The next GoogleTV?

[wayner]

Originally Posted by lfilomeno

+1. No need to upgrade to a TV with Google\SageTV in it! A small, unobstrusive box that can be placed behind the LCD screen and can be networked with other clients should be the way to go.

And in two years, when the techonology has advanced another generation, you just replace the box for $100 or so rather than the entire TV.

[cobrew]

Originally Posted by wayner

And in two years, when the techonology has advanced another generation, you just replace the box for $100 or so rather than the entire TV.

I agree. I don't want to buy a TV just b/c it has google tv built in. However.... keep in mind that google will design anything like this so the TVs will be upgraded to the latest software much like android without having to purchase a new tv .

[drewg]

Originally Posted by cobrew

I agree. I don't want to buy a TV just b/c it has google tv built in. However.... keep in mind that google will design anything like this so the TVs will be upgraded to the latest software much like android without having to purchase a new tv .

If they do this, I really hope they do a better job with updates than they did with android. Right now, there are lots of people stuck on old android versions because the phone makers would rather sell them a new phone than put any effort into supporting last year's model. Getting a new phone every few years is almost reasonable, but people keep TVs 15 or 20 years..

Drew

[Fonceur]

Originally Posted by Grant

How hard would it be to write a SageTV App for Google TV?

Well, once Google opens The Market on it, technically TaSageTV should be able to do it... The main issue is that streaming sucks on Android, so until they get some better support for it...

[Monedeath]

Originally Posted by lfilomeno

+1. No need to upgrade to a TV with Google\SageTV in it! A small, unobstrusive box that can be placed behind the LCD screen and can be networked with other clients should be the way to go.

In my "ideal world" boxes external to the TV that are normally used as part of the TV would have the option to either be a client, or a service.

So if I have a GoogleTV with a GoogleTV capable BluRay player, I can control the BluRay through the TV set with the player acting as a service while the TV plays client.

Alternately, if I have a standard TV with no bells and no whistles, I could comparably plug in the "GoogleTV capable" BluRay Player(or other device) and have it perform the task of being the "client" for that TV.

Still, the ultimate goal remains: getting the client embedded in the TV set. The challenge at that point is "future proofing" the set to some degree, but I think that answer is simple, as long as set continue to allow pass-through video feeds(you buy an external box for the "latest ad greatest" if you must have that).

[SomeWhatLost]

I really would not want any GoogleTV/any media player type thing built into my TV... what happens in 5 years when the player becomes out of date? do you toss the whole TV?

[Roadrunner777]

The Google buyout was probably about acquiring patents, technology and talent. This should lead to thinking that they want Google TV to be more like SageTV in design and function. (Or their own design was roadblocked by a SageTV patent and they just need to get ownership so they can get on with it.)

I suppose the one thing that gives me pause is Google's appetite for user data, demographics and marketing. I don't see a big negative in that, but I do want to remind everyone that Google's overriding mission is the acquisition and resale of information. I don't mind if the world knows what i watch. But, some folks might.

[darcilicious]

I think it's been posted a couple of times that there aren't any patents filed by Frey/SageTV for Google to buy...

[brainbone]

Originally Posted by darcilicious

I think it's been posted a couple of times that there aren't any patents filed by Frey/SageTV for Google to buy...

Though I suppose it's possible SageLLC had "prior art" that could help invalidate some patents. Probably not, but possible.

[Monedeath]

Originally Posted by brainbone

Though I suppose it's possible SageLLC had "prior art" that could help invalidate some patents. Probably not, but possible.

If that was the case, they wouldn't need to buy SageTV to use it as an example of doing so. They'd just need to point out that SageTV exists and had been doing the same thing since before the patent being challenged was filed.

The only reason why buying SageTV would make sense for that kind of defense is to make sure that the patent holder couldn't buy SageTV in an attempt to invalidate the claim. (And I'm not really certain that approach would hold up in court for the patent holder)

[Roadrunner777]

I did some reading on this subject, mainly what tech journalists are saying. It is a lot less clear to me know why this happened. Some of these giants have been known to stockpile talent for talent's sake, a lot talk about placeshifting technology, but here we are at patents again. Sage never patented anything? Hard to believe.

[Monedeath]

Originally Posted by Roadrunner777

I did some reading on this subject, mainly what tech journalists are saying. It is a lot less clear to me know why this happened. Some of these giants have been known to stockpile talent for talent's sake, a lot talk about placeshifting technology, but here we are at patents again. Sage never patented anything? Hard to believe.

Probably because someone else already had "prior art" on the concepts they implemented. They have also had a more ethical outlook on patent applications and simply concluded that many of their solutions were "obvious" or "the only viable way" to do with the software available.

So all they'd have to do to protect themselves from a patent mill was keep a very complete paper trail of everything they did documenting exactly when they started implementing certain things. Then all they'd have to do if challenged is present evidence of when they started doing things that way, and leave the burden of proof on the other side to demonstrate their patent claims predate that work.

The flipside also is that in some cases businesses will refrain from putting patents on some of their work for as long as they can, so that the competition won't be tipped off as to how/what they're doing (with) things.... And it runs back to paper trail, if someone else beats them to the patent, they have some grounds to make a challenge for prior art. IIRC, while it wasn't exactly intended to play out that way, Farnsworth ended up having to do that at one point with some TV related patents.

[wayner]

Originally Posted by Monedeath

Still, the ultimate goal remains: getting the client embedded in the TV set. The challenge at that point is "future proofing" the set to some degree, but I think that answer is simple, as long as set continue to allow pass-through video feeds(you buy an external box for the "latest ad greatest" if you must have that).

I don't think this is a good idea since in a decent system you still need to attach your source (aka Sage) to an AVR to feed your sound system. There is also the issue of source switching if you use mutliple sources. So you still need a wire from your TV to other components, at least an audio cable and if you are doing that then you might as well use an HDMI cable and send the video as well.

Sure it sounds great to only need your TV's remote but I am not willing to live with the sound from TV speakers which is the main problem with having everything embedded in the TV and no other components.

And the future-proofing issue is huge as I want my TV to last for a decade or so and I haven't seen an extender-type device that wasn't obsolete within a couple of years, especially one that will connect to online services (Netflix, Hulu, Amazon) that are still in a huge amount of flux. So in two years I would rather spend $100 to buy a new media extender that can support Netflix 2.0 than a whole new TV for more than 5X as much.

[Monedeath]

Originally Posted by wayner

I don't think this is a good idea since in a decent system you still need to attach your source (aka Sage) to an AVR to feed your sound system. There is also the issue of source switching if you use mutliple sources. So you still need a wire from your TV to other components, at least an audio cable and if you are doing that then you might as well use an HDMI cable and send the video as well.

Haven't checked newer sets to see if they still make provisions for it, but I do know of older sets that had audio output options(for home sound systems) complete with the choice to disable the built-in speakers.

With the particular setup I envisioned, all of your video devices are networked with at least Cat5 if not better or another networking alternative(like they're turning HDMI into, or is even possible over coax with the right stuff hardware). The only wildcard would be delivery of sound to its final destination, your speakers.

And the future-proofing issue is huge as I want my TV to last for a decade or so and I haven't seen an extender-type device that wasn't obsolete within a couple of years, especially one that will connect to online services (Netflix, Hulu, Amazon) that are still in a huge amount of flux. So in two years I would rather spend $100 to buy a new media extender that can support Netflix 2.0 than a whole new TV for more than 5X as much.

I think some of that depends on how the system is setup to approach it. I'm relatively recent to sage, only @ 2 years now(I'm running HD200's). However, my understanding is the HD100 has been around for over 5 years now, and functionally speaking the only reason for someone to want to get a HD300 to replace the HD100 is for higher resolutions(1080P--which their pre-2006 TV probably didn't support), and more reliable hardware(less flaky power supply, and newer hardware). Everything else, in regards to "core" functionality as a TV Front End is still in place and continues to work.

So that is my frame of reference in regards to "embed it in the TV" is if it can be embedded with HD100-type support(up to the max resolution of the set), then the only penalty I suffer for not having the "latest and greatest" is that eventually there are going to be apps in the Android Marketplace I won't be able to use on my "stock TV" because my set is 2+ years old... However, the core function of GoogleTV on my set, that of being used as a TV rather than an application platform, should be likely to continue unaffected.

At least for me personally, if I can get an embedded option that is likely to continue to give me use of the PVR capability 6+ years from the time of purchase, but may not allow me to play the 2019 version of Angry Birds on the Marketplace.. I will be perfectly fine with that, but if someone really wants to be able to play "Angry Birds 2019" on their set that they purchased in 2013. They should have the option to go out and buy an external device that allows them to do so on that set(as part of the future proofing side of things). That doesn't mean it's any less preferable to have my A/V system be as simple and minimalistic as possible for any given room, such as only needing to have the TV and a sound system in the room.

[wayner]

Originally Posted by Monedeath

Haven't checked newer sets to see if they still make provisions for it, but I do know of older sets that had audio output options(for home sound systems) complete with the choice to disable the built-in speakers.

I believe most TV sets have this functionality - my TV has this so that you can send the digital audio from OTA to your receiver. But then you are having to handle multiple components, which likely means you will want a universal remote, and you have to run a wire from your TV to your AVR. That complicates the system and increases the (potentially visible) wiring and negates some of the advantage of the embedded Netflix functionality (or whatever). Therefore you may as well use an external device that is upgradable for $100 (or so), especially if it is the size of an HD-300 and has an external IR receiver. But this is what my setup looks like so I don't mind one more box (actually this photo is before I added a Wii so ther is one more component today):

Originally Posted by Monedeath

I think some of that depends on how the system is setup to approach it. I'm relatively recent to sage, only @ 2 years now(I'm running HD200's). However, my understanding is the HD100 has been around for over 5 years now, and functionally speaking the only reason for someone to want to get a HD300 to replace the HD100 is for higher resolutions(1080P--which their pre-2006 TV probably didn't support), and more reliable hardware(less flaky power supply, and newer hardware). Everything else, in regards to "core" functionality as a TV Front End is still in place and continues to work.

The HD-100 hasn't been around quite that long - it came out in late 2007 that is 3.5 years ago. I don't have one but apparently they are rather slow for the more complex UIs that have been developed for Sage7 like Diamond and Phoenix. The problem is that if there are newer types of codecs developed then you could be SOL. I believe that is the case with some of the Sage extenders today with audio from some BR rips.

It is kind of like buying a TV with an embedded DVD player. It is still somewhat useful but you will likely want to replace (or supplement) that with a BR player.

[polen]

Originally Posted by Monedeath

So that is my frame of reference in regards to "embed it in the TV" is if it can be embedded with HD100-type support(up to the max resolution of the set), then the only penalty I suffer for not having the "latest and greatest" is that eventually there are going to be apps in the Android Marketplace I won't be able to use on my "stock TV" because my set is 2+ years old... However, the core function of GoogleTV on my set, that of being used as a TV rather than an application platform, should be likely to continue unaffected.

At least for me personally, if I can get an embedded option that is likely to continue to give me use of the PVR capability 6+ years from the time of purchase, but may not allow me to play the 2019 version of Angry Birds on the Marketplace.. I will be perfectly fine with that, but if someone really wants to be able to play "Angry Birds 2019" on their set that they purchased in 2013. They should have the option to go out and buy an external device that allows them to do so on that set(as part of the future proofing side of things). That doesn't mean it's any less preferable to have my A/V system be as simple and minimalistic as possible for any given room, such as only needing to have the TV and a sound system in the room.

Agreed....

Something else I found out was the Sony GoogleTV has a faster processor than the Revue, so the TV makers understand that the TV will need future proofing and the set top box needs to be low cost since it's an add on.

[david1234]

Originally Posted by polen

Agreed....

Something else I found out was the Sony GoogleTV has a faster processor than the Revue, so the TV makers understand that the TV will need future proofing and the set top box needs to be low cost since it's an add on.

But who can possibly future proof the 10 - 15 years that a TV lasts? They'd have to stick the very fastest processors into the TV's to even have a chance! Are people really willing to "upgrade" their TVs more often than they have in the past?

[stevech]

Can a Sage client be done like the Internet TV channels and Netflix gadget/widgets on Vizio TVs? Yahoo is behind this with a development kit (Java based?) to encourage user developed add-ons. These are downloaded to my TV at my choice. Yahoo/Vizio promote these.
Maybe other brands too.

Samsung seems to do the same thing, but with (Google?) add-ons, downloadable. Not sure they have an open API and Dev Kit as does Yahoo/Vizio.

[Monedeath]

Originally Posted by david1234

But who can possibly future proof the 10 - 15 years that a TV lasts? They'd have to stick the very fastest processors into the TV's to even have a chance! Are people really willing to "upgrade" their TVs more often than they have in the past?

I think we need to clarify something a little bit. I'm going to split some terminology lines a bit differently than some people might to try to provide some clarity.

I'm getting the impression that you, and many people in here don't actually want what most people would call a "TV" as the centerpiece of your home entertainment center(s). What you want are essentially (large format) monitors that simply pass an input (video) signal straight through the to display. Just grab a screen of desired size, and an array of devices to provide the desired display(s) on it, and you're happy.

Whereas I'd say a "TV" is a display that is able to provide video content independent of other devices. It just happens that most TVs and Monitors these days blur the line between the two. I think there will continue to be a market for both, but that Google would have to be oblivious to ignore that there is a market for "true TV" type applications which would require embedding GoogleTV inside of the TV set.

While Moore's Law does point out that it is futile to try to provide a TV with hardware for a software based service that will likely be obsolete(on some/all levels) in at least 2 years, it still provides the consumer with __ years that they can "skip" needing to load up the set with other supporting devices.

Also considering I know plenty of people who are still using 7+ year old computers as their primary computer. I think you'd find that as long as Google maintained some minimally friendly practices(like keeping most network DVR functions backwards compatible) and allowing many of the "default services" to continue functioning basically indefinitely, that many/most consumers would probably never see a "need" to add an external device to augment that aging TV set.

The ones who would want to augment the TV would be the ones who want to play video games through that interface, or just simply want to stay on/near the bleeding edge for other features that get added on as time progresses. (They also would be the people who tend towards using TV's as Monitors rather than as TV's)