Community Comments on Google's Acquisition of SageTV

[Skybolt]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

True, but that's the same situation for ANY non-7MC solution.

Yep, the way things are going these days, the "New" system will have to be able to handel all kinds of IP based streams as well. I think our days are numbered with capture card devices.

[Slugger]

Originally Posted by stanger89

I'm not sure that's entirely true, XBMC has some interesting options. AppleTV, etc. OpenELEC has builds for the Xtreamer, and I'm planning on playing with OE on a i7 and see how that works. Maybe without all the Windows baggage and without the normal Linux headaches, XBMC on a purpose built PC could be a replacement for an HD300 (time will tell).

Point is, you don't necessarily have to build your own hardware anymore.

Originally Posted by Skybolt

This is very true, look what XBMC has done with the rPI, and the dedicated PIVIOS builds.

The only real problem I see is getting support for some of the newer tech which is costly, like CableCard.

Valid points. And, actually, I suppose if the Sage extender protocols were public then it would be quite possible to make an existing streamer work with Sage. Obviously, XBMC (and other OSS projects) have that advantage of open protocols, etc., which allows them to make existing products work fairly well, if not perfectly, with their server backends.

[Fuzzy]

Originally Posted by Slugger

Valid points. And, actually, I suppose if the Sage extender protocols were public then it would be quite possible to make an existing streamer work with Sage. Obviously, XBMC (and other OSS projects) have that advantage of open protocols, etc., which allows them to make existing products work fairly well, if not perfectly, with their server backends.

And even in that case, you wouldn't really need to use the extender 'protocol'. It might even be easier to implement an STV rendering system that takes the post-plugin XML as it's input. There aren't that many widgets to implement. The hardest part would be that it would have to be java based, as there could be any java based code hidden in that STV code, or route all java calls back to a service on the server (like sagex).

[Skybolt]

Originally Posted by Slugger

Valid points. And, actually, I suppose if the Sage extender protocols were public then it would be quite possible to make an existing streamer work with Sage. Obviously, XBMC (and other OSS projects) have that advantage of open protocols, etc., which allows them to make existing products work fairly well, if not perfectly, with their server backends.

I had asked Jeff right after the sale, if I could "Get" the extender protocol by either purchaseing or opensource, and his response was "Why would you want to do that?" And the conversation didn't really get much further.

From that, I am thinking the Google Fiber clients as based on some protocol relative of the HDx00 extenders.

[Brent]

Originally Posted by Skybolt

From that, I am thinking the Google Fiber clients as based on some protocol relative of the HDx00 extenders.

The Google Fiber extenders are the next generation of the HDxxx. And the Google Fiber TV software is SageTV. Google owns it and Jeff's team runs it.

[Skybolt]

Originally Posted by Brent

The Google Fiber extenders are the next generation of the HDxxx. And the Google Fiber TV software is SageTV. Google owns it and Jeff's team runs it.

I understand that, but didn't when I asked the question well over a year ago. I thought it was worth a try. One never knows. I mean look at the extender, no password on telnet.

[wayner]

Originally Posted by Skybolt

Yep, the way things are going these days, the "New" system will have to be able to handel all kinds of IP based streams as well. I think our days are numbered with capture card devices.

Almost everything that you want to watch still comes through cable/sat so as long as I can get a cable box with live component outputs (or HDMI that can be captured/converted with HD-Fury or HDMI adapaters) that I can connect to my HD-PVR then I am still good. I don't see my days as being numbered, at least not until component goes away and/or UHDTV becomes prevalent but that isn't happening any time soon.

[Skybolt]

Originally Posted by wayner

Almost everything that you want to watch still comes through cable/sat so as long as I can get a cable box with live component outputs (or HDMI that can be captured/converted with HD-Fury or HDMI adapaters) that I can connect to my HD-PVR then I am still good. I don't see my days as being numbered, at least not until component goes away and/or UHDTV becomes prevalent but that isn't happening any time soon.

That was my point, I believe Component's output days are numbered. Device are getting smaller and smaller and the hardware required to support both HDMI and Component video is vast. MY new TV only has one component input compaired to the 2 composite in's and 4 HDMI in's. I am just saying we all know how the industry is changing and viewing unencrypted tv output now don't we.

[Fuzzy]

Originally Posted by Skybolt

Yep, the way things are going these days, the "New" system will have to be able to handel all kinds of IP based streams as well. I think our days are numbered with capture card devices.

While it may be that there IS a lot of content over IP streams, it is still a secondary delivery medium. There is very little content (short of youtube type stuff) that is primarily distributed via IP streaming alone. This, primarily at this point, is because even after many MANY years, multicast (especailly IPv6 IP multicast) capability is just not that prevalent in residential ISP's. Therefore, for every person streaming a video, it is an independent stream from the server, to that individual client. VERY inefficient, especially since there is a LOT of the highest audience programming that is broadcast live (sports, news, etc).

Just think of youtube alone. Most videos are, yes, rarely streamed - but there are always a few videos that are at the top of the 'youtube charts' that are constantly being streamed by upwards of thousands or more parties. I wonder how much bandwidth youtube and the backbones would save if when you selected to watch a popular youtube video, it subscribed to the next up multicast broadcast (even if youtube launched a new multicast every 5 seconds). Yes, the end user might have up to a 5 second delay in the stream starting, but the overall load on every step of the network from the server to local ISP's will be significantly reduced. Unrelated to this would be other potential uses for extensive multicast. Software updates, for instance, could be helped greatly by it.

[Skybolt]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

While it may be that there IS a lot of content over IP streams, it is still a secondary delivery medium. There is very little content (short of youtube type stuff) that is primarily distributed via IP streaming alone. This, primarily at this point, is because even after many MANY years, multicast (especailly IPv6 IP multicast) capability is just not that prevalent in residential ISP's. Therefore, for every person streaming a video, it is an independent stream from the server, to that individual client. VERY inefficient, especially since there is a LOT of the highest audience programming that is broadcast live (sports, news, etc).

I pretty much agree with you, for right now anyway. I think thngs are trending that way that is all. So so many devices that are IP based only are doing well, look at the apple tv's anf the like.

My cable co (Optimum.net) has also institued there backend DRV. So even if I wanted thier DVR, it would be hosted by them and streamed back to me via thier cable. I think the traffic is pretty close, I realize it's in a diffeant band though, so might not impact IP bandwidth as much. Not sure.

[wayner]

Originally Posted by Skybolt

That was my point, I believe Component's output days are numbered. Device are getting smaller and smaller and the hardware required to support both HDMI and Component video is vast. MY new TV only has one component input compaired to the 2 composite in's and 4 HDMI in's. I am just saying we all know how the industry is changing and viewing unencrypted tv output now don't we.

You're right Component is going away but as long as older models are still available then we are still ok.

Canada has pretty much the same cable TV market and technology as the US, but one difference is that your cable co, at least mine - Rogers, will sell you a set top box. I have bought several through the years including an SA3250HD which does not have an HDMI port, although it does have a DVI port. It would therefore be harder for them to deactivate the component ports when I bought a box from them.

[Fuzzy]

Originally Posted by wayner

You're right Component is going away but as long as older models are still available then we are still ok.

Canada has pretty much the same cable TV market and technology as the US, but one difference is that your cable co, at least mine - Rogers, will sell you a set top box. I have bought several through the years including an SA3250HD which does not have an HDMI port, although it does have a DVI port. It would therefore be harder for them to deactivate the component ports when I bought a box from them.

Also, I'm pretty sure every sat company will sell boxes, and you can still buy 'obsolete' boxes on eBay and activate them with the provider - even the older ViP-211 dish network boxes, which are pretty much 'unlocked' as far as outputs/encryption goes - which is why the R5000HD works - can still be activated.

[wbarber69]

Originally Posted by Skybolt

That was my point, I believe Component's output days are numbered. Device are getting smaller and smaller and the hardware required to support both HDMI and Component video is vast. MY new TV only has one component input compaired to the 2 composite in's and 4 HDMI in's. I am just saying we all know how the industry is changing and viewing unencrypted tv output now don't we.

i think your wrong here. look at composite. my newest tv still suprts it and as long as there are tv models with component inputs, it will continue to be a market spec that most manufacturers will uphold.

[wayner]

I think he is right - composite is the Lowest Common Denominator so you will continue to see that to support legacy stuff like digital camers, camcorders, Kids toys like Vtech stuff, etc. And almost every TV built in the last 25 years has composite input(s).

I have noticed that more recent TVs and AVRs no longer have many, if any, S-video inputs and s-video gives a higher quality than composite but it is not as pervasive.

I think we are going to devices that will have composite and HDMI - you will see fewer component and s-vid.

[7up]

Any further rumors or speculation as to whether Google will be releasing a standalone version of GoogleTV box, similar to what they are releasing in KC? I would think they could meet/exceed the features of a Roku with HDD300 functionality.

[phareous]

Originally Posted by 7up

Any further rumors or speculation as to whether Google will be releasing a standalone version of GoogleTV box, similar to what they are releasing in KC? I would think they could meet/exceed the features of a Roku with HDD300 functionality.

I don't think Google cares about non-Fiber customers. That doesn't mean they won't eventually release a box (who knows?), but I don't think it is a priority and it won't be any time soon

[7up]

Originally Posted by phareous

I don't think Google cares about non-Fiber customers. That doesn't mean they won't eventually release a box (who knows?), but I don't think it is a priority and it won't be any time soon

Non-Fiber customers is a pretty big market to ignore, wouldn't you agree?

Unfortantely I'm inclinced to agree with you at this point.

[phareous]

Originally Posted by 7up

Non-Fiber customers is a pretty big market to ignore, wouldn't you agree?

Unfortantely I'm inclinced to agree with you at this point.

They bought Sage for the technology to use in their Fiber project...they could care less about the non-Fiber market. I would have thought the market would be big, but observation shows otherwise. If the market was huge, then Sage may not have sold out. BeyondTV couldn't cut it on the home market. ReplayTV went under. Windows Media Center is on life support. It seems making your own HTPC is a niche thing, and most everyone is happy to pay monthly fees to cable and satellite providers for their solutions instead

[7up]

Originally Posted by phareous

They bought Sage for the technology to use in their Fiber project...they could care less about the non-Fiber market. I would have thought the market would be big, but observation shows otherwise. If the market was huge, then Sage may not have sold out. BeyondTV couldn't cut it on the home market. ReplayTV went under. Windows Media Center is on life support. It seems making your own HTPC is a niche thing, and most everyone is happy to pay monthly fees to cable and satellite providers for their solutions instead

I do agree the homebrewed DVR - extender market to be smaller niche market however a STB for online services is the large market to ignore. Extender features would just be a differentiator and presumably the designs already exist. Repackaging/updating the HDD300 into a streamer/extender would seem like a no brainer but I guess thats wishful thinking.

[stanger89]

But that's what GoogleTV is for, not GoogleFiber DVR.