Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google Intel Software Television Apple Hardware Technology

Intel's Rumored TV Plans Would Compete With Apple, Google 82

Posted by samzenpus
from the getting-in-the-tube dept.
Nerval's Lobster writes "Google tried to extend its influence to televisions, an effort that largely crashed and burned. Apple executives call Apple TV a 'hobby,' although it's been long-rumored that their company has a television set in the works. And Microsoft's made a muscular attempt to conquer the living room with the Xbox, which now does a lot more than just video games. If current rumors prove correct, you can soon add Intel to that list of IT giants with an eye on televisions. According to TechCrunch and SlashGear, the chip manufacturer is prepping to unveil a first-generation television system of some sort at next month's Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas. TechCrunch suggests that Intel will debut the system on a city-by-city basis, similar to what Google's doing with Google Fiber, in order to maintain 'more flexibility in negotiating licensing with reluctant content providers.' (The publication's information comes from the ever-popular unnamed sources.) In essence, Intel is proposing a set-top box paired with a subscription service, which would provide a mixture of traditional programming alongside streaming content."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Intel's Rumored TV Plans Would Compete With Apple, Google

Comments Filter:
  • by erp_consultant (2614861) on Monday December 31, 2012 @01:42PM (#42433963)

    Hopefully Intel learned a few lessons with their Ultrabook fiasco. Those things were DOA.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I don't think they have, much like MS is losing very badly with Windows 8, WP8 and Surface.

      With Apple, my content syncs with my iPad, my iPhone, our iPods and the Apple TV. iTunes makes it all work and sync together. The rating and playlists work nicely too. There's a store to buy TV shows and music at decent prices legally but you can still use content from other sources. It works on all Windows and Mac PCs. And it's so incredibly slick and polished too. The new Remote app is incredible. Being able to cont

      • by jedidiah (1196)

        > but you can still use content from other sources

        Not really. This is where the Apple approach falls down. It is limited and fixated on the whole "walled garden" mentality. Devices are only designed to work with a limited subset of formats. If you try to use anything you will find yourself quickly out of luck or putting in more effort than if you had just used another vendor's product to start with.

        There is no media management. Format support is poor. Integration of 3rd party media is actually a disaste

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward

          It is limited and fixated on the whole "walled garden" mentality.

          ... which is what the majority of people want: something that "just works" and isn't hard to use. Apple gives them this, which explains why they are the most valuable technology company.

          • ... which is what the majority of people want: something that "just works" and isn't hard to use. Apple gives them this, which explains why they are the most valuable technology company.

            Spoken like a true fan boi! And what a total load of tripe! Apple TV doesn't even play "WMV, AVI, DivX, RealMedia (rm), and Flash format files." So I'd say that's a big fat 'it just doesn't work'. Really, my WD Live+ plays anything I've thrown at it and it was cheaper than an Apple TV and it sees all the SMB mounts on our local network plus the Mac Samba mounts. Apple has remained nothing but a slight disappointment to me since the mid 2000s. I used to be the #1 Evangelist next to Guy Kawasaki back in

  • by zerosomething (1353609) on Monday December 31, 2012 @01:45PM (#42433995) Homepage
    THis isn't the 1950's where the entire entertainment system, TV, HiFi and Phonograph are all integrated into the same box. Some one make a freekin TV monitor without all the tuners and computers in it! I know you can get monitors but could someone make one that cost less than a TV with all that crap in it. Then make the gadgets to attach to the "Monitor". Maybe we could even have 2K and 4K monitors at 50" for less thank $5K?
    • by Nyder (754090) on Monday December 31, 2012 @01:58PM (#42434105) Journal

      THis isn't the 1950's where the entire entertainment system, TV, HiFi and Phonograph are all integrated into the same box. Some one make a freekin TV monitor without all the tuners and computers in it! I know you can get monitors but could someone make one that cost less than a TV with all that crap in it. Then make the gadgets to attach to the "Monitor". Maybe we could even have 2K and 4K monitors at 50" for less thank $5K?

      No, this is the 10's where the entire entertainment system, TV, Internet Radio and MP3 Player, Plus camera, computer, mic, and the kitchen sink (not really), Not to mention Internet access are integrated into the same box.

      Hmm, shit doesn't change much, does it?

      • by jedidiah (1196)

        What you're willing to put up with on your Dick Tracy setup and what you want out of your 60 inch TV or 160 inch projection setup are worlds apart.

        Once you get beyond low quality toys, you have serious integration issues because you don't want to settle for 2nd best. You don't want to tolerate the single vendor solution for idiots because you have more taste than that.

        They already have Home Theaters for dummies. Apple could simply have their own branded version next to the rest.

    • Some one make a freekin TV monitor without all the tuners and computers in it! I know you can get monitors but could someone make one that cost less than a TV with all that crap in it.

      It wouldn't cost much less, though. Multiple inputs, with a means to switch between them? You'd want those. Speakers and an audio amplifier? Probably not necessary, but certainly nice-to-have as audio is carried over HDMI. Basically the only thing you'd probably want to remove is the tuner, and that's probably a dollar

      • by vux984 (928602)

        Basically the only thing you'd probably want to remove is the tuner,

        And the camera and microphone, i don't ever plan to video skype with the TV's built in app. Nor do I plan to use its useless gesture controls. Nor do I plan to use its woefully insecure capabilities as a video surveillance system.

        And the wifi chip. I don't need my TV on the network. I'm not using skype, and the netflix app is worse then the one on my HTPC, my xbox, and my wiiu.

        And without wifi and cameras and what not I can do without the

        • by LoRdTAW (99712)

          The one beef I have with all the bells and whistles on any TV is having multiple HDMI inputs along with a digital audio output but no way to pass the HDMI audio out through the digital audio connector. What is the fucking point of digital audio output then? Surround sound OTR, does that even exist?

          That problem bit my friend in the ass when he bought his Westinghouse 47" a few years ago. He wanted a simple setup and figured the TV would act as an HDMI switch for his PC, Xbox and cable box (It has 4 HDMI inpu

          • by Kenshin (43036)

            Strange. I've never encountered that problem on my Toshiba. I have all my inputs into the TV's HDMI, and digital out from the TV to my receiver.

          • by Wolfrider (856)

            --I've heard Westinghouse is like a bargain-basement brand; this corroborates it.

        • I have a Sony LED LCD TV, 40". It doesn't have a camera nor mike. It doesn't have WiFi (I do have it plugged into the LAN via CAT6 for software updates). Doesn't have 3D. As for not having an antenna, you should get one. Lots of good-quality free OTA TV in most regions.
          • by drinkypoo (153816)

            As for not having an antenna, you should get one. Lots of good-quality free OTA TV in most regions.

            Not in my region, where you can get 0 DTV stations, and you can now get only 2 of the 4 analog stations that you could kinda fuzzily get before DTV.

      • by drinkypoo (153816)

        You're right that a set without extraneous components wouldn't cost much less, but you're wrong about what can be removed. You need a total of one (1) HDMI connection for a 1080p television if you have a stereo with upconversion. This is where it belongs anyway unless you have a fancy home theater and then you will want a discrete upconverter box so that you can upgrade piecemeal. If you don't use the tuner then it makes much more sense to have a fancy stereo, because everything has to connect to the stereo

    • by rwyoder (759998)

      THis isn't the 1950's where the entire entertainment system, TV, HiFi and Phonograph are all integrated into the same box. Some one make a freekin TV monitor without all the tuners and computers in it! I know you can get monitors but could someone make one that cost less than a TV with all that crap in it. Then make the gadgets to attach to the "Monitor". Maybe we could even have 2K and 4K monitors at 50" for less thank $5K?

      Westinghouse used to make exactly that: an LCD monitor-only with lots of video inputs.
      It came in 37" (LVM-37W3), and 42" (LVM42W2) versions. I bought the 37".

  • Has any of these fancy tvs ever even done well? Consoles have taken over as the set top box. Better interface, already plugged in to the tv and the internet and everyone already has one. Too little too late.
    • by Anonymous Coward

      Has any of these fancy tvs ever even done well? Consoles have taken over as the set top box. Better interface, already plugged in to the tv and the internet and everyone already has one. Too little too late.

      Maybe yes, maybe no. For all the non-gamers who don't own a console - there are hundreds of millions of us - these gizmos may be an option.

      Intel, Google, Apple, etc. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

    • by alen (225700)

      I have an Xbox, ps3 and an Apple TV

      Apple TV does AirPlay and buying content from iTunes i get a file I can keep on my computers, stream locally or put on my iPhone or iPad when I go out

      How does that cloud work out for you when it rains in Virginia or a hurricane hits and floods all the routing centers?

      And Apple TV lets me display content from an app. Like say streaming the Disney channel app to my TV because I don't have cable anymore. Netflix and amazon selection is still pretty bad

      • by Joehonkie (665142)
        Awesome. I'm totally down with that. Can I play that file on my android phone or tablet or other third party boxes? Oh? No? Then I don't own it and I don't want any part of the whole affair.
      • by jedidiah (1196)

        > How does that cloud work out for you when it rains in Virginia or a hurricane hits and floods all the routing centers?

        Yes. How does it work?

        Since iTunes glitches when your network has problems, you should already be able to tell us what this situation is like. That is if you actually use this stuff and are at all honest about it.

        I will tell you what happens when the network glitches...

        You can't watch your iTunes movies because it can't phone home properly. Non-Apple content

  • for the rest of us we will buy apple TV and google TV is starting to look interesting
    Roku will be dead soon

    apple TV is a scam to make you stay in the apple ecosystem with airplay. otherwise using bin reject CPU's in a low margin device was genius
    google TV seems to be bringing you content to kill your cable sub. but its playing on the niches like international programming. i know people who pay close to $200 a month for cable/internet/tv only for a few international channels

    intel will probably have a cool bo

    • by vlm (69642)

      Roku will be dead soon

      Its very cheap... As a dedicated amazon instant prime device its hard/impossible to beat. When the latest mythtv version pretty much ruined the music app into something too complicated for endusers, plex on the roku to listen to music works pretty well.

      That's the problem with the endless stream of newcomers. "We're going to do exactly what your $50 Roku does off the shelf, except we're vaporware and will cost $100 more! Hurrah for us!"

      • by alen (225700)

        amazon is losing the content battle to netflix and for everything else Roku doesn't do anything that the other boxes do

        • by vlm (69642)

          Ah my mistake... I only have and use amazon instant prime because it comes with the "free 2-day shipping" thing. Once I saved enough on "free shipping" to pay for the prime subscription, I started saving my free shipping toward some roku hardware. I didn't take long, due to buying a lot of stuff from amazon. The roku does have apps for netflix, hulu plus, pandora, vudu, hbo to go, and a ton of sports stuff, none of which I subscribe to or have any interest in.

          I do have extensive personal experience that

          • by alen (225700)

            apple TV will stream from iphones and ipads. you can stream apps.

            i stream the disney channel app from my ipad to the apple TV

        • by jedidiah (1196)

          Roku runs Plex without the need for jailbreaking.

          That puts it head and shoulders above an AppleTV right there.

          • by steve_bryan (2671)

            Has the Plex app on Roku improved recently? The last time I used it the experience had a definite flimsy, underpowered feel. I find the Air Video Server and corresponding iOS app much nicer. I use AirPlay and Apple TV, of course, to view on a big screen TV. A rather peculiar feature is that Apple TV works on my home network, which is not connected to the internet, while Roku simply fails to function if it cannot connect to the internet.

    • by clarkn0va (807617)

      Roku will be dead soon

      All existing tech will be dead soon. That's the nature of tech.

      That said, however, I'm rather fond of my Roku. It's not perfect; seeking more than a couple minutes at a time is labourious, it won't play from a NAS without crappy add-on channels, and it won't let you control the refresh rate of your output. These shortcomings aside, I find my Roku to be an adequate means of bringing Netflix and a tonne of great free programming to my living room without the commercials and other obnoxious intrusions of tradi

  • by Jeng (926980)

    Wasn't Intel working on making better chips for TVs?

    I can see Intel doing exactly that, making better chips for TVs, I can't see Intel becoming a content delivery company. It is just so far removed from what they do it doesn't make sense.

    • The article seems to imply that Intel will be supply chips for next gen set top boxes rather than make whole products. They currently supply some chips but look likes they are expanding their share. The next gen boxes are supposed to do more; the problem is the content owners still have firm control of content. Getting them to move away from the current model of bundles of channels to a reasonable ala carte system is a challenge. Notice I said "reasonable". The content owners would love to charge exhorb
    • This is intel saying' we want to get in on the 'make money but produce little bandwagon.' So we'll make some user hostile hardware that you big providers can use to exploit new opportunities in consumer lockdown.
  • by MrLint (519792) on Monday December 31, 2012 @01:59PM (#42434119) Journal

    It seems of all the folks who want to do TVIP, only Google seems to be taking any action on the sorry ass state of US broadband. The telecomms sure arent. They are in the game of eating taxpayer subsides while lobbying for metered data and data caps. Cable TV has woefully failed at a la carte, instead is a force-fed smorgasbord of rotten tripe, most of which any individual doesn't want.

    I just don't know what will be the tipping point for something to change, will it be when watching tv will become too expensive to do for typical family?

    • by alen (225700)

      TV IP is coming of age in 2013. Disney signed with netflix and dumped starz or whoever they had before

      if you pay for cable the only reason you are doing it is for sports, international channels or you absolutely have to watch some shows like Game of Thrones or Breaking Bad

      • by aliquis (678370)

        TV IP is coming of age in 2013. Disney signed with netflix and dumped starz or whoever they had before

        if you pay for cable the only reason you are doing it is for sports, international channels or you absolutely have to watch some shows like Game of Thrones or Breaking Bad

        So what's streamed really?

        Movies?

  • What do they think people want to do with their TVs that they can't already? Smart TVs, games consoles and even many set-top boxes have network media players and apps covering all major streaming services (iPlayer, Netflix, Hulu, YouTube etc.).

    There are other apps on those platforms but no-one uses them. View web pages, Facebook and weather reports via a fiddly remote? No thanks, I'll just whip out my smart phone or tablet. Samsung TVs can run Angry Birds, but do you really want your kids hogging the TV wit

    • by Sloppy (14984)

      What do they think people want to do with their TVs that they can't already?

      Pay Intel.

  • Don't care for moderation: just let TV die, the golden age of TV was the 60's and 70's, all the rest sucks. TV must die!

    • ...except there is very little wrong with TV. It does need more time-shifting, and less advertising, but solutions have been constantly improving since the VHS/Betamax wars. Todays set-top boxies/Tivos/Hard Disc Players are already very good, and yes there is room for improvement.

  • All three companies are scrambling to find their way in the IT world of today. The momentum has gone from PC's to tablets and smart phones. Guess what - those devices don't need intel chips or Windows. Intel will continue to sell plenty of chips for high end servers and Microsoft will continue to have it's monopoly on office related software so they'll be ok. Dell, in my view, is in the worst spot of all. They are stuck in a commodity PC business and their recent move into the services business via their ac

    • All three companies are scrambling to find their way in the IT world of today.

      I think you have been asleep. The interesting think about these companies interact with each other has changed. Intel...have their own OS without Microsoft...Tizen[I suspect the OS they would use]; Microsoft produced a tablet without Intel, and as its own preferred OEM!. Dell announced they will do nothing, Nada, Zilch its sitting like a little bitch doing nothing while everyone else old fashioned competes [knives in backs/fronts everywhere]....Now HP on the other hand.

      The reality is the desktop actually is

  • by Seumas (6865)

    Getting into televisions in 2013 seems a lot like getting into the radio business post 2005.

  • Future of TV (Score:4, Insightful)

    by gr8_phk (621180) on Monday December 31, 2012 @03:19PM (#42434857)
    The only future I see for TV is when they gain wireless DLNA or some such (Like Apple TV but standardized). Then there's this big screen in the room that anyone can stream stuff too from their phone/whatever. Portable devices then need to be able to encode video for streaming to the big screen so you can use it as a large monitor (with codec dependent latency of course). That's it. All TVs and computer monitors should get this capability in the future. Wired connections should remain available for higher quality and low latency, but TV as display server is the only thing that makes sense IMHO. They'll need to keep tuners for quite a while too.
  • The reality is that the cable companies consider themselves to be the gatekeepers of broadcast television content. And since they control the primary broadband pipe used by most people in this country, its not likely they will allow that to change. If Apple/Intel/Microsoft/Google manage to break the stranglehold that cable holds over the broadband last mile, that would be great for the rest of us wishing to offer services over it.

  • Right now you have to buy a huge of channels (and shows) to get the 20 hours you might want to watch each month. Or you have to do delayed broadcasts (not good for sports & news) or pirate to get the individual shows.
  • If all they will do is show Google content. Hardware is now much like beige boxes. If they don't show youtube, they have nothing. So whatever intel comes up with or even Apple, they will simply show youtube content and so will line Google bottom line. They can try and create content outside the Google ecosystem but we know where that went with apple maps.
    • they will simply show youtube content and so will line Google bottom line. They can try and create content outside the Google ecosystem but we know where that went with apple maps.

      I remember TV being about well Movies and Soaps and Scu-fi, Dramas, Reality shows etc etc Internet Video is just part of that...and exists outside Google and youtube [albeit very successful], the reality is Google will simply integrate their services inside whatever platform is dominant...its ecosystem is OS agnostic.

      Ironically Apple not only removed Google Maps it removed the link to youtube...nobody made such a big deal about youtube.

This login session: $13.76, but for you $11.88.

Working...