Few have been said about the new programing flowing on web, but there exist. Brazil has one of the biggest WebTV Network avaiable already working on WWW.BIGBRASIL.TV see the whole NetWork Map on WWW.BIGBRASIL.TV/REDETVS.
They have more than 40 world wide TVs, they work as producers of new programing and also (great ideia), as Youtube Selectors by themes inserted on the meaning of its domain name. Youtube became the world wide big video deposit and almost impossible to find what we want.
We, and soon, each day many more, will want to see and will produce many more inteligent and intersting new TV content.
Why not ask user what they want before spend so much tries leadED by executives pressed by loosing their jobs?
Of course TV with Internet or vice-versa. But about interface any try to do samething new seems to delay what users just and only want to see, TV and Internet. Put just two optioSn, one or another and both togheter changable by Pips (Picture in pictures), Just this. The obvious, and let me say: We will see only the internet. The great thing is have internet on living room with easy use everyday. TV broadcast programing are decling on its content message.
What we need is a cheaper "itunes" standard for TV content, such that it can be delivered to us reliably and very cheaply, and we can effectively replicate cable or satellite subscriptions if we want to.
Unless Intel is making an open standard, and has negotiated long-term contracts with all content sources (something only Intel or Apple could do), its just another hunk of useless junk.
The Eee Box promised the 'netbook' experience on TV but they bailed for XP at the last minute.
Right now, the only way to get a full-fledged web browser on the living room screen at all is with a game console ($$$) or media center PC ($$-$$$$). Both of which are too silly or too complicated for the still-vast unserved market of nontechnical users to appreciate.
These people *do* need a browser in the television, just a modest embedded board that boots to full-screen Firefox + Flash with a big 'restore to defaults' switch. Nobody's going to use some goofy WebTV overlay, but the same people in need of simple, appliance-type netbooks are the ones whose eyes can no longer accommodate a 6" screen.
Back in late 1990s', DirecTV offered interactive features with WebTV. Remember WEBtv is 64 bit. So amoung first with Streaming, Video in, etc.
Watch Patricia Yearwood on FREE Special with interaction, 3 people in total posted. year latter I asked Patricia if theres some coverup, nationwide broadcast with 3 viewers posting?. Said NO, & showed website of Patricias that Most Get Mostly NO Comments At ALL.
So interactive features are FUN, It was merely test for 6 months, Yet there Are NO Viewers to Most of Glut of Entertainment Today. Maybe theINQ is Interactive TalkSmithie? Drashek
Few have been said about the new programing flowing on web, but there exist. Brazil has one of the biggest WebTV Network avaiable already working on WWW.BIGBRASIL.TV see the whole NetWork Map on WWW.BIGBRASIL.TV/REDETVS.
They have more than 40 world wide TVs, they work as producers of new programing and also (great ideia), as Youtube Selectors by themes inserted on the meaning of its domain name. Youtube became the world wide big video deposit and almost impossible to find what we want.
We, and soon, each day many more, will want to see and will produce many more inteligent and intersting new TV content.
MSN: marceloveiga@hotmail.com
Why not ask user what they want before spend so much tries leadED by executives pressed by loosing their jobs?
Of course TV with Internet or vice-versa. But about interface any try to do samething new seems to delay what users just and only want to see, TV and Internet. Put just two optioSn, one or another and both togheter changable by Pips (Picture in pictures), Just this. The obvious, and let me say: We will see only the internet. The great thing is have internet on living room with easy use everyday. TV broadcast programing are decling on its content message.
What we need is a cheaper "itunes" standard for TV content, such that it can be delivered to us reliably and very cheaply, and we can effectively replicate cable or satellite subscriptions if we want to.
Unless Intel is making an open standard, and has negotiated long-term contracts with all content sources (something only Intel or Apple could do), its just another hunk of useless junk.
"Making chips out of couch potatoes."
keep 'em coming!
The Apple TV launched without a web browser.
The Eee Box promised the 'netbook' experience on TV but they bailed for XP at the last minute.
Right now, the only way to get a full-fledged web browser on the living room screen at all is with a game console ($$$) or media center PC ($$-$$$$). Both of which are too silly or too complicated for the still-vast unserved market of nontechnical users to appreciate.
These people *do* need a browser in the television, just a modest embedded board that boots to full-screen Firefox + Flash with a big 'restore to defaults' switch. Nobody's going to use some goofy WebTV overlay, but the same people in need of simple, appliance-type netbooks are the ones whose eyes can no longer accommodate a 6" screen.
Back in late 1990s', DirecTV offered interactive features with WebTV. Remember WEBtv is 64 bit. So amoung first with Streaming, Video in, etc.
Watch Patricia Yearwood on FREE Special with interaction, 3 people in total posted. year latter I asked Patricia if theres some coverup, nationwide broadcast with 3 viewers posting?. Said NO, & showed website of Patricias that Most Get Mostly NO Comments At ALL.
So interactive features are FUN, It was merely test for 6 months, Yet there Are NO Viewers to Most of Glut of Entertainment Today. Maybe theINQ is Interactive TalkSmithie? Drashek