Switched On: Next steps toward the IP tuner
By Ross Rubin 
posted Nov 11th 2009 7:30PM
posted Nov 11th 2009 7:30PM
Switched On: The next step toward the IP tuner
Five years ago, the first Switched On talked about the growing coziness between the iPod photo and video. Today, of course, the iPod and many other portable media players have embraced digitally-distributed video, yet the TV itself remains on the cusp of IP content distribution. But TV manufacturers that still shudder when they think of the WebTV experience of 1996 need to get their heads out of their modem ports. For the sake of video choice, it's time to support the broadband web of 2009 on TVs.
As we inch closer to the 2010 Consumer Electronics Show in January, we come upon the first anniversary of the wedding between television sets and the internet. While there were internet-enabled televisions before last year from HP and others, the online-enabled sets from Sony, Panasonic, Samsung and Vizio marked the real embrace of IP. And it wasn't just about the hardware -- the software included Yahoo's widget architecture and Netflix streaming movies.
At this year's CES, internet integration will likely take the next step as Adobe moves to add more members to its Open Screen Project and bring Flash to even more consumer electronics -- it's already headed to most of the major smartphone platforms, and the television is the next high-volume opportunity. Supporting Flash will open up an even broader world of internet video content to the TV. We may even see Flash apps offered in a smartphone-style app store.
But it's still not enough. CE companies have been motivated to add Internet connectivity because of the viability of internet video, but they have just scratched the surface. Perusing the listings of clicker.com, a new Web site that seeks to be the "TV Guide" of web-based internet shows, shows that free online TV shows go far beyond the well-guarded walls of Hulu.
That's not to say that consumer electronics companies should seek to make the TV a bona fide alternative to the PC as a primary internet access device. Indeed, with broadly available cheap netbooks and slates cropping up, the TV remains at a disadvantage for general web surfing. Rather, it is the support of web-based development standards such as AJAX and HTML 5 that are going to be increasingly important for supporting a wide array of TV show sites optimized for video the way that portable web sites have now been optimized for the iPhone.
And while they would need to be adapted to a less powerful television platform, we are starting to see free-form remote controls from the likes of Hillcrest Labs and now GlideTV that take into account flexibility, efficiency, and ease of use.
The last piece of the puzzle is the guide. Most electronic programming guides are still focused on the linear nature of programming, not tracking down TV shows across multiple web sites that may have shifting episodes available. But this is absolutely an addressable issue. Solving it in the short-term could yield a real value-add to TV purchases, and perhaps long-term revenue streams siphoned from cable and other TV providers.
Ross Rubin is director of industry analysis for consumer technology at market research and analysis firm The NPD Group. Views expressed in Switched On are his own.
As we inch closer to the 2010 Consumer Electronics Show in January, we come upon the first anniversary of the wedding between television sets and the internet. While there were internet-enabled televisions before last year from HP and others, the online-enabled sets from Sony, Panasonic, Samsung and Vizio marked the real embrace of IP. And it wasn't just about the hardware -- the software included Yahoo's widget architecture and Netflix streaming movies.
At this year's CES, internet integration will likely take the next step as Adobe moves to add more members to its Open Screen Project and bring Flash to even more consumer electronics -- it's already headed to most of the major smartphone platforms, and the television is the next high-volume opportunity. Supporting Flash will open up an even broader world of internet video content to the TV. We may even see Flash apps offered in a smartphone-style app store.
But it's still not enough. CE companies have been motivated to add Internet connectivity because of the viability of internet video, but they have just scratched the surface. Perusing the listings of clicker.com, a new Web site that seeks to be the "TV Guide" of web-based internet shows, shows that free online TV shows go far beyond the well-guarded walls of Hulu.
Flash will open up an even broader world of internet video content to the TV. |
That's not to say that consumer electronics companies should seek to make the TV a bona fide alternative to the PC as a primary internet access device. Indeed, with broadly available cheap netbooks and slates cropping up, the TV remains at a disadvantage for general web surfing. Rather, it is the support of web-based development standards such as AJAX and HTML 5 that are going to be increasingly important for supporting a wide array of TV show sites optimized for video the way that portable web sites have now been optimized for the iPhone.
And while they would need to be adapted to a less powerful television platform, we are starting to see free-form remote controls from the likes of Hillcrest Labs and now GlideTV that take into account flexibility, efficiency, and ease of use.
The last piece of the puzzle is the guide. Most electronic programming guides are still focused on the linear nature of programming, not tracking down TV shows across multiple web sites that may have shifting episodes available. But this is absolutely an addressable issue. Solving it in the short-term could yield a real value-add to TV purchases, and perhaps long-term revenue streams siphoned from cable and other TV providers.
Ross Rubin is director of industry analysis for consumer technology at market research and analysis firm The NPD Group. Views expressed in Switched On are his own.
Who needs flash when you've got 100,000 apps.
OHH! that rhymed!
10000000 free, quality flash apps > 100000 paid crap apps from apple.
Rhymes more
Flash? So now our TVs can be bogged down and overheat? No thank you. How about some open standards like http streaming of h.264 video? Those iTunes extras Apple is using are based on javascript and html. That seems like a pretty good way to go.
The up-sides to Flash are:
1. Most video sites on the Internet use Flash. So, supporting that gets you most of the video on the Internet.
2. Adobe gets to deal with the codecs. Sure, H.264 would be rad, but what about DivX, Xvid, etc, etc that people will want? If a TV maker say, "we support Flash," Adobe is the one that has to answer the codec question. It's a lot less work for the TV makers because they are probably just giving units to Adobe to support. TV makers won't actually doing any development work.
That said, I'd rather see a bunch of supported codecs with the number of codecs supported being a point differentiation. That would give more potential flexibility to the user, especially if it did Flash and a bunch of other things.
not everything can be done in javascipt. I agree that Flash is often misused, but it is often the best choice for animation / video.
@Robert: You're thinking like a computer user. "Flash" doesn't mean anything. It is an evolving target. It used to mean the ON6 then the ON7 codec. Now as often as not it means h.264. In the future it looks like it will mean Adobe's fragmented MP4 codec (e.g. different streams at different bit rates, in 2 second chunks, so you can switch between them). Flash is great as long as you can update it. So I agree with you as long as the TV processor can be easily and regularly updated and has the needed headroom.
Also, while Flash is certainly King of the Hill right now, it isn't clear to me things will stay that way. With HTML5, upgrades to Flash, various fragmented MP4 approaches being pitched, streaming using HTML, phones getting more important and generally not supporting flash, etc etc things are getting a little more muddy right now.
No, it does not rhyme, and it is time, for IP TV
It rhymes when you say it in a gangster voice, but hey it really is your choice.
I don't really know how much bandwidth streaming shows for the TV would require, but if it's a lot, it could be a problem for people whose ISP limit the monthly bandwidth. *cough* Comcast *cough*
Some numbers:
Typical SD content on cable, encoded with MPEG-2, is 3.75Mbps (megaBITs per second)
Typical HD content on cable, encoded with MPEG-2 is 15Mbps (or more like 38.8/3 lately) for 1080i
Using h.264, the best codec available at the moment, gets you about 2:1 vs. this. So maybe 2Mbps for SD and 7Mbps-ish for HD.
Currently nobody streams at those rates. XBox, Apple TV etc all run around 4Mbps - 5Mbps. If you ignore the Vudu XL format or whatever its called anyway. Lets say 6Mbps at the top end. They do this partly by doing 24fps rather than 30, but also by using 720p (1280x720) rather than 1080i.
And even that isn't real streaming. Netflix, Hulu, etc all stream at much lower rates than that.
If you're talking current streaming bit rates from Hulu, Netflix etc, your Comcast 250GByte cap should be fine. 250GBytes = 2Terabits. At 6Mbps that's 92 hours in a month. Or about 3 hours a day.
For CURRENT usage you'll probably squeak by. In the future when everybody gets all their video this way and maybe you have multiple consumers in your household, and bitrates go up not down, and ... then this WILL be a problem.
And you shouldn't say *cough, cough* Comcast. You should say *cough, cough* Time Warner. Their caps are much much much worse than Comcast's. Try 40GB and less.
I don't think we'll see real cheap and quality streaming until IPv6 rolls around. Multicast support would greatly reduce bandwidth costs for providers (provided they have a live stream and not use on-demand stuff). Unfortunately for everyone, IPv6 is not exactly going through speedy roll-out.
Fanfoot, where exactly do you see TW limiting your bandwidth? I've already used over 50GB of bandwidth this month, and August I used near 200GB of bandwidth. No issue what-so-ever.
Though I am excited to see IPTV coming to a reality, what about the AT&T U-Verse service? Although I will admit it is a kind of a starting point, but it is an IPTV service.
It's closed, requiring you to rent one of their boxes. Maybe we can petition the FCC so we get something like a cable card?
this is kind of like the html vs flash argument that happened with the hero.
iDon't need an app to make fart noises. There's an ass for that.
By the end of this coming year, there will be a ION or Tegra based computer(or something similar), built into some TV's. There is no reason it hasn't been done yet but I can see it happening soon.
Once they get the GPU offload done in Flash, then that sort of CPU could handle Flash. Sometime next year according to Adobe. Without this level of flexibility I'd be nervous about buying an expensive TV with technology in it that might be obsolete almost immediately.
Personally, I'm going with external boxes for the foreseeable future. At least a $200-$300 box I can toss in the trash if that bet doesn't work out.
I have this same TV. I keep seeing it online. Panasonic 42"
Is it because I got it on BestBuy in Black Friday 2006 for $1000 when it was $1600.
Add to that the $600 PS3 that made the TV a must buy at the time.
Both required overnight lines
I think the future is "Smart Phones". Big Media is trying desperately to get people away from the internet and back on the tube and magazines with all these small innovations and novelties. All we need is wireless hdmi standard on TV's and handsets. We just use the phone's built in capabilities and output it to the T.V. I think once you start blurring the line between T.V and computer you ultimately start getting into territory that begs for electronics (desktop, nettop, notebook, mobile phone, MID, videogame consoles or what have you) with full fledged operating systems to take over. Instead of these futile attempts to increase profits and sales in a saturated flat screen T.V market by charging more for these new so called "must have features" they should focus on making the display technology better. I don't want an app store for my tv too. I already We already have laptops,desktops, and phones that have software and widgets. I want a cheap really thin 52 inch display with wireless hdmi and excellent picture quality that will last a long time and can handle videogames without ghosting. Perhaps a slot for memory cards and DVR functionality. I don't want to pay for any of that extra shit that will be more features that can break the T.V.
Just bought a new Samsung 50" plasma HDTV that has built-in ethernet connectivity, Yahoo! Widgets -- one of which is a Blockbuster video download interface, it has a connection for a hard drive, and streams video from my server via my router. PC resolution is 1920x1200. Plus the expected HDMI, component, composite, VGA, in/out, etc. Convergence is here - but most consumers won't "get it".
I wouldn't mind flash so much if it wasn't such a resource hog. As much as I hate silverlight, it provides a much better picture using the same bandwidth. If Adobe were to address this (maybe use h.264 in their flash container) I would be happy.
Maybe I'm missing something, but doesn't comcast and other dish and tv services already stream contents to you via you cable box.
Wow. Im hoping this turns out to be better than what we can do now with a PC.
Why buy regular television for hundreds of dollars when you can watch TV on your computer? Internet television is the next new thing in online technology. Simply put, Internet television offers the consumer a way to watch his or her favorite programs and movies without clicking a button on the TV remote control.
http://www.liveonlinechannels.com/bl-engdgt/main.htm