Google Fiber

[samgreco]

Originally Posted by Narflex

OK. This just makes my day! Thank you Jeff!

And for all of the whiners, please note that the man is still paying attention.

[ckewinjones]

Originally Posted by phelme

I have a hard time believing, a year after the fact and in a Google hardware product, that it would still be Java at the heart of the TV box.

It is interesting though that Jeff still refers to it as SageTV... so who knows.

I don't see anything incredible about sticking with Java. As was pointed out, Android is Java-based. It's true that Android uses a custom VM, but it's still Java. The custom VM gives them the advantage of tailoring the Java implementation to the target platform, and insulates them from any instability in the "public" Java implementation; on the other hand it deprives them of the benefits of the experience of the wider Java community.

In any case the success of Android puts paid to any notion that Java is intrinsically incapable of succeeding in a system-level, performance-sensitive environment.

I've been out of touch with Java development for several years now, having spent the last seven years or so on Windows device driver development in C++ and straight C. But I was quite the Java jockey back in the day, and I found it perfectly suitable for almost all application work and up to the task for most system-level work as well. The beauty of C++ and C is that you can do pretty much anything you want to do; the difficulty is that whatever you want to do, you have to do yourself without any recourse to the sort of robust frameworks that the Java frameworks provide. If I were you I would not underestimate the level of effort -- and risk -- involved in re-writing a piece of software as large and complex as SageTV in native C++. "A year after the fact" represents the shortest possible time-frame for that effort. From where I sit, it wouldn't even be close to worth the risk.

[ckewinjones]

Originally Posted by Narflex

Makes my day, too. Thanks, Jeff.

As hard as Jeff & company must have been working to turn SageTV into the core of a brand-new platform, it's a wonder he has had any time to follow this forum.

[tmiranda]

The DVR portion of FiberTV is totally SageTV under the hood. Jeff said so in reply to Brent's Google+ post. It's probably sage to assume that the STV is new.

[cncb]

Wow, it's like the man can walk on water. He doesn't say anything and with a couple of smilies makes peoples' days...

[Brent]

Originally Posted by tmiranda

It's probably sage to assume that the STV is new.

The STV I saw in the demo was definitely new.

[Skybolt]

Originally Posted by ckewinjones

... As hard as Jeff & company must have been working to turn SageTV into the core of a brand-new platform, it's a wonder he has had any time to follow this forum.

+1

If this were your baby, would you give it up that quickly? If you think it's hard for us to bear the current state of Sage, how do you think Jeff feels about what his whole life for the past ten+ years was dedicated to. I think he'll always be checking in.

[pjpjpjpj]

Originally Posted by tmiranda

It's probably sage to assume that the STV is new.

Accidental or intentional slip?

Originally Posted by cncb

He doesn't say anything and with a couple of smilies makes peoples' days...

Is it weird that I feel so cool for making the big guy laugh?

[tmiranda]

Originally Posted by pjpjpjpj

Accidental or intentional slip? :

Safe to assume.....

[maninblack_30]

Well, I'm in two minds about this, I think the concept and features are absolutely fantastic, and I'm ever so jealous of those in KC that will soon be enjoying "SageTV8" (), however, as I live on the bottom of the world (Australia) unless they sell an international version, I'm out of luck!

However, I hope it would be easy for them to make it work with HD-Homerun tuners, then I could use it here, and it would hopefully provide me with a whole-house solution like SageTV does now, but in a consumer-like form-factor (which to be honest would suit me better now that I have less time on my hands for hardware builds etc.)
I know of probably 10 people here that would love to have a system like this if it could work with our FTA TV.
My overall feeling is one of huge excitement, but I know this will take years to reach me (if it ever does!)
Please Jeff, if you can, keep all us international owners of SageTV in mind!!

Here's hoping!!!

[darcilicious]

Google Fiber signups not going as well as they'd like?

Google’s getting aggressive trying to get sign ups for its $70-a-month gigabit broadband service it’s building on top of a fiber-to-the-home network in Kansas City. It has adjusted the numbers of homes in certain areas to make it easier for those neighborhoods to get Google Fiber.
imag0307-e1343318331951

After lackluster fiber registrations in certain Kansas City neighborhoods, Google has adjusted down the number of homes in certain neighborhoods eligible for the service. The search giant says it is lowering the number of homes in 73 of its designated “fiberhoods,” because it had orginally collected bad data, but others wonder if this is an effort to goose signups so it looks like a greater percentage of homes are signing up for Google’s pioneering gigabit broadband service.

More: http://gigaom.com/2012/08/31/garbage...-fiber-edition

[wayner]

I don't understand why everyone wouldn't jump at the offer?

[tmiranda]

Originally Posted by wayner

I don't understand why everyone wouldn't jump at the offer?

Most people on these forums are geeks who are drooling over the thought of fiber to the home. Most other people don't give a darn since in their opinion their internet connection works fine and they already have plenty of TV channels to choose from. Why switch if it isn't broke?

Google needs to give people a compelling reason. I think they are working on it but the message will take time to sink in.

[stuckless]

Originally Posted by Brent

I don't honestly know for sure, but if I had to put money on it, I would guess they are just working with the Java framework that was already there for SageTV instead of wasting time to make it Android. The bigger question to me is what are they doing with the Plugin stuff.

Me wondering out loud: If the FiberTV(SageTV) stuff does well, I wonder if they would junk the GoogleTV thing, bring a few of the things GoogleTV does into the FiberTV product and re-brand it all as the new GoogleTV. Hmm.

I do know that Google Fiber 1.0 will/may include my sagex-apis (http rest api services). This tells me that Google Fibre, at least for now is definately built on the existing SageTV platform code, since that jar has absolution no value unless coupled with the SageTV 7 platform.

In terms of the Android screen shots that I saw posted, that UI looks native, so I'd guess they are using the sagex api (conjecture on my part) to communicate with the SageTV server instead of using a "Placeshifter" type of client running on the device.

As a Canadian, I will never enjoy Google Fibre, so the positive that I take away from this, is that IF google fiber doesn't succeed (but I hope it does), then perhaps someday, Google will release "SageTV" as an end user product, much like it was before (wishful thinking)

[pjpjpjpj]

Originally Posted by tmiranda

Most people on these forums are geeks who are drooling over the thought of fiber to the home. Most other people don't give a darn since in their opinion their internet connection works fine and they already have plenty of TV channels to choose from. Why switch if it isn't broke?

Google needs to give people a compelling reason. I think they are working on it but the message will take time to sink in.

This is exactly right (IMO). In many a thread here I've tried to be the "voice of reason" that talks "our kind" down from thinking that the mass of society wants this. The average person does not care. My parents (representative of a large chunk of society - maybe you've heard of them, "baby boomers") don't even have, or want, a DVR from their cable company. Yeah, some older folks do, but it's a small minority. They just don't care to learn it. I have a ton of friends - in the 25 to 45 year old range - who are SHOCKINGLY clueless about TV technology and A/V stuff. I mean, SHOCKINGLY. And I truly believe this is representative of most of America. Most don't know that you can get free HD OTA - they think you either need a "special HD antenna" or a converter box, or both (hey, it's what the guy at Best Buy told them! ). Most have no clue about how to hook up their HD cable box to their HDTV! They don't understand what all the various cables are, the difference between analog and digital, etc. They use the internet for web surfing and email. A few have netflix but their basic, low-level internet connection (either through the cable company or DSL from the phone company) is all they need. They pay $150 to $200 per month to the cable company in exchange for not having to think about technology whatsoever. Ugh.

I'm probably one of the least knowledgeable people on this forum with respect to computers, networking, etc. This board has been an amazing resource and extremely patient with me (and others like me) who are complete noobs about such things. Yet my friends consider me a complete "AV/PC Geek". The stuff I've done (with respect to Sage, having TV shows saved on a PC in the basement, having a "whole house" solution) boggles their minds. Blows them away. And it's not because I know anything, it's simply that I'm not afraid to ask questions and try stuff, and I trust that people here will help me out. So far, you all have.

Said it before and I will say it again, anyone reading this board is in a completely different class from the rest of America, as far as knowledge, interest, and (for lack of a better description), "lack-of-fear" of TV, PC, and A/V technology. Most of America would look at Google's KC thing and say "I don't need that, I don't even want to think about having to figure that stuff out." And the fact that "going Google" currently means losing a bunch of cable channels - especially those that most of America specifically have cable for (ESPN)... why would anyone do that?

[Brent]

Originally Posted by wayner

I don't understand why everyone wouldn't jump at the offer?

I mostly agree with what others are saying above, but let me explain what is going on with the Google Fiber early registration process. The local media began jumping on this line of thought: Google has made the process work against the have-not's and for the have's. In other words, those in the wealthier neighborhoods will have plenty of registrations so that those neighborhoods will be first in line to get google fiber. But those in the poorer neighborhoods (and I mean really really poor) get left out because there are people there just scraping by to feed themselves and don't even pay now for internet or phone. That is what this is really about - not that there isn't enough interest in Google Fiber in Kansas City.

Most people who have pre-registered are doing so for the following reasons:
1. Fast internet (that's the main thing people seem to sort of understand)
2. Get rid of Time Warner Cable. Many might not understand all of the coolness that comes with SageTV er.... Google FiberTV, but they like the idea of ridding themselves of TWC. PS: the garbage the press keeps repeating that certain channels won't (or aren't) included like HBO or ESPN etc etc is lazy, stupid journalism. Google has said publicly they are working on contracts with all of the major networks. ESPN, HBO and the other big ones will be there.
3. Fiber installed to the home only costs you $300. For those that understand why that's a big deal it's a selling point.

Bottom line here is this: The neighborhoods that have anything near decent income levels that are in the phase-1 areas are all getting connected to Google Fiber. The ones that will lag behind are those same neighborhoods I tend to shy away from after dark. It's sad, but that's how it is right now.

[mistergq]

Originally Posted by Brent

3. Fiber installed to the home only costs you $300. For those that understand why that's a big deal it's a selling point.

This is probably a major correction from the Verizon FIOS model which does not charge an installation fee for fiber to the house. Because of poor customer service, many FIOS customers went back to coNcast and eventually, Verizon started selling off FIOS customers because of poor sales.

Even with bad customer service, I would never switch back to coNcast. That even includes that Verizon recently screwed my small business that I own which took weeks to fix. I moved one of the voice lines to a VOIP carrier. Called them. Asked them to move the fax line to slot one and line moving to slot 2. Told don't worry. When the port number came through, Verizon cancelled my phone service. Took 2 days to get the fax line back on. Then they unbundled my service and that has been the ongoing issue. With all the wasted time at work, I still won't switch. That is how good Verizon FIOS is. The bad customer services comes with it and I understand that.

[reggie14]

Originally Posted by Brent

PS: the garbage the press keeps repeating that certain channels won't (or aren't) included like HBO or ESPN etc etc is lazy, stupid journalism. Google has said publicly they are working on contracts with all of the major networks. ESPN, HBO and the other big ones will be there.

It seems like a legitimate gripe. The national media seemed to generally be reporting that those channels are missing from the line-up (among others), but that negotiations are underway.

But still, as of right now there are a lot of major cable channels missing from their lineup. Unless something has changed, they're missing HBO, ESPN, TNT, CNN, Disney, FX, AMC, Fox News and Fox Sports. If any of those channels were really that important to me, I'd be hesitant to commit to it. Because I'm a big geek I still would, but I would expect to be in the minority there.

I suspect you're right and Google will get most of the important channels. It will be interesting to see what Google does on ESPN, though. As I understand it, their per-subscriber fee is around $5, and I'm sure that's a rate that was contingent on ESPN being included in the expanded basic lineup. Does Google's $120/month subscription rate for TV+Internet include some money set aside for ESPN? Or is Google trying to negotiate a deal where ESPN would just be included in a sports package (and if so, I wonder how much that will be)?

[Brent]

Originally Posted by reggie14

It seems like a legitimate gripe. The national media seemed to generally be reporting that those channels are missing from the line-up (among others), but that negotiations are underway.

But still, as of right now there are a lot of major cable channels missing from their lineup. Unless something has changed, they're missing HBO, ESPN, TNT, CNN, Disney, FX, AMC, Fox News and Fox Sports. If any of those channels were really that important to me, I'd be hesitant to commit to it.

Would you be hesitant to pay $10 to pre-register if that $10 is refundable if you don't end up getting the service OR the $10 goes towards your first bill? That's the only commitment you make at this point to pre-register.

I suspect you're right and Google will get most of the important channels.

I'm pretty darn confident (99.9999999% sure) they will. That's about all I can say about that. Believe me, I want my sports channels as I'm a bit of a sports addict for certain teams.

It will be interesting to see what Google does on ESPN, though. As I understand it, their per-subscriber fee is around $5, and I'm sure that's a rate that was contingent on ESPN being included in the expanded basic lineup. Does Google's $120/month subscription rate for TV+Internet include some money set aside for ESPN? Or is Google trying to negotiate a deal where ESPN would just be included in a sports package (and if so, I wonder how much that will be)?

Now that is an interesting question. I suppose Google could do something to offer ESPN/s separately for additional cost, but I'd bet they will package it so everyone will help pay for it. Just a guess there though.

Many of the articles I've read leave the impression that Google will not have those channels. The local paper here KCStar has repeated that statement that the Google Fiber TV offering is interesting, but not as strong of an offering compared to all of the competition (aka TWC, DirecTV etc) that offer ESPN and HBO. They actually said it like that without saying contract negotiations were underway as Google has repeatedly said. That's what ticks me off.

[wayner]

Originally Posted by pjpjpjpj

The average person does not care. My parents (representative of a large chunk of society - maybe you've heard of them, "baby boomers") don't even have, or want, a DVR from their cable company. Yeah, some older folks do, but it's a small minority. They just don't care to learn it. I have a ton of friends - in the 25 to 45 year old range - who are SHOCKINGLY clueless about TV technology and A/V stuff. I mean, SHOCKINGLY. And I truly believe this is representative of most of America.

I really think there is a change in the younger generation - those that are now in college and were born in about 1990 or later. These kids (1) will never own a fixed line phone and (2) are much less likely to subscribe to cable TV.

Many kids in this demographic are used to watching content on their PCs, smartphones and tablets - obtaining this content via legal or illegal means. They are much less likely to be ready to pay $70/month for cable, but they are willing to pay that amount for a great internet connection as it replaces cable, fixed line phone, etc.

This isn't the generation that is too scared to program a VCR. These kids, expecially the ones from the upper middle classes and above, have always been using the internet and have had Gameboys/DSs, etc from the time they were in kindergarten and they all carry smartphones today. They are far less threatened by technology and I don't see them living in a world where they are captive to the TV schedule as determined by the networks. They will watch when they want and how they want. And they are the future.