Wow, like a big digital frame only better! |
I think we should all screw MSM and just hook up our computers to our TV's and toss out our cable boxes. |
Tony> [...] itÂ’s unclear what technologies these TVs will be
> using to receive these services or if it will be possible to browse
> other websites. TVs and set-top boxes with inbuilt web browsers
> that connect to the Internet via phone lines have been around for
> years [...] but [they] still require a broadband connection
U said it, Tony. Unless that hardware-software hybrid (bastard?) will somehow be able to piggyback onto (and/or within) the existing DSL/cable-frequency range, ie. WITHOUT requiring an extra content subsciption framework, it'll be at most an open-ended delivery mechanism, there for some years and then (unless someone comes up with a win-win use for it) wither quietly away in the back of hi-tech graveyard, alongside lotsa other once-promising New! Exciting! Gizmos[tm]. |
Surely it will use any existing wi-fi broadband, just like (e.g.) the PlayStation Portable.
But who needs a Google-only device? Early attempts at web TV failed because TVs couldn't display enough detail to do justice to web pages. But hook up a Mac Mini to one of the latest 1920x1080 HD TVs and the web is your oyster.
Recall also that Google recently invited people to start contributing videos to YouTube in High Definition. Now we can see where it's leading...
If I owned a television station I'd be nervous. The web holds a lot of programming that is vastly more compelling than much of what is served up on TV. |
Care to share your wii number Tony? |
![[put at-character here]](image/at.gif) Roger Browne: there's nothing sure about it [=a tv's web-access dependence on any "existing wi-fi broadband"], and, besides, making a by-default-cabled large-footprint/ stationary display device rely on other than via-cable content delivery strikes me as way beyond kludgey, and thus bound to fail.
No, if such "Google-TV" is to succeed, its extra functionality _has_ to tap into the push-delivery framework of today's broadcast tv. Else we're back in WebTV-land [a late 1990's set-top-box-web-browser rendering with TV-display graphics restrictions].
> [...] The web holds a lot of programming that is vastly
> more compelling than much of what is served up on TV
Maybe, maybe not. Compared to standard network fare, web-borne programming is also of vastly uneven quality, availability, suitability (for target markets). We may decry the lowest common denominator tv fare much as we like, but there's no denying that it is also always professionally done, and thus halfway-justifying the real costs of a monthly tv-cable subscription.
Compare that to the real cost of your idealized Mac Mini + HDTV + high-speed broadband "oyster" multiplied by already cable-subscriber numbers.
|
something to think about is the spectrum that everyone is fighting for that is on the same wavelength as TV. if Google can figure out a way to send back info in a timely manner, all of the Google properties could be available. and at a decent rate with a long range spectrum.
|
