[opendtv] Commentary: Is Internet TV yet another would-be wedding?
- From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 10:57:28 -0400
Very timely article. I'll stick with my previous comments on the
subject, i.e. that Internet TV can work fine as long as it's TV, and not
the sort of heavily interactive experience people prefer doing, and have
become accustomed doing, sitting up to a PC, with keyboard, and
typically alone.
Here's how this article says it:
"As a reporter, I've felt the promise of Internet TV getting old. I
could almost have recycled the stories I've written for the past 10
years every time somebody came up with another Internet TV idea."
[ ... ]
"Merritt quoted Eric Kim, general manager of Intel's digital home group.
And Kim nailed It. One of the major problems with Internet TV, he said,
is that it interrupted people's TV-watching experience by trying to
place browsers on TV and to have viewers use keyboards or complex
remotes to interact with it.
"In contrast, the Widget Channel uses a thin bar along the bottom as a
default. It's not about browsing -- it's about pushing content."
Bert
------------------------------
Commentary: Is Internet TV yet another would-be wedding?
Junko Yoshida
(08/25/2008 12:01 AM EDT)
URL: http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=210200294
The marriage of TV and the Internet has tickled the fancy of engineers
and marketers at consumer electronics and computer companies for more
than 15 years. The concept is intuitive, yet everyone's still waiting
for the first Internet TV product or service to take the consumer market
by storm.
As a reporter, I've felt the promise of Internet TV getting old. I could
almost have recycled the stories I've written for the past 10 years
every time somebody came up with another Internet TV idea.
But let me not turn too cynical too fast.
Last week, Intel Corp., all dressed up with its first x86-based SoC
specifically designed for consumer electronics to enable Internet TV,
proposed to Pandora -- again.
While this is not the CPU giant's first attempt to open the box in the
living room, Intel appears brimming with confidence this time around --
again.
Computing editor Rick Merritt, covering the recent Intel Developer
Forum, reported that Intel's new x86-based chip, called Canmore, "looked
pretty darn good, and the next one could be hard to beat" (see story
starting on page 16).
Merritt dissects the hardware -- what's inside Canmore -- and
illustrates in detail the software stack and software framework Intel
developed with a host of its partners. One of them -- Yahoo! -- plans to
deliver Internet services on TV via software widgets.
In essence, Merritt was saying that Intel had done its homework. Again.
But having worked the consumer electronics beat for many years and being
a bit skeptical by nature, I didn't get too optimistic too quickly.
I asked Merritt: Why should we believe Intel's Canmore is better
positioned than others to solve the fundamental Internet TV problems the
CE industry couldn't figure out for years? Is it because Canmore is
x86-based? Or is it because of this Widget Channel thing?
I've always believed the fundamental problem with Internet TV was that
the constantly evolving nature of Web applications and services makes it
very difficult for TV (which, let's face it, consumers don't upgrade
constantly) to keep pace with the progress of the Internet.
Merritt's answers shed some light, though.
Merritt quoted Eric Kim, general manager of Intel's digital home group.
And Kim nailed It. One of the major problems with Internet TV, he said,
is that it interrupted people's TV-watching experience by trying to
place browsers on TV and to have viewers use keyboards or complex
remotes to interact with it.
In contrast, the Widget Channel uses a thin bar along the bottom as a
default. It's not about browsing -- it's about pushing content.
Merritt also pointed out that x86 is not necessarily better or worse
than any other CPU for Internet TV.
But, he said, Intel believes it helps, because x86 is a well-known host
for software developers and there is already quite a lot of software
available for it. Intel has done considerable work to pull together
low-level software support for Canmore and the layers below the widget
applications.
Even I have to recognize how the very concept and the purpose of
Internet TV have evolved over time.
Back in the 1990s, Web TV was about bringing Web surfing to TV. In
contrast, Widget Channel is designed to bring video content available on
the Internet to TV on an additional channel.
Widgets, targeted applications designed to allow consumers to access Web
services, have already seen success in PCs and mobile phones.
But again, widgets alone can't solve all the problems with Internet TV.
More than a year ago, in an EE Times article titled "Web video changing
face of TV design," editors Merritt and Dylan McGrath wrote: "Systems
makers need to drive three changes if they want to accelerate the coming
[Internet TV] revolution: break down the walled gardens of content, suck
up the clutter of adapter boxes, and lay down some Web video software
standards."
This still holds true. Clearly, Intel's Canmore has shown us a new path.
Yet I can't help but wonder if there's a widget standards battle
brewing. And more importantly, where on earth does Google stand on the
matter? Does Google even care?
EE Times will surely pursue these and related questions in our future
coverage.
All materials on this site Copyright 2008 TechInsights, a Division of
United Business Media LLC. All rights reserved.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
Other related posts: