the concept and the products. With that gang and the amount of money backing this effort I think that we may as well consider integrated TV/Internet to be inevitable, and this effort will be the dominant product approach that couples internet and TV land for Ma and Pa and the kids all over the country. The handwriting is on the wall for any naysayers to read.


But for now I just don't need it. I've got good computers throughout my house and my primary location has my good IPS screen with a Samsung TV/monitor alongside.


The Samsung is a pretty good monitor and a pretty good TV. It's connected to both my satellite TV feed and my video card. Using windows dual monitor setup I can feed it net programming even while using it as a second screen for photo editing with Adobe software. I can run windows accross my visual field and still have the poly shows (I'm unfortunately a political junkie) running at half screen in live TV. It works for me and this Google TV thing seems too glitchy and too, well, silly for me now.


Just my opinion...Thanks all!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
617 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by madpoet
That's funny, because I remember having to put in a Google account on my Revue....
What's funny?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jakmal
The post you were quoting was in reference to Flash video, and last time I checked, the only codec used in Flash that can be accelerated by the CE4100 hardware is H264. WM9 and MPEG2 aren't used in Flash videos.
As I recall he said flash was sluggish in games - games generally don't use any video at all. And I thought Flash could be used as a container for any codec. Could be wrong though.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jakmal
I am not saying that Boxee Box doesn't proclaim its Internet capabilities.
Really, I thought that was exactly what you were doing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jakmal
In fact, the core Internet capabilities can become as good as the Google TV boxes.
Ie: Bad? ;-)

Quote:
Originally Posted by jakmal
However, Boxee is also concentrating on the core strengths of the CE4100 by developing a media player solution (which is actually one of the 2 main applications of the CE4100 -- If you look at Intel's marketing slides, it pitches the chip for IP set top boxes and Blu-Ray players).
Yes indeed. And having read more about the Boxee now, it appears they are quite specifically trying to build a good media streamer for now (as opposed to a platform for the future).


And scanning the Boxee thread (where i see you taking potshots at the Google TV btw ;-) ) I see a developer is very active in answering , which is a very strong selling point as far as I am concerned (as opposed to the dismal "support" of Western Digital - or Google for that matter), however I see elsewhere that the software seems to report back all that you watch, and that is very dubious behavior which loses points. How bad will remain to be seen, the rest of the abilities look good on paper.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jakmal
Industrial design is a different thing altogether. My analysis doesn't consider that.
I know, I was telling you what I thought.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jakmal
As I said before in this very post, I just try to look at whether the end-goals of a product tie in properly with the capabilities of the platform.
A noble ambition



Quote:
Originally Posted by jakmal
What I would have liked Google to do was to pitch Google TV as a downloadable 'OS' which can be tried out on a HTPC.
Won't you essentially be able to do that once the Google TV fork is opened up next year? (I mean you can emulate Android phones on the PC - not sure why you would though, but still
)


Quote:
Originally Posted by jakmal
Given that Google keeps their products in beta for a long time, I think they should have done an extensive beta for this too.
But this is the beta!
That's what Google always does. In fact you'll notice may reviewers also says, give it two years like with the mobile phones and it will be a real killer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jakmal
And the fact that the Google TV would have been running on a PC, the quality of the experience would have only been limited by the capabilities of the HTPC's processor.
Well a lot of it runs server side with Google search, but the rest of the point is that its Android - if you were going to run it on PC you would have to have people install an Android emulator to run it.


In fact this has me wondering about Boxees "apps" - how can they run on the Box and on a PC - is it just a kind of superficial scripting they call apps? Hm.. I must investigate this further I think.


Quote:
Originally Posted by krs
It's called "GoogleTV" but I watched the developer's introductory seminar as I'm sure many of you all did. The CEO's of Google, of Sony, of Intel, of BestBuy, of Logitech, and of DishNetwork (did I forget any?..Sorry)
Yes, Adobes CEO


Quote:
Originally Posted by krs
With that gang and the amount of money backing this effort I think that we may as well consider integrated TV/Internet to be inevitable, and this effort will be the dominant product approach that couples internet and TV land for Ma and Pa and the kids all over the country. The handwriting is on the wall for any naysayers to read.
I think this has greater potential for long term survival than "3D" - but who knows.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,956 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suntan
And I find posts that endlessly harp on the notion that only people who think similar to them should be allowed to post in a thread to be tiresome.


So a guy can have an opossing view from yours, but only if that oposing view is one that you find acceptable? That's not how it works.
I'll drop out because we clearly have a communication issue because what you just said bares no relation to what I said. I'll take the blame and back out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suntan
That said, I like how you took a technical discussion about the merits of the chipset and its applicablity to the intended function of the device "offline," but you are still content to bicker on the notion of allowing people that have a different view than yours. A shame. perhaps if you had posted that view, instead of this post, we'd actually be talking tech right now, instead of continuing to bicker. Like I said, It's your choice.
What I took offline was a response to what I took as attack on my integrity, not something that should be pursed in public and yes, that was my choice.


So basically, your entire quote is based on you guessing, and being 100% wrong!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,879 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by arswhat
What's funny?
You complained about having to create a Boxee account when you had to do the same for this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,334 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by David James
I'll drop out because we clearly have a communication issue because what you just said bares no relation to what I said. I'll take the blame and back out...



...So basically, your entire quote is based on you guessing, and being 100% wrong!
In other words, “I’ll take the high road... ...but not before getting one last pot-shot in.”


Jakmal laid out the technical reasons that make up his opinion about the topic, and you consider that a personal attack on you. I don't get it.


And yet, still no discussion about the technical merits of any of these players in the last umpteen posts from you.


Out of curiosity, has anyone checked to see if the Logitech box passes BTB/WTW properly?


-Suntan
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,060 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by arswhat
As I recall he said flash was sluggish in games - games generally don't use any video at all. And I thought Flash could be used as a container for any codec. Could be wrong though.
For the average consumer, 'hardware acceleration for Flash' may lead to the misconception that games can also be accelerated. But, we, here at AVSForums, know that the acceleration is only for H264 video. This is a puiblic perception which needs to be fixed. As for Flash videos, the only supported video codecs in the FLV container are: Sorensen Spark, On2 VP6 and H264. (Refer FLV specifications which is available for free download from Adobe).

Quote:
Really, I thought that was exactly what you were doing.
As for Boxee proclaiming / not proclaiming Internet capabilitiies, my intent was to suggest that they are downplaying the web browsing part and promoting their core strength / strength of the CE4100 more.

Quote:
Ie: Bad? ;-)
With reference to Internet capability : Just ask yourself the question : For non-H264 web content, would you be happy with a 1.2 GHz single core Atom nettop for browsing the web? If so, you will definitely be satisfied with the GTV devices. But, it looks like many consumers want something more because of the way the GTV was positioned in the market (hype and 'web experience to TV' and so on).


Quote:
however I see elsewhere that the software seems to report back all that you watch, and that is very dubious behavior which loses points. How bad will remain to be seen, the rest of the abilities look good on paper.
I believe the device needs to be connected only for the initial setup, and after that, it can operate without connecting to the Internet and be only on the local network. This is what makes the device interesting. For GTV, the local capabilities are rudimentary (because Google didn't take the efforts to work on something which wouldn't get the user on to the web.).


As for the software reporting what you watch, I agree it doesn't look good. Actually, I am not a big fan of the 'social aspect' that Boxee promotes, but more interested in just the UI and actual media capabilities / sprinkling of access to online content. That said, Google is also no saint in this matter. I am sure your GTV browsing will be safely recorded into your account activity
(I am actually a big fan of many Google products, and personally don't mind them 'prying' in once in a while with respect to results for my search queries etc., but that is going a bit off-topic)


Quote:
Won't you essentially be able to do that once the Google TV fork is opened up next year? (I mean you can emulate Android phones on the PC - not sure why you would though, but still
)
This will not be the full Google TV experience, because many of the features are tied to the CE4100 platform. I had said this before in one of my initial posts in this thread.. the open sourcing will be similar to the open sourcing of the Linux code for a streamer like the WDTV. Yes, it is there, and the developers can take it and tweak it, but only to a certain extent (similar to what is being done by b-rad for WDTV)


Quote:
But this is the beta!
That's what Google always does. In fact you'll notice may reviewers also says, give it two years like with the mobile phones and it will be a real killer.
As an end-consumer, I don't want to invest $300 in a beta product
Prefer the free beta offerings that Google provides me :p


Quote:
Well a lot of it runs server side with Google search, but the rest of the point is that its Android - if you were going to run it on PC you would have to have people install an Android emulator to run it.
Not necessarily
They can have a 'Live CD' or 'USB stick' boot and run GTV as a separate OS. GTV is already Android compiled for x86 platform, so it should run OK on any HTPC. Just that some 'accelerated functionality for video decoding' has to be rewritten for the appropriate GPU in the HTPC, and the 'HDMI input' tracking will need to be on an add-on card (at least for beta purposes for the first 2 - 3 years, till the SoC host processors can actually challenge the notebook / low end desktop (not nettop) processors)

Quote:
In fact this has me wondering about Boxees "apps" - how can they run on the Box and on a PC - is it just a kind of superficial scripting they call apps? Hm.. I must investigate this further I think.
No app developer myself, but I would think you are right about it being superficial scripting, accessing the core content and presenting it in a manner consistent with the product's UI.

Quote:
I think this has greater potential for long term survival than "3D" - but who knows.
Yes, interesting concept, but Google really had the chance to revolutionize the HTPC space, but gadgets like the Revue are hardly ready for prime time. 2 - 3 years and better SoCs should help. And don't get me started on 3D
I just hope the fad dies out (but it appears that the marketing dollars put into 3D is much more than what is being put into GTV).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,060 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suntan
In other words, I'll take the high road... ...but not before getting one last pot-shot in.


Jakmal laid out the technical reasons that make up his opinion about the topic, and you consider that a personal attack on you. I don't get it.


And yet, still no discussion about the technical merits of any of these players in the last umpteen posts from you.


Out of curiosity, has anyone checked to see if the Logitech box passes BTB/WTW properly?


-Suntan
David James considered my usage of the word 'Conveniently forgot' to be a personal attack on his integrity. He indicated that he had started quoting my post in his reply before I made the edit. If that is the case, I wish everyone to consider 'conveniently forgot' replaced with 'Please do refer to the edit I made to clarify on what I meant by a 'powerful' HTPC', and I apologize for the remark.


I had initially put in 'conveniently forgot' because the edit I made was at 4:30 PM PST, while David's post was around 7:30 PM PST, and I thought 3 hours is a pretty long time to keep the message in the quote window. Of course, it is not entirely unlikely, so let us consider that matter closed.


As for the rest of David's points, he indicated that I needed to do more research on what Google was putting out as the specs of the GTV, and shouldn't post without making sure that what I am writing here is factually correct or not.


I believe I may not be conveying my points across effectively. All along, I have stressed the fact that a majority of the consumers and press people are getting a different perception (this is what I meant by 'leading to think') of the capabilities of GTV. It may be a fault of Google's marketing OR it may be just that the appearance and positioning of the device in the living room of a techie consumer is that of a HTPC replacement.


In the long run, a product's success is decided by:
  • what people perceive it to be
  • what people want it to do
  • whether the product can do it

The question Google and Logitech / Sony need to ask themselves is whether they are going in the correct direction with respect to the above three points.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
96 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by jakmal /forum/post/19437956


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.

This is where people start to get confused over what a chip is and what an entire platform is. Someone before said that the "Revue has the same chip as the Boxee Box," which is true. What wasn't mentioned is that it has the same (Atom) chip as your netbook computer.


What the Boxee Box, Revue and some Atom-based nettops ALSO have, though, is a capable GPU. Configured correctly, they'll all play any Flash content, any streams and 1080p movies just fine. I didn't try Flash on the GTV, but I assume it runs just fine. (v10.1 is required for hardware acceleration)


Sure, an Atom 1.2ghz is slow, but the work is offloaded to the GPU which handles it just fine. "Woefully underpowered," therefore, means "adequately and not over powered."


Edit: I think I misread your original post; here are my new remarks (slightly rehashed):

-Flash 10.1 supports hardware decoding

-Chrome was created from the ground up to run Javascript faster, and all evidence suggests they succeeded

-Most streaming will use Flash and, if not, most likely have an optimized app for GTV at some point in the future. Any content provider that doesn't has probably also decided to block GTV
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,060 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by qoncept /forum/post/19442355


Edit: I think I misread your original post; here are my new remarks (slightly rehashed):

-Flash 10.1 supports hardware decoding

-Chrome was created from the ground up to run Javascript faster, and all evidence suggests they succeeded

-Most streaming will use Flash and, if not, most likely have an optimized app for GTV at some point in the future. Any content provider that doesn't has probably also decided to block GTV

qoncept,


Your first 2 points are correct for PC platforms. Flash 10.1 is a moniker for the PC version of Flash which is able to use the GPU for playing back videos better. I am quite sure that the Flash in Google TV is a custom build for the Android OS on x86, and I also believe it has custom code to interact with the hardware decoder block in the CE4100.


Yes, Chrome can run Javascript faster. You will get same performance from Chrome on GTV as the Chrome on a 1.2 GHz first generation nettop with respect to Javascript.


Any Flash site using H264 will be OK for GTV with CE4100. Any Flash site using VP6 (there are many legacy videos on many sites) or Sorensen Spark (not that common any more) is not going to be a good experience on GTV. Sites can make themselves GTV friendly, but just those sites are not going to bring the 'full web experience' that Google has been promoting.
 
1001 - 1020 of 1827 Posts
Top