active-TV technology

Apple ends TV remotes rather than replace them ?

2010-09-21T14:53:00.003-05:00

The new Apple TV has received some disappointing remarks from commentators. In part this is due to its lack of direct support for iPhone-like apps or apparent inability to get rid of the tangle of boxes and wiring behind the TV. As well as not providing the one-TV-remote that does everything, and gets rid of the rest. But maybe these criticism are unfair and resulting from Apple's strategy having not fully emerged.

However, Apple may think their is no need for UI apps to run on the TV. Clearly, the TV is not going to support a touch-based interface. It is likely all the UI controls a TV requires can be better accomplished using an iPod, iPhone, or iPad. Consequently, the TV's UI could be provided by apps running on multiple mobile devices used around the home.

We can see this direction emerging with Apple's AirPlay which enables mobile devices to stream video and audio to any AirPlay connected devices, such as an Apple-TV connected TV. This is a bit like using an iPod touch to stream music to a Hi-Fi system connected using a wireless AirPort Express. The AirPort acts as a bridge between the Hi-Fi and the home network. The Apple-TV could be used like an AirPort Express for Video. The relatively low $99 cost and power requirement of the new Apple TV would fit with this operation.

The Apple TV web site shows how in the future an iPod can be used to switch its output from the mobile display to a wirelessly connected TV (see How it Works). Video could be discovered or organized with a mobile app, but ultimately viewed on the TV. Maybe we will soon see an update to the iPhone SDK to support an AirPlay icon and menu for switching video output to any connected TV. This would enable developers to better build "TV apps".

Video stored on an iPod could be streamed to the TV, but it is also likely the iPod could alternatively just send the storage location of the video to the TV, along with the play-back position. This would reduce network traffic. A mobile app may find or select a video for TV viewing, but it need not have to be actually stream to the TV. Once given the video's network address, the Apple TV alone could deal with the decoding and presentation.

Now consider the tangle of boxes and multiple remotes. One solution would be a relatively simple video receiver box with no remote controller or built-in TV UI. In effect, a NAS-like box (Network Attached Storage) sitting next to an Apple TV and network-wired to the Apple TV. The box could receive ATSC, DVB-t or cableCARD-type CA-protected broadcast video. The UI for accessing the video would be on the iPod or other Apple mobile device. It would be easy and network-efficent for the UI on the user's mobile device to have the video "sent" to the TV for display, as the video's network address is close (wired) to the TV.

Such a system would easily support video time shifting and TV access to any video reachable on the home network, such as video stored on a laptop computer. All the TV-remotes are gone, replaced by the iPod of the like. Missing from the story, is the ability to control the graphics engine inside the Apple-TV. AirPlay only provides a means of switching the location for video decode, there appears no means for a UI application to incorporate such things as graphics transition animation between video playback. But maybe that's a future Apple demo.

Daniel Mann

Use your iPhone or iPod to watch big-screen TV

2009-12-21T09:06:00.014-06:00

The latest "Navigate YouTube" iPhone/iPod touch app brings news reports, entertainment highlights or full-length movies directly to your TV -- no mouse clicks or monthly service fees required.

Full-screen video appears on the TV when it is connected to an iPhone or iPod touch via an Apple AV Composite Cable. Apple’s cable design does not replicate the entire mobile screen. The touch screen is used to start-stop-pause-step play or return to normal iPhone/iPod operation.

Thousands of individuals and companies such as Independent Television News (ITN), PBS, PBS NewsHour, Associated Press (AP), Discovery Networks, Film Movement, France 24, France 24 (English), Lionsgate Films, and OpenFlix, to name only a few, have YouTube channels. These channels contain a dizzying amount of uploaded videos, playlists and connections to other interesting video.

“Navigate YouTube” enables playlists or video channels to be watched in sequence with TV-like freedom -- no need to continually click a mouse or screen. It also makes it easy to find and subscribe to new channels. You can also exchange video recommendations with friends, or piggyback on their playlists and channel subscriptions.

The iPod touch in my home has effectively been turned into a Set-Top Box for watching TV.

So, lean back in front of the TV and sswatch the latest internet-delivered video, uninterrupted by mouse clicks. All without any monthly service fee.

Daniel Mann

What could friends know about your YouTube viewing ?

2009-11-14T07:51:00.004-06:00

The updated version 1.3 of the iPhone and iPod touch app, Navigae YouTube, makes it easy to review the activity history of your friends and enjoy what they enjoy.

When someone adds your User ID to their YouTube address book (easily done with the Navigate YouTube iPhone app), you will receive an email request to become a friend of the requestor. If you accept the request, then you are promoted from an ordinary contact in their address book to a friend.

Similarly, you can easily use Navigate YouTube to request that a contact be converted to YouTube friend status. You can then look at their activity and better share your interest in YouTube video.

Navigate YouTube makes it easy to use the iPhone/iPod Touch to review the YouTube activity of one’s friends. In the example screen shot below, Pam is a friend. It is easy to review some of her recent YouTube activity. This is a great way to find interesting new video.

This feature, along with other interesting YouTube access features, is now part of the new version 1.3 update. The app makes it easy to be a YouTube expert-user.

There is more info at the iTunes App Store or at the user instructions webpage.

Daniel Mann

Navigateur pour YouTube pour iPhone et le iPod touch

2009-10-19T08:05:00.012-05:00

Regardez Une app facile à utiliser pour le iPhone et iPod qui permet au débutant ou au utilisateur confirmé de YouTube d’obtenir le meilleur de YouTube.

Revisez les vidéos standards, les catégories, les canaux et les listes de reproduction. Organisez alors les nouvelles vidéos en vos propres favoris et listes de reproduction. Rendez la Playlist privée ou publique. Souscrivez aux listes de réproduction et aux collections de vidéos d’autres abonnés pour votre accès futur. Souscrivez aux vidéos pertinentes avec des mots de recherche.

Regardez les vidéos préférées publiquement visionnées, les listes de reproduction et les abonnements basés sur vos amis, famille et contacts de YouTube. Envoyez et recevez des recommandations de vidéos de vos contacts de YouTube par l'intermédiaire des messages de vidéo de YouTube.

Recherchez les nouvelles vidéos marquées pour votre région géographique, utilisant le clavier local. Explorez-les pour de nouvelles vidéos par l'intermédiaire de la commutation facile de l'identification de l'utilisateur au propriétaire des vidéos intéressantes - explorez alors leur monde.

Toutes les actions sont maintenues synchronisées avec le PC, l'accès Mac ou Apple-TV à YouTube.

Somaire:

• Regardez toute les catégories de vidéos: musique, nouvelles, sport,…
• Revisez les classements de vidéos : Évalué supérieur, les plus populaires…
• Changez la région géographique : États Unis, France, Japon, Brésil,… regardez alors les catégories et les normes standards pour la région.
• Écrivez des mots de recherche et trouvez des nouvelles vidéos pertinentes.
• Ajoutez les nouvelles vidéos aux favoris ou aux listes de reproduction.
• Créez et éditez les listes de réproduction ou les favoris. Rendez les listes de reproduction privées ou publiques.
• Souscrivez aux vidéos compatible avec les mots de recherche - de nouvelles vidéos sont trouvées sans recopier votre requête.
• Recherchez les listes de réproduction d’autres abonnés et souscrivez pour votre accès futur.
• Recherchez les canaux édités par National Geographic, BBC ou tout autre uploader de YouTube.
• Souscrivez aux canaux pour un accès futur facile et pour tenir à jour avec leurs derniers téléchargements.
• Regardez votre abonnement aux canaux, listes de reproduction, vidéos compatibles avec des mots de recherche ou à tous les favoris des autres abonnés.
• Regardez un sommaire des dernières vidéos ajoutées à votre abonnement de vidéos.
• Ajoutez ou enlevez d'autres utilisateurs de YouTube sur votre liste de contacts.
• Accès facile aux messages de vidéo de YouTube reçus de vos contacts.
• Envoyez une vidéo intéressante à un contact, et ajoutez un message court.
• Commutez l'identification de l'utilisateur à un de vos contacts pour accéder leurs favoris et listes de reproduction publiquement visionnées.
• Commutez l'identification de l'utilisateur à l'identification employée par un uploader de vidéos intéressantes.
• Regardez vos propres vidéos téléchargées.
• Découvrez une nouvelle vidéo, puis trouvez les vidéos pertinentes.

Daniel Mann

iPhoneとiPod Touch向け、YouTube向けナビゲーター

2009-10-16T17:33:00.010-05:00

初心者から上級のYouTubeのユーザー向けに、YouTubeに最適化したiPhoneとiPod Touch向けの使いやすいアプリケーションです。

YouTubeの標準のフィード、カテゴリー、チャネル、そしてプレイリストに手軽にアクセスし、新しく見つけた画像を自分のお気に入りやプレイリストとして管理することができます。プレイリストの公開、非公開の設定できます。他のユーザーのプレイリストやビデオコレクションを後で見るために購読に加えることができます。また、検索ワードに合致した動画を購読する機能があります。

あなたのYouTubeの友人、家族、コンタクトが公開されているお気に入りビデオ、プレイリストや購読を見る事ができます。YouTubeビデオメッセージを使ってYouTubeのコンタクトとお勧めのビデオの送信、受信ができます。

画像検索に地域を設定してサーチできます。ユーザーIDに切り替える事により、画像オーナーの興味ある分野の画像を見られます。

全ての作業は、YouTubeに接続できるPC, Mac, またはAppleTV等他の端末で同期されます。

概要
• ビデオ・カテゴリーを見る：Music, News, Sports, ...
• 標準のフィードを見る：Top Rated, Most Viewed
• 地域の設定を変更する：United States, France, Japan, Brazil, ...そして、その地域のカテゴリーや標準フィードを見る。
• 検索ワードを入れ、それに該当した新しいビデオを見つける。
• 新しいビデオをお気に入り、またはプレイリストに追加する。
• プレイリストやお気に入りを作成、編集する。また、プレイリストを公開、非公開を設定する。
• National Geographic, BBCやその他のYouTubeの動画提供者が公開したチャネルを検索する。
• あなたの定期購読するチャネル、プレイリスト、検索ワードに合致した動画、または他のユーザーのお気に入りを視聴する。
• あなたの定期購読に追加した最新の動画のまとめをみる。
• コンタクトリストの追加、または削除を行う。
• コンタクトリストからのYouTubeビデオメッセージを簡単にアクセスできる。
• 興味のあるビデオをコンタクトに送ったり、短いメッセージを追加したりできる。
• ユーザーIDをあなたのコンタクトに切り替え公開されているお気に入りやプレイリストにアクセスする。
• ユーザーIDを興味のある動画を提供するIDに切り替える。
• 自分が公開した動画を見る。
• 見つけた新しいビデオに関連したビデオを見る。

Daniel Mann

Navigator for YouTube available for iPhone

2009-10-15T16:44:00.016-05:00

An easy to use iPhone and iPod touch App that enables both new and advanced YouTube users to get the best from YouTube.

Browse video Standard Feeds, Categories, Channels and Playlists. Then organize new videos into your own favoritists and playlists. Make plalists private or public. Subscribe to other user's playlists and video collections for future viewing. Subscribe to videos matching search-words.

Look at publicly viewable favorite videos, playlists and subscriptions based on your YouTube friends, family and contacts. Send and receive video recommendations with YouTube contacts via YouTube video messages.

Search for new videos tagged for your language or geographical region, using local keyboard. Explore for new videos via easy switching of user ID to the owner of interesting videos - then explore their world.

All actions are kept in sync with PC, Mac or Apple-TV access to YouTube.

Summary:

• View video Categories: Music, News, sport, ...
• View Standard Feeds: Top Rated, Most Viewed, ...
• Change geographical region: Unites States, France, Japan, Brazil, ... Then view Categories and Standard Feeds for the region.
• Enter search-words and find new videos with matching description.
• Add new videos to Favorites or Playlists.
• Create and edit Playlists or Favorites. Make Playlists private or public.
• Subscribe to videos matching search-words - new videos are found without reentering search-words.
• Search for other user's Playlists, and subscribe for easy future viewing.
• Search for Channels published by National Geographic, BBC or other YouTube uploader.
• Subscribe to Channels for easy future access and keeping up-to-date with their latest uploads.
• View your subscription to Channels, Playlists, video matching search-words or other users' Favorites.
• View a summary of latest video added to your video subscriptions.
• Add or remove other YouTube users to your list of contacts.
• Easy access to YouTube video messages received from contacts.
• Send an interesting video to a contact, and add a short message.
• Switch User ID to one of your contacts to access their publicly viewable Favorites and Playlists
• Switch User ID to the ID used by an interesting video uploader.
• View your own uploaded videos.
• Discover a new video, then find related videos.

Developed by Active-TV Technology. Currently available in English, French and Japanese at the iTunes App Store. User instructions are available in English. Feedback, corrections and comments are welcome.

Daniel Mann

An "iTunes moment” for the TV ?

2009-09-01T17:39:00.003-05:00

The Issue: Speaking at the MediaGuardian Edinburgh International Television Festival, the well informed Ashley Highfield’s remarks imply that the TV industry has as little as two years to create a viable digital businesses or face the TV equivalent of an "iTunes moment”. Which others have described as record labels ceding control over digital asset distribution to the Apple juggernaut.

Background: After years of effort by many companies to combine TV and Internet, no widely accepted video appliance or networked-TV has emerged. Does Highfield see that this is about to change? Is Apple now positioned for a dominant position in the TV platform and service business? Or is Highfield referring to something other than Apple technology?

Behind the scene: Apple is rumored to soon introduce a new ‘iPad’ (i.e. large Apple Touch). A new Apple-TV is also expected. Are these the platforms that will finally bring convergence between web and TV? Highfield opines, "Once this happens the shift of spending from TV to web will accelerate even more".

It has been two years since blogging began on possible next-steps for the Apple-TV. In this time Apple has made great strides in feeding expectations for extensive software application support on smart phones. This has caused the established hardware-oriented phone builders to scramble to develop their own software application infrastructure. Efforts, such as Android and Ovi are manifestly attempts to protect against further erosion of the high-end mobile phone market to the iPhone onslaught. This erosion has initially been most noticeable in the US market but soon to follow elsewhere.

The iPod has also developed into a software application platform in the form of the Apple Touch. Both Touch and iPhone support a “full browser” experience based on WebKit, and also application software programs built using the Apple SDK. Building a Pad-like device based on the same technology would enable Apple to build a lower-cost web access or web-browsing device without underselling its existing MacBook market and with access to the extensive catalogue of iPhone applications (some 60,000+ strong). What might be called an ‘iPad” could not support the full range of applications supported by a Mac or MacBook, but would nevertheless offer a compelling Internet and application enhanced appliance.

The original Apple-TV was based on PC technology. This has a much higher hardware cost than a Touch. The Apple-TV does not make use of this additional hardware capability; it’s a cost tax without major benefit. Now, however, Apple would appear to have the technology to build a next-generation Apple-TV based on Touch technology instead, which would likely require better graphics resolution for the larger TV screen. This development step is likely required for an iPad device as well.

A lower-cost Apple-TV could make headway in the US market where consumers are accustomed to subsidized Set-Top Boxes from service providers, and hence are very price sensitive. Following the recent U.S. transition to digital ATSC from analog NTSC broadcasts, Apple may decide the time is now right to introduce a Touch-based Apple-TV with ATSC support. This hybrid box, would meet demand for media convergence capabilities within a relatively low-cost appliance. Clearly, the European market would require a DVB-t hybrid, but Apple is likely to lead with US products first.

The lower cost hardware would also better support a co-branded networked Apple-TV with Touch technology “built into the glass” (as they say in “industry-speak”). With these steps, Apple will have moved the modern TV to a software application platform, much like it is moving the mobile phone to a software platform. Many of the existing TV and STB suppliers would struggle to respond. I suspect a large portion of the “window in which to respond” that Highfield refers to would be consumed while waiting for company accountants to confirm loss of market share. Thus making it safe in these difficult career times for product managers to engage in reactive-product development. Apple would have lit the green light, signaling the rush of competitive new products.

Highfield stated, "So, realistically, I think the industry has about two to three years to adapt or face its iTunes moment. And it will take at least that long for media brands to build credible, truly digital brands. But, importantly, I do believe TV does have a small, two to three year window in which to respond…"

Software application developers benefit from the efficiencies of a common platform such as the PC. The PC’s dominance is why we see new applications such as the iPlayer first appearing on the PC, even before the Mac. It is simply a matter of quickly reaching the greatest number of users. A common TV platform based on some form of Apple-TV would rapidly gain the attention of application developers. This assumes the new Apple-TV supports iTunes store-enabled applications. Albeit, with Apple having the final say on what applications are acceptable - this is likely to lead to some conflicts. Without some degree of support for independent application developers, the new Apple-TV would not be considered a common platform. Consequently, it would have a slower market acceptance and pose less threat to its competitors, and therefore extend the window in which to respond.

An Apple-TV which only supports iTunes would give Apple greater control over revenues generated by web-TV convergence. It would also simplify any competitor’s ability to rally the software community to support an alternative approach and platform. This might be based on a WebKit- or Adobe Flash-based range of boxes and TVs. However, the industry’s reluctance to embrace software technology has resulted in years of waiting for the ideal convergence TV platform. The failure to make do with technology now readily available is now likely a greater problem than mastering the business changes inherent with convergence. Again, this may well play to Apple’s advantages by keeping the software community fully occupied developing new applications for the iPhone, Touch, ‘iPad’, or any new Apple-TV.

Apple also has the opportunity to combine the operation of the iPhone or Touch with the PC or Mac and the Apple TV. Ecosystem-enabled smart application software holds the promise of finding relevance with web-savvy consumers and service providers. It will be interesting to see how Apple balances decisions regarding conflicting agendas for openness, exclusivity, and inclusion of non-revenue generating features, such as digital recording and ATSC tuners, or DVD playing. To achieve market dominance it has to ease new ideas into a wide audience which still finds value in existing, low-cost and well-understood TV-related appliances. Both Microsoft and Sony have not found this an easy nut to crack, despite major undertakings using their game platforms.

We should know soon whether the iPad is launched and the Apple-TV receives a refresh, and if Ashley Highfield’s predictions prove correct, the clock is ticking for competitors to make the next move.

Daniel Mann

TV access for YouTube Movie Categories

2009-04-17T16:51:00.006-05:00

YouTube has improved it support for Movies and TV Shows. It is reported that this may be part of an expanding plan for micropayments and viewing of longer-format or full-episode video typically found on increasingly popular sites like Hulu and Veoh.

YouTube’s PC landing page now has tabs for “Shows” and “Movies”.

To support TV viewing of these categories, there is now an updated version (16x9 youtube_beta_19.zip) of the active-TV TV-webpage available from this blogsite. As can be seen from the TV image below, some of the full-episode shows and movies have been “marked” by their up-loaders, as only viewable from a PC.

Daniel Mann

Fix for change in YouTube streaming

2009-03-31T14:57:00.002-06:00

Very recently YouTube made an engineering modification to their service which changed access to their video. This caused the active-TV TV-web page for YouTube to stop working. We have determined a fix and included it in the new youtube_beta_18.zip file available from this blogsite.

This update is slightly slower initially accessing YouTube video; but we wanted to make a quick solution available for all those that have reported the problem. We will likely release a faster version later.

Receiving a Video Message at the TV

2009-02-10T09:59:00.008-06:00

There have been a lot of web articles lately, such as “Social networkers want TV airtime”, discussing the demand for PC and mobile phone messaging to be supported at the living room TV. Some companies, such as Sky have indicated this is on their roadmap.

Video sharing and distribution sites already support sending messages between site users. For example, Youtube PC-website users who find a video they like can send a link to a Friend in their Contact List. This is done via the Send Video button which appears below the video display area – as shown below.

After clicking on Send Video, a Friend from the contact list is selected (daniel78746 for the example above), and the PC keyboard is used to type in a message to accompany the Video.

The YouTube developers’ API supports receiving Video Messages. But to access messages the user must first enter their account password. The YouTube TV-website supported by active-TV enabled TVs and STBs, such as the D-link DSM-520, has been extended to enable a YouTube password to be entered using the TV remote. The TV menu now includes the menu option “Messages in Inbox” which is used to access message at the living room TV screen.

The example above shows that a Video Message was received from YouTube user “alt34ab”. The message text typed in at the sender’s keyboard, now appears on the receivers TV. In the menu entry just below the message is the video link associated with the Video Message. This is shown below.

Using the YouTube supported scheme, it is possible to send a message from a cell phone or PC to a TV. With some more development it will be possible to send messages from the TV to another TV, PC or cell phone. A beta version of the TV-website will be made available for testing at this blog-site. Look for the youtube_beta zip file with version 17 or higher.

On the right side of the TV screen is the “related” icon which moves up and down the screen, positioned next to the currently selected menu entry. Pushing “enter” on the TV remote while highlighting the “related” icon, causes the menu to be filled with video entries which relate to the current entry. For example, the Video Message delivers a link to the “Rory Gallagher ..” video. Using the “related” button provides a list of videos which Youtube report to be related. See the example TV screen below.

Feedback, corrections and comments welcome. Please make contact if you would like more information about TV-website development.
Daniel Mann

Adding Live Internet TV streams to my Living Room TV

2009-01-24T08:52:00.004-06:00

The prior blog entry “Build your own TV channel from torrent-delivered video sources” did not adequately cover the details of adding more than torrent formatted video sources, such as Live TV streams.

As explained, a users’ torrentSites.xml file describes the video feeds to be presented at the TV. Each <item> in the torrentSites.xml typically contains the url address of an XML-formatted RSS video feed. But it can alternatively contain the address of an XML-formatted listing of Live TV channels. Assume the <item> below is included in the torrentSites.xml file.

<item>
<title>My Video Feeds</title>
<description>Video feeds defined in my PC file myVideoFeeds.xml</description>
<link>myVideoFeeds.xml</link>


</item>

Following the torrentSites.xml entry above leads to the myVideoFeeds.xml file; which is also, given the example file address, located on your networked PC and not on a networked server. Below is an example of myVideoFeeds.xml.

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<rss>
<channel>

<item>
<title>BFM TV, France </title>
<description>French 24-hour television news channel, defined in my PC file myVideoFeeds.xml</description>
<enclosure url="mms://vipmms9.yacast.net/bfm_bfmtv" type="application/video" />

<pubDate>Live TV</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Vesti 24, Russia</title>
<description>Russian TV feed, defined in my PC file myVideoFeeds.xml</description>
<enclosure url="mms://video.rfn.ru/vesti_24" type="application/video" />

<pubDate>Live TV</pubDate>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>

The torrentSites.xml has a menu entry entitled “My Video Feeds”. This appears on the left-side TV menu, as shown below. The myVideoFeeds.xml file contains two <item> entries; these now appear in the right-side TV menu. By adding your own entries into your myVideoFeeds.xml you can build a menu enabling access to a video feed you have obtained the address for.

To further demonstrate the system I have build a menu item "Live TV Streams" which is currently streaming Live TV from the following internet channels: BFM TV, France; Reel Good TV, USA; Vesti 24, Russia; TV RB, Russia; RTR Planeta, Russia; Canal 7, Sweden; 4E TV, Greece; ERT 3, Greece; Folketing TV, Denmark; Omega TV, Netherlands; Omroep Zeeland, Netherlands; Teleradioerre, Italy ; Tiziana Sat, Italy; Yomiuri News, Japan; FMI, Japan; TV Argent, Canada. More channels can be easily added.

Given this ease and flexibility, it is easy to see how the sytstem is well suited for deliverying foreign language TV channels to the living room TV -- via the internet. A beta version of the above TV-website is available for download and testing from this blogsite (see utorrent_beta.zip under Free TV-web Channels).
Daniel Mann

Build your own TV channel from torrent-delivered video

2009-01-07T13:15:00.040-06:00

There are plenty of sources of torrent-delivered video available, but how can a person with little or no engineering skills get these videos delivered directly to their living room TV? Well, it is now possible to do so with a new configurable TV-website that is viewable on any Active-TV-enabled networked TVs, such as those TVs connected to a D-link DSM-520.

For those among you who have the right to download video torrent files (i.e. peer-to-peer sharing, P2P), and find it convenient to view and select available torrents from the TV rather than the PC, the new TV-website makes it possible to select and start a torrent, monitor its progress, and finally watch the downloaded video – all from the TV. Hence, there is no need for a PC keyboard to browse and select a particular torrent, let alone attach a PC to the TV.

As discussed in a previous blog article, when accessing P2P video, the system relies on a networked-PC using uTorrent to assist the TV with torrenting. In other words, the TV UI remotely drives the PC’s uTorrent engine.

Available videos are listed at the TV according to an XML configuration file, 'torrentSites.xml'. A user must build their own torrentSites.xml file which is stored on their PC. An example is provided to help with understanding the layout and syntax.

Possibly following a broadcaster trend, Norwegian Broadcaster (NRK) makes programmes available for free via torrent distribution. US channel Democracy Now! also distributes programmes via torrent. Canada’s public broadcaster CBC distributes the “Canada's Next Great Prime Minister” shown. Partnering with CBC, the bittorrent aggregation site Mininova supplies a DRM-free copy of the video torrent file. The required torrentSites.xml entry for the NRK and DN! video is below:


<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<rss>
<channel>

<item>

<title>Norwegian (NRK)</title>
<description>Norwegian Broadcasting (NRK) Nordkalotten 365, defined in my PC file torrentSites.xml</description> <link>http://nrkbeta.no/torrent/monsen/nordkalotten365.rss</link> 
</item>

<item>
<title>Democracy Now!</title>
<description>Democracy Now!, defined in my PC file torrentSites.xml</description>
<link>http://ewheel.democracynow.org/rss.xml</link>

</item>

</channel>
</rss>

The two entries or items in the above torrentSites.xml file, appear in the TV menu as shown in the screen-shots below. They are shown on the left-side menu.

Torrent sites make their torrents available via lists which are distributed via RSS. These lists generally conform to a similar format. This similarity enables torrenting tools such as uTorrent to generally access RSS data. Similarly, the TV-website has managed to “read” the RSS address provided by the XML <link> element and so lists the available torrents on the right-side menu.

Some torrent distribution sites support searching for a particular torrent. This requires search-words to be passed to the torrent site. To support searching, an XML entry such as the example below must be used.

<link search="MATCH" >http://www.site_address/MATCH/more_address</link>

The use of "search=" in the <link> entry indicates that a pop-up keyboard will be used when the menu entry is selected. This enables search-words, such as "election news" to be entered on the TV screen. The keywords replace the XML token “MATCH” in the formation of an RSS url which will list, in our case, only torrents containing the name “election news”.

Before the TV can “talk” to the uTorrent engine running on the PC, it is important that they both be configured correctly; set-up the PC first. As previously described, uTorrent “Preferences” must be set to support an “incoming connection”.

Conveniently for us, the uTorrent Web UI interface enables remote login to the torrent PC. The remote login ID must be set to “active-TV” with password “pass”. This is the initial password used by the TV-website, but it can be changed to your own preference; however, make sure the ID on the uTorrent TV-web is set to the same password. Use the TV menu entry “Change uTorrent Pass” to accomplish this – change the PC-side password first.

Before using the “My Active uTorrents” TV menu entry, make sure the PC and TV-side uTorrent passwords are set correctly. The “My Active uTorrents” enables reviewing the progress of currently active torrents. When download reaches 100%, the video can be viewed on the TV by simply using the TV’s IR remote to click on the torrents menu entry.

For convenience, the TV UI reports if a video has already been viewed after prior download completion. This helps keep a track of what you have been watching,

The uTorrent TV-website is very flexible given the ability for a user to define their own torrentSites.xml. Note that it is entirely the responsibility of the user to ensure that they have the legal right to access any video or content made available by the torrentSites.xml file they make use of. For more information about a users’ copyright responsibilities and DSM-520 operaton, please see the D-link support site. A beta version of the above TV-website is available for download and testing from this blogsite (see Free TV-web Channels). (Also see newer blog entry "Adding Live TV streams to my living room TV".)
Daniel Mann

Combining cell phone and TV UI support for internet video

2009-01-07T11:07:00.014-06:00

As mobile phones grow increasingly sophisticated and are open to third-party applications and services, they can be used for both productivity and entertainment. If the screen is large enough, they are a convenient platform for viewing Internet-based video. They can also serve as a device to coordinate the storing and forwarding of video, both throughout and from the home. That is to say, a mobile device can be made to communicate directly with a home-based video devices, such as a networked TV. These innovations are all due to the flexibility of Web 2.0 technologies, which which interconnects the User Interfaces (UIs) appearing on the cell phone, PC and TV.

Below is a screen shot showing an Active-TV Technology UI for YouTube video.

In collaboration with CoreCodec, Active-TV Technology is developing mobie phone applications to coordinate the viewing of of video suitable for networked-enabled TVs. CoreCodec is known for its CorePlayer, which supports “multimedia content on your desktop, mobile phone, portable media player, PDA, GPS, or convergence device”. CorePlayer is widely used across the cell phone industry.

Here are more cell phone screen images of the Lua-based prototype for YouTube. A number of cell phones now support YouTube video and these early developments are just a proof-of-concept of this new technology.

The next step is to show how the phone, TV and PC UIs can interoperate to support social networking, sharing, navigating, organizing and discovering video and audio entertainment, from both Internet-broadcast and conventional-broadcast TV media.

Here is a link to a BBC-Microsoft TV example, shown in the YouTube window below, where social networking and instant messaging features are combined to enable video recommendations. Further prototypes will be available soon.

Daniel Mann

Anouncing a UI for an internet TV using Lua run-time support

2008-12-29T10:44:00.004-06:00

Active-TV Technology now offers an internet TV UI based on the Lua language and run-time support routines from CoreCodec. The Lua scripting tools currently enable a UI with abilities somewhere between MHEG5 and Adobe Flash.

CoreCodec is known for its CorePlayer, which supports “multimedia content on your desktop, mobile phone, portable media player, PDA, GPS, or convergence device”. It is widely used in the cell phone industry. Now, CoreCodec are in the process of retargeting their new Lua run-time environment to customers’ TV system-on a chip (Soc). They have already provided Lua run-time support for BroadQ’s Sony Playstation 2 project. Lua has particularly light-weight support requirements, and is popular in the video game industry.

Adobe’s Flash is widely used in the PC industry, when building web interface applications. Its availability for TV UI development would be greatly appreciated; given its productivity, capability and familiarity. The new CE3100 TV SOC from Intel has an advantage when supporting Flash due to the CE3100’s X86 processor core. Other, possibly lower cost TV SoC, will have a harder time supporting Flash. Using Lua may be the answer to competing with the CE3100.

Below is a TV screen image of the current Lua-based YouTube interface.
Daniel Mann

PlayStation 2 supports internet video

2008-12-29T10:10:00.008-06:00

For some time BroadQ has been working on adding internet video viewing to the Sony PlayStation 2 (PS2). The project has taken longer than expected; but I can now report that I have accessed YouTube video from the PS2 console.

BroadQ partnered with CodeCodec to add advanced video codec support to the PS2. Till now CoreCodec have been a supplier of codecs and media players for cell phones. The partnership enables the PS2 to display YouTube video using the H.264 video format. The superior performance of CoreCodec’s codec enables decode of near HD quality video resolution. BroadQ will be demonstrating their QTV branded TV interface running on the PS2 at CES January 2009. Below are some early screen-shots of the QTV UI.

Note that these are not screen shots of the Flash version which BroadQ has previously shown during demonstrations. The images are from a new Lua Script implementation developed by Active-TV Technology for BroadQ. The Flash version required run-time PC assistance. This Lua version enables the PS2 to operate “standalone”, without any PC assistance being required. The UI implementation shown here is not complete; please expect changes before the CES showoff.

The application of the PS2 to view internet video from the living room TV is significant, given the greater than 120M units sold by Sony (see America Still Plays More Ps2 Than Xbox 360 and Wii Combined) . BroadQ plans for QTV, include support for video distributed by the emerging key suppliers such as YouTube, Hulu and more.
Daniel Mann

Now watch Google Video on the TV

2008-12-03T11:40:00.005-06:00

Use Google Video to search for internet videos, then watch them at the TV, all without touching your PC or the keyboard.

Google Video enables access to longer format video than typically available on YouTube. The YouTube channel (currently available for testing), has been extended to include searching for Google Video. A TV screen image is shown below.

The TV-web formatted channel can be used with the D-Link DSM520 or other active-TV technology-enabled TVs. Note: the TV remote 'info' key can be used to toggle 'on-off' auto-play, resulting in uninterrupted TV-like viewing of one video after another...

This latest update to the YouTube channel includes improvements to the IR remote text-input, a larger preview image, and the ability to temporarily switch User ID to that of the author of the current video. This last feature, along with switching User ID to that of friends and family, makes it possible to explore a network of ‘connected’ videos.

Additional changes and improvements will be made pending user feedback or other technical refinements.

Daniel Mann

New YouTube channel for DSM-520

2008-11-18T16:05:00.009-06:00

Following recent changes in the way YouTube streams video, DSM-520 owners are reporting that they can no longer play YouTube videos.

Now there is a new YouTube TV-website for the DSM-520 which works with the latest YouTube video. A link to a 16x9 test version is provided here. This new channel is also available in the “TV-web channel” listings on the side of this page.

After downloading the YouTube_testing.zip file, extract all contents to the c:\ directory. The new “testing” channel will appear under TV menu “My Media & Programs”.

The new YouTube TV-web channel for the DSM-520 is completely different from any previous ones. It is fast loading and there is support for video search, Playlists, Subscriptions, Categories and Favorites (all of unlimited size). There is also flexible access to Standard video feeds. As an added feature, it is now simple to view any public videos of your YouTube friends. The 'info' key can be used to toggle on-off auto-pay of next video.

Please send feedback to daniel@active-TV.org, in the event further tweaks are required during the evaluation period. Or add comments to this blog entry.

(Note about prior versions: some bugs were reported by users, but all seems to be working with the current youtube_testing_2.zip version.)

Daniel Mann

x86 software for the living room TV

2008-08-27T16:58:00.004-05:00

The Issue: Intel revealed more details at IDF about its TV chip based on an integrated x86 CPU, which lowers the barriers for networked TVs utilizing PC-like software

Behind the scene: I expect many high-end TV developers to closely consider the new Intel TV chip. Has any lack of clear leadership or innovation from the traditional TV chip suppliers left them vulnerable to market share loss? Or do they know something about the home TV user that new entrants have yet to grasp?

Solution: There are many competing technical and business approaches in support of digital convergence for the TV. Introducing a cost-effective Intel TV chip is clearly some kind of milestone. However, given Intel’s experience with Viiv, it should be aware that there are still critical and necessary development steps ahead: developing infrastructure, partners, and customers, and most importantly communicating the value to end users – these remain paramount and time-consuming steps to be undertaken.

Intel provided more information last week at the San Francisco Intel Developer Form (IDF) about their efforts to bring the software advantages of the x86 architecture to the living room TV. Prior approaches branded as ViiV had little success and partially relied on Microsoft Media Center technology. The new approach is very different and based on incorporating an x86 ‘Pentium M’ processor into a TV System-on-a Chip (SoC).

The x86 CPU architecture has a software advantage because of its use in the PC. This has lead to a long history of extensive and complex software being developed for the PC, which is frequently not made available (“re-targeted” as the technical types say…) for other CPU architectures. A good example of this is Adobe’s Flash, that essential plug-in to the PC browser. For non x86 CPU-based devices, Flash is either not available or available several generations removed from the current offering.

As digital convergence proceeds, consumer appliances are required to support software applications, which have thus far been the domain of the PC. It has proven difficult for traditional TV SoC suppliers, who do not rely on an x86 CPU core, to develop software to enable a TV to perform PC-like tasks, such as web browsing.

Intel documentation provides a block diagram of their CE3100 TV SoC family. Coupled with “aggressive” pricing, Intel is on course to have a significant influence on the initially high-end TV and Set Top Box (STB) markets. Using the CE3100 family, devices such as the Apple TV, which currently uses a PC-like architecture, can carry a lower hardware component cost. In fact, the CE3100’s support for processing a broadcast digital Transport Stream (TS) enables support for features currently beyond Apple TV.

As well as building a new range of TV chips, Intel will provide much of the software infrastructure supporting a CE3100-based networked TV. For this, they have to combine networking and web processing software with traditional TV software (what the engineers call dual software stack operation). Intel press releases indicate that they have worked with Futarque on this task. Interestingly, Futarque also collaborated with AMD on active-TV technology STBs.

No matter how enthusiastic technologists and business analysts are about the potential of TV convergence, it s is not clear how much technology the TV user really wants. Maybe a 3D UI with Flash animation is not desired by many? Maybe something much simpler, such as the very successful MHEG5 deployment in Europe, will continue to satisfy most TV users? That said, MHEG5 may not be left behind: there are companies working to add Ethernet and social network support for simpler MHEG5 TVs. If the CE3100-derived TV remains open (like the PC browser, for example) then it will gain the attention of many software developers, who will experiment and find hybrid software combinations that meet with TV user approval. However, if TV OEMs close their TVs -- like the Apple TV -- to “monetize” all convergence features, then the uptake will be much slower.

Increasingly, efforts such as MHP, OCAP or tru2way appear dated before they even have their day-of-success in the market. Their inability to deliver acceptable software solutions has left the market open to the CE3100, which draws upon software with a proven PC history.

Both the Intel Viiv and AMD Live!-branded projects, promoted as supporting digital convergence, met with little success. Interestingly, as Intel finds a new way forward via an x86 based TV SoC, AMD announces it will sell to Broadcom the TV SoC business it acquired with the ATI merger. AMD’s analysis of digital convergence would appear quite different from Intel’s

Technically Speaking
Requests by the networked TV to access an Internet webpage or widget are sent to the home router; and then on via the router’s broadband connection to the webpage or widget server. A TV must process the webpage or widget when it arrives. This requires complex software, which has traditionally been incorporated into the PC’s browser. A TV based on the Intel CE3100 has an advantage when stepping-up to perform these complex software tasks.

The active-TV technology approach relies on the router handing off much of the software task to a proxy in the form of a networked home PC: It enables a TV SoC not equipped with an x86 processor to access a PC’s software processing advantage. The TV’s request is first processed by the PC assisting the TV, and then simplified data is sent by the PC proxy to the TV for display. Some TV developers may prefer this approach as it reduces the prospect of TV obsolesce. The TV “borrows” the PC’s browser in support of its Internet access. This reduces the task of maintaining the TV’s browser software. TV purchasers expect a 10 or greater-year lifespan from their TV, as they would like to avoid the 3 year replacement cycle of traditional PC ownership. Conversely, TV manufacturers likely feel differently and would like to shorten this lifecycle.

More than Networking
Pioneer, Sharp, Samsung, Panasonic and others have introduced TVs with network support. Sometimes they are described as DLNA- or UPnP-enabled TVs. These TVs can access photos, music or video stored on a PC, which are also connected to the home network. Partly due to lack of simplified standards, these TVs are often poorly equipped to access Internet broadcast video directly.

Using an approach similar to active-TV technology, these TVs can use PC assistance to gain access to Internet video. MediaMall, a supplier of active- TV technology components, has announced a Beta version of its PlayOn software. This software runs on a PC that then acts as a proxy for the TV trying to access broadband-delivered video. Typically, a PC is used to access video from Hulu, YouTube or the like. But by using PlayOn, a PC can forward the video to any TV within the home network. The PlayOn software greatly extends the usefulness of a “simple” networked TV. A user can completely control video search and viewing using the TV IR remote, without requiring any contact with the PC assisting the TV.

Active-TV technology is more advanced than PlayOn, as it enables the PC to serve as a proxy for the TV accessing TV-formatted web pages that likely contain Adobe Flash. However, using active-TV technology requires a TV with middleware support beyond DLNA-UPnP. The simpler PlayOn software works with existing DLNA or UPnP-enabled TVs. Similar DLNA-TV supporting software from TVersity has been widely used for much the same task (2 Million downloads). TVersity is currently a more mature product, with reviewers indicating that, “at the moment PlayOn’s list of supported devices is much smaller than TVersity’s”. However, PlayOn is at the Beta-release stage. Their initial support for only online services indicates a focus on premium video services (such as Hulu), versus local PC-stored media.

Don’t forget the game platforms
For some time now, game platforms such as the Xbox, Playsation and Wii have included network support. This has enabled them to offer limited access to Internet broadcast video. Powerful as these game platforms are, they are not equipped to access the Internet with a browser as up-to-date as those used by the PC. This restricts their use for TV-web browsing.

Interestingly, in an effort to extend its audience reach, the BBC recently introduced a website tailored for the limited Wii browser. This enables access to BBC’s iPlayer catch-up video service. But to deal with current Wii limitations, the BBC must serve-up the video in the older Flash 7 video format, rather than the more efficient H.264.

We can expect to see versions of TVesity and PlayOn which further extend the types and variety of game platforms able to access video. These will no doubt rely on a PC assisted approach. Unlike the BBC, the PlayOn team can’t change the format of the served-up video, but they can use a PC to massage the video into a format digestible by simpler devices. The PlayOn website already indicates there will shortly be an enhanced version of PlayOn for the Wii.

Also relating to game platform developments, BroadQ had been working on PC-assisted software for the Playstation 2 (PS2). Recent developments indicate they have shifted to a method wherein the PS2 can access Internet video directly over a network connection – no PC assistance is required. BroadQ’s PS2 software is developed in Lua , much like some Sony PSP applications. Reports indicate the Qtv-branded software can directly play Internet video in FLV, H.264 and DivX formats. To simplify the Qtv PS2 software, the system relies on an Internet-accessed BroadQ server. This should prove interesting competition to the Wii when used to similarly access internet broadcast video.

What next
There are other platforms that avoid using networked PC-assistance, by supporting only simplified browsing -- such as the Syabas Digital Media Player box. Their DMP (also know as the Popcorn Hour A-100) supports most of the CE-HMTL format. Several sites are available for use with the DMP. The sites are accessed via a Media Service Portal (MSP). Maybe it would be better to call them portal plug-ins rather than websites.

Observers of digital convergence can only be impressed by the relentless efforts applied to bring Internet technology or interactivity to the TV. The CE3100 TV SoC is Intel’s best effort yet to make the x86 CPU architecture affordable for deployment within new TVs. On the one hand, it leverages a software installed base that includes support for Adobe Flash and other vital video entertainment software building blocks; on the other, it requires a new set of tools (and perhaps complexity) traditional TV manufacturers are not familiar with, as well as somewhat higher initial costs and perhaps the risk that consumers are not ready to embrace ‘full-on’ Internet-broadcast TV. Moreover, it is not the only technology or approach available, and some of the incremental approaches (with or without ‘borrowing’ PC browser assistance), may be just as valid, at least in the short term.

We will have to wait and see how the roll-out of the CE3100 TV SoC affects the evolution of the TV convergence market. To be sure, there will be business pressures to use it in only closed system. In view of competing and perhaps equally compelling approaches, however, I suggest Intel will gain the most traction in the market if it offers an ‘open’ platform for any software developer wishing to reach the TV screen.

Feedback, corrections and comments welcome. Contact me for more information or support with active-TV technology development.
Daniel Mann

Google to support the living room TV

2008-07-07T09:52:00.001-05:00

The Issue: Google and others want a role to play in support of the living room TV. But how are TVs developing such that Google can have a role.

Behind the scene: Most if not all TV manufacturers are developing models with network support. These UPnP TVs enable media to be transferred between the TV and other networked PCs, appliances and servers.

Solution: The likely next-step after adding UPnP networking is for TVs to support browsing of TV-formatted websites. The life expectancy of a TV is long. This is why a TV may have Ethernet built-in but wireless networking technology, which changes more frequently, is likely left to an external add-on. Will browser technology be built-in or will it be left to as an external support role.

Efforts to get the PC and TV to work together continue. There is a desire to have PCs, TVs and hand-held devices, cooperate with each other. But as reported by the Wharton Business School, it is proving difficult to develop solutions which gain broad market acceptance.

One solution which has emerged with broad acceptance is the inclusion of Universal Pug and Play, UPnP, in new networked TVs. Further evidence of this is Google’s recent announcement of a PC UPnP server – Google Media Server. As mentioned in the NYT, a key point in their announcement is: “Google can offer a hardware maker a very easy way to add Internet video capability to a television”.

The last100 blog reports the Google server “works in conjunction with Google’s desktop search application - Google Desktop - to locate various media (photos, music and video) stored on your PC and make it available for streaming over a home network to any UPnP compatible or DLNA ‘certified’ device, such as a PlayStation 3” or TV.

There are already plenty of PC UPnP servers available, so why is Google entering the game? The Google PC sever can process information about media - know as metadata - in interesting ways. This can remove the TV from the burden of organizing media. A PC user can search and arrange media which is later enjoyed at the TV.

The information provided by the Google UPnP server need not relate to only PC-stored media, but also include information about web-accessible media. Perhaps the PC server is only a piece of the Google plan. A TV accessing web-video could be assisted by the PC’s UPnP sever, and make use of the media information organized at the PC.

A TV connecting with a Google server via broadband to the home can use the existing YouTube video library API to access video directly via the TV’s internet connection. Of course a broadband connected TV could also access some other video severs’ video resource. If Google extended its API it could upload meta-data from the PC sever to a Google web-sever. A broadband connected TV could then make access to the media meta-data without requiring networked PC assistance.

In all cases, the UPnP TV User Interface (UI) is determined by local TV firmware and not sent over the network connection. The media may be sent to the TV over the network, but it is up to each TV manufacturer to decide how to present the media on the TV screen. A UPnP TV is a step forward but it is not equipping a TV with the browser capability of a PC; where PC-webpages are sent over the network and used to format the PC display. So what is the next step for the UPnP TV?

It is clear that TV owners want some things built-into their TV and some things left out. They don’t want a VCR built-in, they don’t want a DVD player built-in, they do want a digital broadcast tuner built-in. With next generation TVs, customers want home network support, including UPnP access to media held on a PC.

TV purchasers want to also view video and photos delivered over the web; But it is not clear if the web browser and its plug-ins should be built into the TV or supported by an external box of some kind. Maybe TVs will be built both ways. One clear option is to use an existing networked PC as the “external box” supplying the TV with browser support.

Internet video broadcasters and TV-website developers, should be required to build a single TV-oriented TV-website which works with, both, a TV using a built-in browser, or a TV using an external browser. In the same way a VCR tape works with a built-in player or external tape player.

Flash is the most widely used browser plug-in. It seems essential that a browser built into the TV must support Flash. However, embedded browser developers are still finding it hard to integrated Flash into a TV-sized browser. (Apple TV has the internals and cost structure of a PC, not a low-cost TV chip.) Until this task is accomplished, it is much easier to use active-TV technology to support the TV with an external browser which does have Flash support. In fact for some TV purchasers may continue to prefer this approach. We don’t yet know.

The recent Adobe announcement regarding removing licensing fees when embedding Flash into non-PC video play-back devices, will help ensure Flash as the next “standard” beyond UPnP. TVs and STBs using Flash and AJAX (web 2.0 technology) can accomplish much more than a TV only utilizing UPnP.

Feedback, corrections and comments welcome. Please Contact me for more information or support with active-TV technology development.
Daniel Mann

BBC News channel restored, via RTMP support

2008-05-06T15:46:00.003-05:00

The Issue: Web and internet technology are always advancing. PC users are familiar with getting software updates enabling support for the latest and greatest features. TV-website support for BBC News video was recently interrupted due to a BBC technology upgrade; but now service has been restored following some rapid PC-side software improvements.

Behind the scene: A TV intended to support internet video browsing must deal with the continual change in internet video broadcasting technology. This is much more difficult to achieve using low-cost embedded microprocessor technology than a PC. This leads to the temptation to tie a networked TV to a managed portal service. But who wants a TV than can’t ‘tune’ to any internet broadcaster’s ‘channel’.

Solution: Active-TV technology pushes the burden of supporting software complexity from the TV to the networked PC assisting the TV. This simplifies the task of keeping a networked TV updated with the latest features being used by an internet broadcaster. Importantly, this ensures a long and useful life for the networked TV.

There are several free-to-download TV-websites available at this blog. One of the most popular has been the BBC News channel. Recently and unexpectedly the BBC channel stopped working. This was a result of technical changes at the BBC. I am pleased to report that a new TV-website has been developed and living room TV access to the BBC video has been restored.

The BBC maintains RSS video feeds for access by internet users. The RSS information is in XML format and contains links to individual videos. After examining the XML document, the TV-website software selects an individual video and a request for transportation over the internet is sent to the BBC. Until recently, the BBC was ‘sending’ the video via a protocol known as HTTP, but now they are using Adobe’s RTMP protocol.

A number of other internet video broadcasters are also using RTMP, notably Hulu. Active-TV technology collaborator MediaMall has been working on a new Hulu TV-website – it was mentioned on their blog. To enable access to Hulu video (and other RTMP streaming) they constructed a software module supporting RTMP. Recently they have been offering this optional module to TV and Set-Top Box developers.

Networked TV and STB developers have been relying on UPnP communication stackware from a verity of suppliers. MediaMall has not been one of these suppliers. This was the case with D-Link, but in support of Hulu video, D-link will be incorporating MediaMall’s RTMP extensions into their PC-side software. (The RTMP video is translated into the familiar HTTP before being sent over the network to the DSM-520). This will be included in a larger software update soon to be issued for the D-Link DSM-520.

I have tested my new TV-website using an early version of the new software bundle. The TV-website makes HTTP formatted requests for RSS data, and RTMP formatted requests for individual videos. D-link undertakes their own testing and will release a version of the updated PC-side software from their PC-website. Those who feel they can’t wait can download the current beta version.

Feedback, corrections and comments welcome. Contact me for more information or support with active-TV technology development.
Daniel Mann

TV widget support update

2008-04-29T10:04:00.006-05:00

I am working on additional TV widget support, but wanted to release the existing software. This will enable those using the TV-websites available from this blogsite to make use of the previously described TV widgets. I will eventually add widgets to each of the TV-websites listed under “Free TV-web channels”.

With widget support included in a TV-web channel, the Settings page offers a “YourMinis widget” menu entry, as shown below. The current 16x9 TV-web format has room for two widgets. The “widget 1” is positioned immediately below the 10-entry video list. The second widget, “widget 2”, is position to the right or left of widget 1, that is, just below the video still-image.

After setting one of the 3 menu entries to select a widget, the user should return from the Settings page to the Video Menu page. The available widgets will appear under the previously selected menu. These widgets are supplied from an RSS feed. I intend adding more widgets to the RSS feed.

Widgets can have a configuration value. For example the Weather widget requires a US postal zipcode. A box is provided for entering a new configuration value. Triple-tap of the TV IR remote is required when entering a new widget value, such as a zipcode. See the example below.

Each channel, or TV-website, can have its own widget selection. The user's preferred widgets, along with the widget configuration values, are stored as cookies. This ensures the selected widgets are restored each time a user returns to the same TV-website.
Daniel Mann

Yet Another Internet Set-Top Box

2008-04-16T09:19:00.002-05:00

The Issue: The avalanche of “Internet-enabled STB” announcements shows no signs of abating anytime soon. Given the number of detractors let alone prior failures, what continues to compel their advocates?

Behind the scene: No widely accepted standard for TV-based Internet video browsing has yet emerged. Clearly, it makes sense to enlist game platforms -- many of which are already connected to the Internet -- to the task of video browsing. But what can be learned from such efforts, regarding the task of enabling Internet browsing for TVs in general?

Solution: After all else has been tried, it seems likely that the forces of ‘lowest cost’, ‘simplest maintenance’, ‘longest useful life’, ‘unrestricted operation’, ‘easiest installation’, ‘minimum development complexity’ and ‘most user features’ will decide what hardware will be used for Internet video browsing at the TV. Active-TV technology is well placed for a decision based on these criteria.

Blockbuster, Vudu, Netflix, TiVo, Apple TV, BuildingB are some of the better known US companies introducing a Set-Top Box (STB) to enable TV access to their Internet-delivered video. There are many lesser-known units, such as the Myka, which bring BitTorrent directly to a box connected to the TV. (The 80 GB-version Myka 80 costs $299 and the 500 GB-version costs $459 -- typical prices for such boxes.) The Apple TV at $229 is said to make little profit. One of the lowest cost media adapter boxes is the D-Link DSM-520, currently selling for $150 at Circuit City.

Why so many boxes? The answer lies in an Internet video broadcaster’s requirement for a box to support a “please use my portal!” strategy. With few exceptions, notably the D-Link DSM-520, these boxes do not support open Internet video browsing. Rather, they are the hardware underpinning for a “walled garden” approach, one that delivers video from the broadcaster’s video library to the TV watcher. The fact that all prior Internet-STB projects with similar business models have failed does not deter repeated optimism for releasing new hardware.

Home users in the US have shown significant reluctance to purchase of any new STB – even the easy-to-use Apple TV. The idea that a user may require one STB per Internet broadcaster seems less than practical. But the business models on trial are driven by a common ambition to be a dominant video supplier or ‘video aggregator’ with a single STB that everyone uses; to be sure, a bit like Apple’s hope that the Apple TV would be the “DVD player for the Internet age”.

Why a STB and not the TV
Closed portal strategies are tied to STB use. This is because integration of Internet browsing directly into TVs has even less appeal because TV buyers are least likely to buy a TV which can only ‘tune’ to a single Internet broadcaster. The latest generation TV system-on-a-chip (SOC) devices with networking support make it technically possible to integrate access to one of today’s portal services, but it is far from clear how the TV’s support firmware can be maintained over a TV’s expected lifespan (6 – 10 years).

A relatively easy and certainly inexpensive way to give a TV access to Internet video is to use a PC-assisted approach, such as active-TV technology. Once such a system is installed at home, it enables the TV to use the latest Web 2.0 methods to freely browse any video broadcaster’s TV-websites. Notwithstanding clear advantages, some new developers still ask me how to get rid of the PC from the system. I am familiar with the methods of achieving this. But they come with significant tradeoffs…

From both the buyer and manufacturer points of view, it is important not to add to the cost of the TV; and equally important not to add software maintenance issues to the TV. It is also important not to limit the useful life of the TV. Also, the TV UI must be sufficiently responsive to keep pace with both the requirements and expectations of users familiar with PC Web 2.0 technology. Moreover, it is important to ensure the TV will be able to browse new Internet video broadcaster sites for years to come. Can all of this be achieved if the PC-assist approach is replaced with new integrated-TV technology? Needless to say, these requirements result in conflicts.

Making the TV smart enough
The non-PC-assist approach is to embed a small browser engine into the TV. This adds some cost and complexity to the TV. The closer to full Web 2.0 support required, the greater the cost and complexity entailed. Additionally, Web 2.0 keeps developing, such that the "chase" never ends. Leaders in developing these small embedded browsers are Oregan Networks and Opera.

Despite the failure of Intel Viiv and AMD LIVE! to gain a significant ‘hold’ of the living room TV, Intel and AMD nevertheless have development projects, Kenmore and Bobcat respectively, to integrate a lower power x86 cores into a TV SOC. This is an old idea, based on the understanding that the necessary support software is more available for x86 than the types of core processors used in, say, TV SOCs from Sigma Designs or ST Micro. Will TV users demand browser support features which leave non-x86 TV chips at a disadvantage? Will even the embedded x86 TV chips be able to satisfy users familiar with the latest Web 2.0 features available on their PCs? The unassisted TV approach likely has some user appeal, but once a TV is connected into the home network, it is very easy for it to be without any competitive disadvantage in terms of video browsing support – the TV just has to ‘wake up’ a networked PC and put its browser on proxy duty.

Most of “ultimate Internet aggregation” STB or digital media adapter projects (including Apple TV) are based on x86 because of the software development problems. So far, potential buyers have indicated the resulting cost increase is too much. Printers, DVD players, hard disc recorders, home wireless networking and other peripheral devices, are best not built into the TV. Maybe Web 2.0 support (if that is what is required) should also not be built into the TV?

TV developers have told me it adds zero hardware cost to include active-TV technology with a new networked TV. The PC is a good peer-to-peer or BitTorrent engine. Torrent support can be relatively complex for direct integration into low-cost TVs. I can see that for some implementations it may be useful to have a TV torrent box such as the Myka, but how many consumers will think it worth more than $300 when there are zero-cost TV-websites with complete torrent download control available? Via these TV-websites and the home network, the TV can ask for PC-assistance in managing the torrent on its behalf.

Reaching a TV audience
Recently announced are the Adobe Media Player and Adobe TV, a video aggregation website which is brand skinable and has advertising support. Adobe says, “In a (technical) nutshell, Adobe Media Player is an RSS aggregator. It consumes standard Media RSS feeds to notify and deliver video content to users.” The RSS mashing part sounds a bit like TVersity or Orb.

While the Adobe Media Player is described as skinable, this does not extend its capabilities to supporting a TV-formatted website, where navigation is via the TV IR remote rather than a desktop mouse. The Adobe Media Payer may be billed as a “cross-platform desktop player”, but it does not appear intended to work with a small browser embedded into a TV or STB – Adobe is not (yet) trying to reach a living room TV audience. Their technology relies on the more extensive PC support features (Web 2.0) to perform its media-oriented UI and RSS aggregation services.

One company trying to bridge the divide and reach a living room audience is the BBC, which has launched Nintendo Wii support for its iPlayer TV catch-up site. Game platforms, such as the Wii and Sony Playstation, support small Internet browsers. This does not allow them to access typical PC-websites such as www.youtube.com, since these sites make use of too much Web 2.0 technology or methods for the small browser to handle (Opera -- in the Wii case). The Wii can access websites which have reduced complexity and are tailored for the Wii – I think Nintendo calls them ‘Internet Channels’.

Maybe this is the future of Internet video browsing – the establishment of some simpler-formatted TV-website standard? However, there is also push to add widget support and social networking to TV-websites which conflicts with broad adoption of simpler standards. In any case, it is easy to see how the task of adding TV-website support into TVs will stretch TV developers – and they typically have less software development skills than game platform developers. In contrast, the active-TV technology approach results in relatively easy engineering tasks.

To dwell on the Wii’s Opera browser a little longer, it does not support the latest Flash video formats or permit access to video utilizing advanced encoding -- a big restriction to extensive browsing hopes. To get the iPlayer to work with the Wii the BBC has to re-encode its video library in the older Flash 7 format. Separately, Scendix Software, known for its development in MCE TV-web applications is also now retargeting some of its applications to the Wii. These carefully crafted projects will bring an audience to the Wii, but it is not clear if it will provide anytime soon a broadly accepted integrated-TV solution to Internet video browsing...

Escaping the PC?
On the BBC blog, I read Anthony Rose’s (head of digital media technology) comments: “Today, most people watch iPlayer programmes on their computer. That's great - you can watch your favourite BBC programmes curled up in bed with your notebook PC”. He goes on to suggest that it is easier to connect the Wii to the TV than a PC to the TV. This of course is true. But the harder task is connecting anything to the home network.

Any video browsing device must be connected to the home network, be it a Nintendo Wii, a networked-STB, or an active-TV technology-enabled TV. This is proving the hardest task for the home installer who typically prefers to use a wireless network rather than a high-speed wired connection. The option to utilize PC-assist is largely irrelevant to the complexities of this installation task. With few exceptions, a person installing a video browsing platform has already connected a PC or notebook computer to their home network – this is the path taken to reach any broadband service. Any network-enabled TV, therefore, is in a position to access personal media stored on other devices within the home network, including a PC. Given the existing reliance on the home network and attached PC, why not also ‘borrow’ the PC’s browser to help the TV with some Web 2.0 video browsing, in a way most likely invisible to the PC user?

In so doing, you can curl up in bed and watch Internet video on your new active-TV enabled TV (rather than the notebook PC), without ever thinking about TV browser upgrades or browser obsolesce. In other words, you can think of the PC-assist approach as similar to attaching a networked printer to the TV. The TV can be used without a ‘printer’, but it is sometimes useful to have it attached (for example, in the case of the attached PC, when Internet video browsing). In other words, the TV works without the networked PC, but when available, the TV can do so much. Best of all, this is accomplished without adding any hardware cost to the networked TV.

The market has not yet decided which approach is the "correct" solution. What portion of the market will use PC-assist? What portion will use an embedded STB browser? Will STB buyers accept ‘walled garden’ portals or demand open Internet browsing? To be sure, the PC-assist approach solves many problems for the TV supplier: it affords the lowest cost, provides for ‘tuning’ to any Internet video broadcast, and ensures the longest TV life – these seem like pretty compelling arguments to me.

Feedback, corrections and comments welcome. Contact me for more information or support with active-TV technology development.
Daniel Mann

Views and habits of the Amercian pay-TV consumer

2008-04-02T07:04:00.003-06:00

The Issue: Will the lingering business models of the US Cable TV service providers be reapplied to the internet connected TV?

Solutions: With no broadly accepted solution to TV digital convergence, the Cable TV service providers are looking to expand their systems to satisfy their users’ demand for new digital services. They bring with them the business models of the US Cable TV industry.

Behind the scene: Active-TV technology combines the best of the TV industry (longevity, reliability, openness) with the best of the PC industry (computationally power, web 2.0 software technology, openness). By enabling the use of web 2.0 methods, active-TV technology is ideal for low-cost TV developers who wish to improve upon or circumvent US Cable TV business models.

Many analysts and developers anticipate mainstream TV users will have their TVs connected to the internet via residential broadband service, thereby enabling browsing of internet-delivered video or web pages formatted for the TV (i.e. TV-web). The success of the internet, added to US consumer familiarity with paying monthly fees for cable TV service, has contributed to speculation about what new revenue-generating services can be enabled by networked TVs.

An ABI Research report, “Pay-TV and the American Consumer” examines what new service may be offered (see "chart 1.6" below):

There seems much more desire to do a better job at “monetizing” (as the MBA’s say) the application of internet technology at the TV than was apparent when the PC first connected to the internet. For example: currently TV suppliers do not share in the revenue produced by video or ads consumed at the TV, they make their money from the retail purchase of the TV. Similarly, laptop computer suppliers don’t make any money from the owners’ viewing of advertising on webpages accessed by the laptop. However, there are some TV developers and US pay-TV suppliers, exploring how they can “share” in the video and ad revenue produced by an internet-connected TV.

PC and laptop users are already familiar with unrestricted PC-web browsing. However, to enforce these new monetizing strategies, it is usually suggested that the TV function with a portal service rather than have freedom to browse the internet. Video aggregators play a key role in the proposed portal strategy. These aggregators provide the video for the portal. If a networked TV is ‘locked’ to a portal then the TV supplier is in a good position to negotiate revenue sharing terms with the aggregator. The aggregator supplies the TV UI and hence via pre-run, or other display methods, is ideally able to also inject advertising.

Unproven is the TV buyer’s willingness to purchase a TV tied to portal service. Traditionally, a Set-Top Box (STB) could be tied to a particular service, but not a TV, which was expected to “tune” to any channel. Perhaps this is why Apple has not introduced an integrated Apple TV, assuming that like the current Apple TV box, the TV would be restricted in the internet URLs it could ‘tune-in’. Likely only Apple’s TV portal would be accessible (TV-web pages have a URL network address just like PC-web pages).

Turning to the ABI Research report: “Perhaps the truism that Chart 1.6 supports the most is that pay-TV providers have only a tenuous hold on the vast majority of their subscribers, and they are vulnerable to churn. Several respondents voiced their frustration with their service providers’ pricing. The following comments reflect customer discontent:

‘I feel that cable prices have become outrages.’ ” [ABI Research report]

The ABI analysts asked US TV users if they would pay for new features such as accessing email, communication features, interactive services, transferring content from a PC, viewing personal content, and much more. For example the report states, “an additional $20 might bring communications features such as instant messaging and the ability to read e-mail on the screen.” I think they mean for an additional $20 per month. I am surprised at their willingness to pay for TV features which are generally regarded as free when accessed from a PC or notebook computer. Possibly unknown to some of the survey responders is that today the purchase of an active-TV technology enabled box, such as the D-Link DSM-520, will bring many of these features and without the monthly fee. This is because the TV user is provided with unlocked web 2.0 technology.

All of the ABI suggested features can be enabled with widgets, Flash, HTML, AJAX and other familiar Web 2.0 methods; such as TV widgets which support social network communication at the TV. Given that TV developers are currently integrating active-TV technology which will shortly be available at retail, unless they all enable URL filtering, portal locking or some legal device, the TV purchaser will be able to choose a freer form of internet-video browsing and new TV feature selection. If my analysis is correct, the business models applied to the networked TV will be similar to those applied to the networked notebook computer rather than the US cable TV service.

The ABI report would be even more interesting if they had included in their survey questions about selecting new TV features via the monthly service fee STB-approach, versus the choose-your-own website laptop-approach. Some in the TV/STB industry suggest the TV user may prefer the familiarity and quality of the single TV UI provided by the closed portal service. They suggest the TV user will become confused and dissatisfied with the varying nature of websites. By that they mean PC-websites or TV-websites do not have to conform to any standards, anyone can build them and web 2.0 methods can be applied as desired by their developer and not the TV supplier. I look forward to what is produced by this chaos. I think the TV user will ultimately appreciate and benefit from this openness.

Feedback, corrections and comments welcome. Contact me for more information or support with active-TV technology development.
Daniel Mann

French language internet-video for TV browsers

2008-03-18T10:32:00.005-06:00

The Issue: Internet video browsing and viewing at the TV is particularly useful for those trying to access video from outside their geographical location.

Solutions: Several start-ups and established media companies around the world are distributing Internet video feeds viewable on the PC. Some also offer TV-web formatted video, while almost all offer RSS feeds, which can easily be accessed via a TV-web page. This makes it possible to reach a living room TV audience with vast amounts of Internet video, or reach any TV around the home for that matter.

Behind the scene: Active-TV technology enables low-cost internet video browsing at the TV. With active-TV technology built into the TV, or integrated into a set-top conversion boxes, it is possible to access video channels from around the world.

Some developers have used the Windows Media Center (WMC) SDK during TV-website construction. The WMC SDK extends the familiar website development software with the addition of the MediaCenter Object. The methods or procedures supported by the MediaCenter Object provide controls for playing media on a networked TV. The PC’s browser uses the extensions provided by the MediaCenter Object to correctly process TV-websites features which do not appear in PC-websites. Microsoft initially supplied the MediaCenter Object with the MCE PC. Media Mall provides an alternative yet compatible MediaCenter Object, which can be used with Windows XP or any Extended-PC using a recent version of Windows.

Below is an image of a TV-website from the BBC. The TV-website software makes use of the MediaCenter Object. The BBC site can be accessed by any active-TV technology enabled TV or STB, such as the D-Link DSM-520, via use of the Media Mall-supplied extensions to the supporting PC’s browser.

Using a different approach, a great many internet-video broadcasters are making use of RSS to distribute their video. There is growing demand for reaching a networked TV audience around the home via RSS distribution. This demand is partly satisfied by tools such a TVersity. But there is also interest in a quick way of ‘converting’ RSS feeds to a TV-web page which already contains the necessary MediaCenter Object support. The active-TV technology blogspot has been providing template code for accomplishing this.

The French language site WAT (avec TF1 networks) has a range of interesting videos grouped into themes. Members can produce their own playlists, but unfortunately (unlike YouTube) there is no RSS feed for playlists. The TV-web version of WAT along with other TV-web channels are available for download. Below is a 4x3 TV image of the WAT channel.

BBC News also produces a generic RSS video feed. Below is a 16x9 image of the TV-web channel providing access to the BBC News feeds. The BBC channel and the WAT channel are accessible on any TV.

The examples above are merely demonstrations of what is already possible. Browsing TV-web format sites, or channels, from the TV is just ‘taking off’. Active-TV technology is just one method being developed to accomplishing this; but it is in operation now, is based on open standards, and has little impact on TV cost or stability.

Feedback, corrections and comments welcome. Contact me for more information or support with active-TV technology development.
Daniel Mann

Social Networking and other Widgets delivered to the TV

2008-03-04T09:19:00.006-06:00

The Issue: Widget use on the TV has become an increasingly popular topic. Constructing mini-programs in the form of “widget” chunks allows a user to select and assemble them according to individual preferences.

Solutions: There are several companies offering tools for widget construction. These tools make it easy to use the same widget on the PC desktop, website, social networking homepage or other location. Now these same widgets, when appropriate, can be used on the big TV screen by embedding them into a TV-web page.

Behind the scene: Active-TV technology delivers web 2.0 methods to the TV without requiring that a PC be embedded into the TV. This way, the TV remains an inexpensive, low maintenance, and long lived device; and by making use of a PC somewhere on the home network, widgets and other web technology are made fully available to the TV user.

In the past, widgets have been available to those TV users who connect their TV to the video-out port on their PC. But there has been little demand for a PC in the living room and hence little widget presence on the TV to date. Active-TV technology uses a PC-assisted approach to enable internet video browsing at the TV. Working with the yourminis company (recently acquired by AOL), I have enabled their widgets to appear on the TV browser and therefore on the TV. For example, see the bottom images (for weather and time) on a YouTube TV-web site (or internet video channel) below.

I have expanded the menu system to gain access to an RSS feed for widgets. Yourminis already has RSS feeds for widgets, but I had to expand these feeds to support embedding the widgets into TV-web channels. This is because there is no one currently serving TV home pages - A TV home page is a bit like Google’s a iGoogle PC home page, but for the TV. Yourminis supports embedding widgets into iGoogle, but there is no equivalent mechanism for embedding them into a TV-web page.

This problem is solved via a TV-web page having access to an RSS feed for widgets. Any personalization of the widget, such as colour, time zone or address codes, is stored in the form of cookies associated with the widget. As shown below, the menu normally used for video or photo access is also used for widget selection.

Widget information is available for preview before widget selection, as shown below.

The menu “Settings” page is used to select the widget RSS feed. In the example below, menu entry 3 is used to select yourminis widgets for screen position “widget 1”. This mechanism enables different widgets to be positioned at each widget location. Because each family member can have their own TV-web page setup, each user can have their own widget preferences, based on relevant cookies.

Navigation of the PC-web is via the TV IR remote, not the keyboard of mouse used by PC-web pages. Widgets which require keyboard or mouse interaction are not appropriate for TV-web use. Widgets also have to be larger and clearer, in case they are used by a TV with simple composite video cabling rather than high resolution video using an HDMI cable.

Video channels or individual videos can have click-to-view video advertising links; this is also true for widgets. Not released yet are widgets which interact with the menu system, such as a widget which supports “yes” or “no” voting, or other selective feedback to a video supplier or advertiser. Using the TV IR remote, a user can send a response via the TV’s internet return path.

Widgets associated with social networking interact with PC-web widgets and also support social network communication. One combination is using a laptop PC in the same room as the TV. A TV-web widget can receive messages, but without the support of a keyboard, its response is limited.

Feedback, corrections and comments welcome. Contact me for more information or support with active-TV technology development.
Daniel Mann

Adding a Video RSS feed or Torrent-Video to TV-web Browser

2008-02-26T11:37:00.016-06:00

The Issue: Turning an RSS video feed, or a feed for torrent-based videos into a TV-web page for browsing at the TV has been made easy. In the interest of keeping up with the demand for new channels, the notes below provide a step-by-step implementation guide for the engineer with some JavaScript knowledge.

Solutions: The example code is available for download. When you complete a new TV-web channel and publish it, send me a link so I can help spread the word.

Behind the scene: The growing use of RSS distribution for video via torrents or streaming can be easily expanded from PC users to TV viewers. In hardware terms, what is needed is a TV that supports browsing of TV-formatted web, i.e. TV-web. An active-TV technology enabled TV or Set-Top Box is just one such device.

If you are not interested in torrent support, skip the following section and start reading from the Adding an RSS Feed section.

Configuring uTorrent Support
(Please see updated blog entry on this topic) uTorrent is a tiny bittorrent client-engine for the PC. The uTorrent TV-web page contains JavaScript which communicates with the uTorrent software running on a networked PC. If, for some reason, the TV-web page can’t communicate with the uTorrent software, then the message below appears on the TV. This usually indicates that the uTorrent engine has not been started before the TV-web page was accessed. (Before using the bittorrent TV-web page, uTorrent should be downloaded and installed on the supporting PC.)

There may be other reasons the TV-web page can’t successfully communicate with the torrent engine and require a little diagnostic work. The uTorrent software can be controlled via a browser interface. This enables remote browser access to a PC running uTorrent. The uTorrent “Preferences” must be correctly configured for this to work. The remote TV-web page assumes the “incoming connection” is set to the default port, 12060. See the setup option below.

The uTorrent Web UI interface enables remote login to the torrent PC. The remote login ID must be set to “active-TV” with password “pass”. This is the initial password. It can be changed to your own preference; however, make sure the ID on the uTorrent TV-web Settings page is set to the same value.

After a torrent is complete, uTorrent can move the downloaded files to a “completion directory”. The TV-web software does not care if this option is used, or what directory is identified, but it is best to use a directory which is accessible by one the media servers used by the system.

Media Servers currently popular with active-TV technology are provided by D-Link, TVersity, Microsoft and Media Mall. The D-Link server is included in basic install-software for the DSM-520. It enables access to a networked PC’s file system. The server software on the PC must be set to indicate what part of the file system is to be shared with the DSM-520. Use of the D-Link server does not require active-TV software to be in use by the DSM-520.

Similar to the D-Link server, the TVersity server can also work with the basic UPnP-DLNA services of the DSM-520 or other networked media players. This means the TVersity server can give a networked TV access to the PC file system without active-TV support software running on the PC or TV. Additionally, TVersity can give a basic UPnP device access to RSS feeds; But in this case the TV UI is determined by the local device and not by an associated TV-web page. However, TVersity also has an active-TV conforming TV-web page which supports access to the PC file system, but this time via a TVersity TV-web page.

The MediaMall server is another option when remotely accessing the PC file system. In this case there are only TV-web page interfaces to the PC’s file system. These are found under the “More Programs” – “My video”, “My Music” and “My Photos”.

PC media servers are programmed to scan the shared portion of the file system at regular intervals. In this way they find changes to the file system and the arrival of new files to be shared. After a torrent download has completed it is not available at the TV until after the next media server “scan”. When doing so, the uTorrent TV-web page ‘asks’ the torrent engine for the location of the completed torrent. In this way the torrented video is immediately available for viewing via access from the uTorrent TV-web page.

Take care with the access permission applied to torrented files. The DSM-520 logs into the PC just like any other PC user. If a torrent is started from a TV-web page, then downloaded files may have access restrictions imposed on other PC login IDs.

Adding an RSS Feed
The uTorrent TV-web channel, or any RSS- fed TV-web page, has a link to a setup page, partially shown below. Each of the 3 menu entries consists of a left or A-part, which generally selects the torrent or video source. The right or B-part is used for further selection from within the chosen A-part source. Those planning on extending RSS video or torrent feeds must know how to make the simple changes to the HTML file for the channel’s TV-web page.

For the menu-3 entry above, the source is “BitTorrent” and the sub selection is “TV”. The list of possible entries for A-part selection is defined by the Torrent_A array in the uTorrent_16x9.htm file. To add a new A-part entry, corresponding to a new RSS feed, a new identification-string must be included in the Torrent_A array


var Torrent_A = new Array("Democracy Now", "torrents”, "BitTorrent");

The support software calls the getMenuB() function to determine the possible B-part selection – given a chosen A-part. This function must be expanded to include any new RSS feed. The getMenuB() function need only return an array of part-B options; such as returning the array BitTorrent_B shown below.

function getMenuB( A_choice) {
if (A_choice == "BitTorrent") {
return BitTorrent_B;
}
}

var BitTorrent_B = new Array("TV", "Movies");

Once a user of the settings page completes final selection for each of the 3 menu entries, the setAB() function is called to establish the RSS URLs to be used with each menu entry. Adding a new RSS feed would require corresponding expansion of the setAB() function. The logic is quite simple, as shown below.


function setAB( column, A_choice, B_choice) {
if (A_choice == "BitTorrent"){
if(B_choice == "TV" ) {
column_url[column -1] = "http://www.bittorrent.com/search/index.rss?category=TV+Shows&filter=free&orderBy=popularity&availability=all";
}
else if(B_choice == "Movies" ) {
column_url[column -1] = "http://www.bittorrent.com/search/index.rss??category=Movies&filter=free&orderBy=popularity&availability=all";
}
}

Parsing the RSS Video Feed
Using the RSS feed’s URL, an XML documented is downloaded from the RSS server. To study an XML layout, it can be saved to the PC as an ..xml file and examined by opening with Microsoft’s IE7 browser. There are differences between the formatting of each RSS feed. But typically, each video entry in the XML table or listing looks like the example below. In this case the start of each video entry is marked with the <item> tag. The “Willie Nelson” entry below is from an RSS feed from http://www.bittorrent.com/.


- < item>
< title>Willie Nelson: Austin City Limits< /title>
< link>http://www.bittorrent.com/users/austin-city-limits-dvd/torrent/Willie_Nelson__Austin_City_Limits/92fd7a06efd9c16afaea2ff5a8a1031da1c35fad?csrc=search-rss< /link>
<>Songwriting legend (and biodiesel proponent) Willie Nelson performs live at the Austin City Limits.< /description>
< pubdate>Tue, 08 May 2007 22:17:28 -0000< /pubdate>
< comments>Seeders:0 Downloaders:0< /comments>
< enclosure url="http://torrents.bittorrent.com/austin-city-limits-dvd/92fd7a06efd9c16afaea2ff5a8a1031da1c35fad/Willie_Nelson.wmv.torrent" length="38718489" type="application/x-bittorrent">
< /item>

The TV-web page’s support code uses JavaScript to exact the relevant date for each video entry. The fillVideoArray() function is used for this task. It must be expanded to include support for passing a new RSS feed.


function fillVideoArray ( column, first_video, quantity) {
if(menuAB[column -1].A_choice == "torrents" ) {
return torrentsFillVideoArray(column, first_video, quantity);
}
else if( menuAB[column -1].A_choice =="BitTorrent") {
return bitTorrentFillVideoArray(column, first_video, quantity);
}

The fillVideoArray() function is used to produce an array of menuEntry , know as the Video array. Each entry has a title, description, rating and so on. All that is required is ‘walking’ thought each XML entry and extracting the relevant data for entry into the Video array.


function menuEntry ()
{
this.title;
this.description;
this.url;
this.rating;
this.duration;
this.date;
this.image;
};

The essential part of the parse routine is below. There are two important routines to understand: getElementsByTagName() and getAttribute(). For example, the tag-name “enclosure” contains the URL for the video. Some tag-names don’t have attributes and getElementsByTagname() is used alone to access the required Video entry – such as “title” in the example. In the case of the video URL, the URL is an attribute of the “enclosure” tag. This requires use of the getAttribute() to exact the URL data.

video_index =0;
for (var i=0; i<(xmlElement.length + skip) & video_index < entryitem =" xmlElement[i];" image = "BitTorrent.png" rating=" 0.0;" titleitem =" entryItem.getElementsByTagName(" title =" titleItem[0].text;" descriptionitem =" entryItem.getElementsByTagName(" description =" descriptionItem[0].text;" enclosureitem =" entryItem.getElementsByTagName(" duration =" Math.floor(" url = "torrent@" dateitem =" entryItem.getElementsByTagName(" date =" dateItem[0].text;" date =" date.substr(0,">

Note in the above example there is no per-video image data or rating. In such case an empty string ( “” ) or 0.0 value can be used for the corresponding Video entry, or some more useful value can be created or inserted. The “duration” entry has been filled with the size of the torrent file, this entry normally contains a string indicating the run-time of the video. It is important to note that in this bittorrent example the video URL has the string “torrent@” prepended. This is only required for torrent videos. When parsing an RSS feed for normally streamed video, which are to be viewed immediately, “torent@” should not be added to the video URL.

The TV-web is used to display the Video array information for each video menu entry. The image above shows the information extracted for the “Willie Nelson” example.

With menu settings: “torrent” – “active torrents”, information about the progression of video torrents is reported. This is only provided for torrents containing video or other media file. It is possible to torrent, say, an .exe file; but the torrent progress would not be reported, as the file is not for TV access. So, perhaps RSS filtering above should exclude .exe files.

As this proof-of-concept is further developed, more features and support for additional torrent engines will likely be added. For now, however, it has been proven that torrents listings can be viewed, selected, download and watched -- all from the TV, a welcome step towards making the pleasures and ease of 'catch-up TV' viewing, heretofore only available on the PC, now available directly on the TV. The steps outlined above, show how to add addition RSS video sources to a TV’s channel listings.

Feedback, corrections and comments welcome. Contact me for more information or support with active-TV technology development.

Daniel Mann

How many TVs in a home network can simultaneously surf internet video

2008-02-05T10:55:00.000-06:00

The Issue: Internet video viewing is popular with PC users. As active-TV technology brings viewing to the livening room TV, what limitations may be imposed on simultaneous video access around the home?

Solutions: Active-TV technology pushes the software support burden onto a networked PC, so as to mostly eliminate the cost and maintenance burden at each TV. Synchromesh Computing has benchmarked the load the TVs place on the supporting PC. Processing TV-web requires the support of complex software, but the processor burden is typical very small.

Behind the scene: As TV System-on-Chip (Soc) devices offer increasing support for advanced video codecs, it is clear that the most restrictive component of an active-TV technology home-network is the broadband service to the home. Currently, the PC can be used to transcode non-native video into a format decodable at the TV. Support for this feature appears to be the biggest processor burden placed on the supporting PC.

Synchromesh Computing used a system of up to 5 D-Link DSM-520 Digital Media Adapters (DMA). They were connected by wire to a home router. The home PC or laptop was also connected to the router, but by either a wire or 802.11g wireless connection. Each of the active-TV enabled TVs was simultaneously viewing YouTube video. Synchromesh told me that they did not think wirelessly connecting all of the DSM-520s would effect YouTube viewing at the TV. They did not test a completely wireless network as their primary interest was in determining the load on the home PC or laptop rather than the home network.

Three different PC systems were used for the test (see table below). These supported greatly different computational power levels.

The test was to determine if the PC had the computational power to support all of the 5 TVs, or some reduced number. Technically it is possible to support more than 5 TVs, but an upper limit of 5 seems adequate for home use.

The chart below shows the number of active-TV technology clients (D-link DSM-520) supported by a PC using Windows XP, while the PC assisting the TVs is also being used simultaneously to surf the web and view YouTube video.

( © Synchromesh Computing )

The chart below shows the number of active-TV technology clients (D-link DSM-520) supported by a PC using Windows Vista, while the PC is assisting the TVs and is simultaneously being used to surf the web and view YouTube video.

( © Synchromesh Computing )

The results indicate that a dual-core PC or Laptop computer can support 5 TVs while still being used to browse the web. A single-core low-end PC restricts the number of TVs supported to 1 or 2, depending on the PC operating system on type of home network used.

The use of YouTube video is interesting as it is currently available in Adobe Flash video (FLV) or H.264. Neither of these are natively decoded by the DSM-520. In the benchmark case, the video was accessed in FLV and transcoded to MPEG2. The use of MPEG2 results in relatively high bandwidth consumption but good video quality.

When the internet video is available such that no video transcode is required, then the burden on the PC is obviously dramatically reduced or eliminated in terms of the video trancode load imposed. This will increasingly be the case, but for now, it is good that the PC can ensure that the TV user is not restricted.

But what if the PC user is placing a heavy load of the PC’s CPU, such as running a complex game. How does this limit the TV’s ability to access YouTube? The chart below shows the number of active-TV technology clients (D-link DSM-520) supported by a PC using Windows XP, while the PC assisting the TVs is simultaneously used to play World of Warcraft – a 3D PC game.

( © Synchromesh Computing )

The results indicate that when playing a complex game, a low-end dual-core PC is only able to “spare” enough “CPU-cycles” to support 3 or 4 TVs requiring YouTube-quality video transcode. As with the lightly loaded PC tests, a high-end dual core PC is able to support 5 TVs -- even when it is heavily loaded with other activity.

The results are interesting to the engineer. But in practice, unless you have a relatively old or slow PC, the biggest restriction imposed on multiple TV access to internet video is the bandwidth available through the home connection. “Better quality” internet video can use more than 0.7MBps of bandwidth. Supporting 5 channels might require 3.5MBps bandwidth; which is certainly more bandwidth than currently available to many home users in the US. It would be best to first test your ISP bandwidth to determine if it has the capacity to support so much TV-web browsing.

Feedback, corrections and comments welcome. Contact me for more information or support with active-TV technology development.
Daniel Mann

Complete torrent control from living room TV

2008-01-28T13:54:00.000-06:00

The Issue: Outspoken industry experts report that internet-delivered video to the living room TV is in desperate need of platforms which are open, low-cost and conform to a standard. Are such platforms technically possible? And who are the winners and losers if such an objective was achieved?

Solutions: Dominance in the delivery of video and advertising to a living room TV audience is such a great price, that many are reluctant to collaborate for fear of reducing their share of such a prize. As well as an uncooperative business environment, there are software-complexities and hardware-cost obstacles that prevent the emergence of open-platform solutions.

Behind the scene: The PC, with its browser support, has set a standard for open PC-web development. Using networked PC-assistance, the existing and open software infrastructure can continue to support open access to TV-web. Via technologies such as active-TV, a TV can be free to openly browse TV-websites, including those with supporting the latest Web 2.0 features. This is achieved while adding minimal cost to the TV and without burdening it with maintenance or feature-longevity complexities. Moreover, this approach produces a much more interesting experience for users than more expensive and un-assisted TVs, which have less Web 2.0 support and are tied to business deals involving limited video portal access.

An industry problem ?
No doubt you have been following recent announcements from Samsung, Panasonic, Sharp,and likely others, that they will add access to internet video on new networked TVs – sometime in the first half of 2008. Many reporters are now saying 2008 will be the year in which Internet-delivered video reaches a large living room TV audience.

The technical approach by and large involves integrating support software to enable the TV to access a video supplier’s portal or tailored RSS feeds. This portal styled approach, however, does not enable the TV to access any video feed or even easily keep pace with the rapid changes in web technology. Maybe these TV suppliers are hoping customers will just buy another TV when they all too quickly discover that the features supported by their TV's integrated software are increasingly inferior to next month’s model...

The problem of building a STB or TV capable of dealing with all Internet video sources and variants was recently discussed by Amino’s marketing VP (the number one supplier in IPTV boxes): “... Simply offering our boxes in retail wouldn't work: there's just not enough consistency and standardization out there to make doing that a proposition that would be satisfying to consumers”. Note that the lack of standardization is not a problem for the PC, which has the support software to deal with it; it is a problem for a low-cost, low-maintenance and longer-life TV.

Jeremy Allaire and Adam Berrey of Brightcove, have published an open letter to the CE industry requesting a joint effort to bring standards to internet TV appliances. The letter states: “An even greater limitation than complexity is the fact that today's strategies are fundamentally closed”. They go on to say:

Each device has a different set of standards and requirements for using online video content, so there is no consistency of formats and user experience.
Most devices don't provide open access to any video service that is hosted on the open Web, and instead require direct deals and relationships with the device vendor.
Related to the above, none of these devices offer a simple and open development model for web service developers to create and deliver custom content and services.

Unlike the PC-based web and the mobile-web, which are both built on open standards, the consumer electronics ecosystem offers no consistent set of open standards for online media to reach televisions. [end quote]

The letter proposes some very good solutions, such as standardizing on an XML format for video RSS feeds. But without a dominant TV hardware platform leading the way via an all-pervasive application software standard, there is no coordinated effort to date to build a TV software infrastructure conforming to a single standard.

Consequently, likely accompanying each of the new networked TVs or networked Set-Top Boxes (STB) is a Software Development Kit (SDK), which application developers would have to use to build video portal interfaces or screen widgets. Given the endless possibilities for variants, this is likely to add 'SDK fatigue' to the growing DMA fatigue.

CE developers don’t feel equipped to take on an effort to drive some kind of Web 2.0 technology standard for the TV. The task is difficult, to be sure. Comparable projects from Microsoft, Intel Viiv and AMD Live!, have all met with failure. There are also large differences in the capabilities of TV Systems-on-a-Chip (SoC) used in the CE industry. It would certainly be possible to build a standard around something like Apple TV, given that it is basically a headless PC without the problems of the Windows operating system. However, a $15 TV SoC cannot replicate the software support of an Apple TV. If this were possible, the market would be awash with $15 integrated-PC browser systems. I could suggest that the home PC user would greatly appreciate such a device, but the PC industry is not yet capable not interested in supplying such a solution.

Maybe the networked TV buyer must factor in a low-end, PC-like cost adder to their TV purchase or be content with the meager video offerings and low-end features available in first-generation networked TVs? Buyer’s enthusiasm for adding, say, $250 to a TV appears weak. Hence, the recent Apple TV price reduction from $299 to $230. Sharp has suggested it will charge $200 more for its networked TV models, which have limited portal support. Maybe Apple will offer Apple TV integrated into a TV, once it clears unsold Apple TVs. This may motivate an industry response, but it is not the establishment of a standard...

The Brigtcove letter states that “closed” is a greater limitation than “complexity”. I think “complexity” refers to system configuration and maintenance rather than cost. I am not sure I agree with this part of an otherwise excellent letter. The PC-in the living room was an open solution, but more significant to its downfall than 'too-much-noise' or 'too-much-cost', was 'too-much-maintenance support'!

Web 2.0 technology for PC-web continues to develop rapidly, with new 'must-have' features continually emerging. We should expect web 2.0 support for the TV to show a similar development pattern. It is hard enough, maybe impossible. for the CE industry to standardize on a reduced set of Web 2.0 features, all supported by a $15 TV SoC today; it would be even more difficult to keep pace with PC-web 2.0 developments, without the added hassle of TV maintenance and compatibility problems.

I think an unalterable requirement for TV buyers is reliability and 'zero TV maintenance'. New TV buyers might be prepared to reconfigure their file sever or home network router, once; but they are not willing to maintain TV plug-ins and drivers. It would remind them too much of their Windows PC. They may have accepted the maintenance cost of PC-web access, but they don’t want to double this burden by adding similar PC-like TV maintenance.

I submit that active-TV technology frees a TV from dealing with the lack of simple Internet-video and Web 2.0 standards. Via PC-assistance, a networked TV presents web pages formatted for the TV. These TV-web pages (or channels) are easy to build and can come from a great many sources. The system is flexible, easily upgradeable, maintains TV reliability, is universally accessible and keeps the TV-side costs down. By maintaining a PC’s access to TV-web, a networked TV user can utilize this cost-effective resource to support browsing of TV-web.

A networked TV connects to the internet via a home router or gateway. A home PC also connects to the internet via the same router. Active-TV technology requires a PC be left in standby mode, in case it receives a request from the TV, via the home router, for temporary assistance in processing Web 2.0 software. The energy costs of keeping the PC in standby mode are less than the energy costs of a large plasma or LCD TV. Anyway, the PC may be simultaneously and invisibly used by another person who is also accessing TV-web or PC-web pages or channels.

Internet Video Broadcaster support
DivX officially launched its active-TV technology-styled “DivX-Connected" DMA at CES 2008, having first seen demand for this product in Europe. With the goal of continuing to expanding support beyond Stage6, DivX announced that they will add video from the popular Internet Broadcaster Veoh. Not surprisingly, there is already an active-TV technology supported TV-web channel for Veoh (see below).

Clearly, Veoh is showing enthusiasm for reaching the living room TV on platforms other than the living room PC. However, if TV manufacturers continue along a 'please-use-my-SDK path', then a video broadcaster’s ability to reach a living room audience will be constrained. This may result in a shake-out of internet video broadcasters.

As internet video providers are under pressure to make money from PC-web or TV access, the greater freedom of PC-web access may not be easily translated to TV access. For example, YouTube may allow free access to its PC-website, but it may become more restrictive in granting a standalone-TV access to its video. YouTube and other Internet broadcasters may prefer a TV portal to an open TV-website. This would enable them to better control deals with TV builders and advertisers, and monetize their video on TV. If this is the case, the industry would not be driven in the 'open' direction proposed in the Brightcove letter; instead, the establishment of open TV-web browsing -- similar to PC-web browsing -- using technology such as active-TV, would be delayed.

It is easy to build a TV-website or channel using familiar PC-web browser technology: HTML, Javascript and Flash. Below is an example: a TV image of a TV-web channel for videos available through Internet video broadcaster, ROO. The video menu shows three options: “World News”, “Travel Europe” and “Entertainment News”. These are selected from the ROO “setting”s page, which offers about 170 menu choices. The video, like Veoh video, is of a much higher visual quality than YouTube video.

The advocates of a standalone TV approach, that is a TV operating without any PC assistance, do not expect the TV to replace all PC-web functions. They don’t expect triple-tap entry via the TV remote to be used to search for and organize all video. Everyone agrees that this is still a job for the PC. This is similar to managing an Apple iPod from its iTunes PC or Mac interface.

Networked TVs will also have to solve the problem of filtering video for ‘family’ viewing. Many parents will not allow their kids to use a networked TV to freely search and access video from YouTube. It is easier to define video search criteria, manage video playlists, and control video filtering from the PC than a simpler networked TV. This better enables the user to enjoy the relevant video at the TV without continual interruption and excessive TV interactivity.

I think portal restrictions, lack of open internet-video access, and failure to keep up with the latest Web 2.0 technology experienced on the PC, will prevent first generation stand-alone networked TVs from widespread adoption.

TV access to shared photos
Several of the networked TV announcements indicated they would have support for internet photo sharing. One such popular site is Google’s Picasa. A prototype TV-web channel for Picasa has already been built. There is a menu button which enables photos to be viewed full-screen in a slideshow sequence. The familiarity and productivity of TV-web or TV-web development tools greatly simplify this kind of development. It will be hard to for an array of TV SDK users to keep pace with TV-web development.

For those less familiar with Picasa, the PC-website below is used to upload photos for sharing with other web users.

Using the menu-settings page of the Picasa TV-web channel (see below), a photo album can be selected. A user must first enter a Picasa User ID (this is stored for future use). Photos can be viewed individually, or as a slide show. This is a great way for a PC user to “send” photos for someone else to view on their internet connected TV.

Torrenting from the TV
Another industry leader, the BBC’s Ashley Highfield, has also been blogging about the lack of industry standards. Like Brightcove he is hoping for “a simple, elegant, cheap, open standards box, that easily allows streamed or downloaded, free, rented, or bought programmes”. Importantly, the “cheap” requirement has not been overlooked.

Maybe the networked TV user does not need the Web 2.0 features of PC-web. If this is the case, then when the business conflicts are finally resolved, the industry can provide a cheap solution. Maybe TV users will step-up to paying the additional cost of Apple TV-like hardware. However, there has been strong evidence indicating that they are not yet ready for this expense. If Web 2.0 is required at the TV, then the problems of unwanted hardware cost, too much TV maintenance and networked-TV feature-longevity, are all resolved by using a PC-assisted approach.

The Highfield blog goes on to say, “mentioning this to a very tech savvy colleague this morning, he replied that he downloaded programmes through BBC iPlayer [on a PC], stripped the DRM (hence his anonymity!), re-encoded the file, burned it to DVD from his PC, then took it to his DVD player connected to his TV in the lounge. Hardly a solution for my mum either.”

It is quite easy for active-TV technology to greatly simply the practical steps being taken by Ashley’s “tech savvy colleague”. No doubt there are a great many PC-web users who torrent (peer-to-peer transfer) video to their home PC. This video is typically provided in MPEG4 variants such as DivX. If the user does not own a MPEG-4 enabled DVD player, they mostly transcode the video to MPEG-2 format for playing on a ‘normal’ DVD player. The whole process of going to the PC to initiate a torrent (P2P), transcoding the video, writing a disc and 'sneaker-netting' it to the living room DVD player can be replaced by a simple TV-web site which supports torrents.

I have built support for the popular uTorrent engine into a demonstration TV-web channel. Now using only the IR remote of an active-TV enabled TV or STB, such as the D-Link DSM520, I can control all the necessary steps from the TV, without ever visiting the PC.

For demonstration, I added support for video torrents offered by http://www.democracynow.org/ and http://www.bittorrent.com/. The torrents are provided by RSS feeds. BitTorrent has feeds for “TV” or “Movies”. This explains the “TV” entry in the menu entry below. Selecting the “Amy Goodman” menu entry, enables selection of “Democracy Now” news and analysis programs.

By simply clicking on the “Willie Nelson” menu entry at the TV, the networked PC-assisted TV will start the associated torrent.

Using the “active torrents” menu entry, it is possible to manage torrents and monitor their progress. Not shown are additional menu entries for pausing, restarting and removing completed torrents. As torrents progress, their percentage-completion is reported. Below is a snap-shot of a torrent for the 'Democracy Now' show from January 23. When “100% download'” is reached, the show is available for viewing. The “share ratio” refers to the torrents upload-to-download ration. Naturally, it is possible to have several torrents running at the same time and at different stages of completion.

So there we have complete torrent access by a living room TV, without ever visiting the PC or having a PC attached to the TV. There is no need to write an intermediate DVD. This is accomplished without adding complexity and cost to the TV as it relies on networked PC assistance. Conveniently, if a torrent is alternatively started from the PC via PC-web selection, it is still reported and monitored on the TV-web page. Interestingly, the '”Democracy Now” video is in H.264. The D-link DSM-520 supports DivX but does not natively support H.264; however, the PC invisibly transcodes the video before sending it to the TV for viewing. Another benefit of PC-assist,

Feedback, corrections and comments welcome. Contact me for more information or support with active-TV technology development.
Daniel Mann

Getting the most from YouTube video at the living room TV

2008-01-02T19:26:00.000-06:00

The Issue: The YouTube PC-web site is a very popular video share site. In its present state, however, given that it is formatted for viewing on the PC, YouTube videos cannot be conveniently accessed from a living room TV.

Solutions: Active-TV technology overcomes this limitation and enables YouTube video to be easily viewed on any TV around the home. YouTube video is accessed via TV-web format rather than a PC-web formatted page.

Behind the scene: The TV-web site described below does not replicate all of the search features of the YouTube PC-web site; rather, the two sites work in tandem: The PC-web site features are used to ‘prepare’ video channels, which are then immediately available for easy viewing at the TV.

Below is an image of a TV-web site for YouTube video. The menu in the upper-right enables selection of 1-of-3 video channels, either pre-existing or easily created by individual users of YouTube. Currently, the “Flintstones” channel is selected. The second menu, in the lower portion of the screen image, is used to select individual videos from the selected channel.

The above TV-web site does not support searching for videos or arranging them into channels. No big deal, as this is easily done on the existing YouTube PC-web site. Consequently, the PC-web site and the TV-web site work together to give complete control over viewing video on the living room TV. The TV-web site has the advantage of being organized around the “lean-back experience” and group-viewing. Additionally, it is easy to simultaneously use a notebook computer in the living room to organize YouTube videos into channels, and then immediately view them on a corresponding TV-web site.

There is an added security advantage when eliminating support for random video searches at the TV-web channel: parents can pre-approve videos or video sources for all channels made available to children at the TV.

Before looking at how TV-web channels are selected, let’s first review some of the basics of YouTube access. YouTube members can upload videos for sharing and future review. Each member can arrange their uploaded videos into a YouTube Channel, or several Channels. In fact, a Channel can be constructed from other users’ uploaded videos as well. A members’ Channel is available for other YouTube users to view.

After logging into the YouTube PC-web site, a user can select the corresponding tab to either Videos or Channels. It is easy to search for new videos by selecting the “Videos” tab [shown below] and entering a search-string in the Search Box.

When a new video is found, it can be played in the familiar YouTube PC-web player. At the bottom of the player [shown below] are options to add the video to “Favorites” or to a “Playlists”. Unlike video favorites, the use of playlists enables saved videos to be grouped appropriately.

When a playlist is initially created (via the “[New Playlist]” option when using “Add to Playlists”) a title for the playlist must be entered. Also, the playlist must be marked “Public” or “Private” [as shown below]. If a playlist is Public, then other YouTube members can access the playlist without having to enter a password for the member who created the playlist.

An easy way of accessing Favorites and Playlists is by clicking on the hyper-linked user-ID at the top of the page. When I click on “daniel78746” at the top of my YouTube page and then select the “Playlists” tab, I can access all of my saved playlists.

By using the “Edit Playlists” button, I can make changes to my playlists; such as changing the order in which each video plays. There are other ways of navigating to the same “My Account / Playlists” page.

Remember, it was stated earlier that each member can have YouTube Channels. The “Channel” tab at the top of the initial YouTube page is used to list channels. After selecting a channel, such as the 'National Geographic' one, it is possible to subscribe to the channel. As shown below, there are currently only 26,918 subscribers to the National Geographic, a fraction of total YouTube viewership. [The low numbers of channel subscribers makes me think that YouTube channel subscription is an under used resource by its members.]

When a video is viewed in the player window, there is often an option to the right of the player to 'Subscribe' to the channel in which the video is contained. There are different ways to review the channels currently subscribed to, i.e. “My Subscriptions”. First, via the “Home” tab on the initial page, followed by the “My Subscriptions” link; Secondly, via the user-ID at the top of the initial page followed by the “Subscriptions” link. Once there, there is a button to “Edit Subscriptions”.

Note above, the box to the right which enables subscription to “Tags”. This is a bit like creating a channel from video search criteria. For this example, I have entered “wallace and gromit”. After creating this subscription, I have a collection of relevant videos, which YouTube gives the ‘channel name’ “gromit wallace”. This alphabetical reordering can be prevented by literally using a quote symbol ( “ ) in the 'Subscribe to Tags' box, but the “and” will still ‘disappear’.

Returning to the TV-web page at the start of this article, the menu has a “Settings” option and when this is clicked using the TV’s IR remote, the “settings page” shown below appears.

Each of the 3 video menus has separate controls which are used to select the video included in the channel. In the example above, menu-1 is set to Videos -> Flintstones. Menu-3 is set to Playlists -> Old Grey. Each menu setting requires a first and second choice. The left, or first choice, can be varied between: Videos, Favorites, Playlists, Channels, and Subscriptions. The right, or second choice, is used to further narrow the selection.

YouTube also provides several video groupings know as Standard Feeds and Categories, such as: Most Viewed, Top Rated, Featured, Sports… These are made available under the Videos selection. Note, merely for convenience and demonstration, I have added some more video groupings, such as the Flintstones.

Under the Channel selection, there are several popular YouTube channels, such as National Geographic, NHLVideo and Motorstelevision. These channels are available without requiring subscription to the channel.

Remember the above example of subscribing to Video Tags “wallace and gromit”? Well, the ‘channel’ created now appears under the Subscriptions selection.

Selecting Subscriptions -> gromit-wallace for menu-2, as shown above, results in a listing of relevant videos appearing in the menu - after using the TV IR remote and the Return-To-Video-Menu button. Parents should note that using “Subscribe to Tags” does not always ensure appropriate video for a younger audience. (For example, the term 'Bambi' could return videos relating either to the Disney children's story or to an 'adult' entertainer...) It is more secure to use tag-searching to create a list which must be reviewed and further reduced to a Playlist. For some audiences it may be safe to rely on videos from certain channel sources, such as National Geographic.

Selecting Subscriptions, Playlists and Favorites requires the use of a YouTube member ID. The ID in use is shown at the bottom of the settings page [shown earlier]. There is a box for entering a new ID. Using a TV IR remote triple-tap sequence, the ID is entered. It is stored along with all the chosen settings in the form of TV-web cookies. This means, after turning on the TV and returning to the YouTube TV-web page, the previous channel settings are completely restored.

The user ID is sent to the YouTube server to enquire about the member's P and Subscriptions. No password is used and consequently only video items market 'Public' can be viewed. By entering another ID, say, someone else's member ID, it is possible to view their Favorites and Public Playlists.

Because a TV may be shared by several people and each may have their own channel preferences and user ID, the top-level menu can be used to select a TV web site from several YouTube TV-web icons; each leads to its own YouTube TV-web site as set up by an individual user. This reduces or almost eliminates the need for triple-tap at the TV, and allows different users to quickly switch between their channel preferences.

Note that the “YouTube Family” TV-web site only supports Favorites, Playlists and Subscriptions. Eliminating the Videos and Channel setting options, means a parent has greater control over what can be seen on the TV. Installing only the associated YouTube_family.mcl file ensure that the other YouTube TV-web channels do not reach the TV.

Feedback, corrections and comments welcome. Contact me for more information or support with active-TV technology development.
Daniel Mann

PC pulls back from living room TV integration

2007-12-20T17:31:00.000-06:00

The Issue: The notion of selling a PC attached to the TV in the living room was stillborn in the market some time ago. Intel has just now announced its passing, little surprise to anyone familiar with how most consumers really use these products. Given Intel’s announcement, is it now safe for the cautious reporter to write about what was an inevitable demise?

Solutions: No sense throwing the baby out with the bath water. Enthusiasm for Internet-based video viewable on TVs throughout the home remains undiminished, regardless of whether Intel puts a halt to promoting the living room PC. The only way forward is in combining what is best about the PC with what is best about the TV: The PC should serve as the software work horse engine for the TV, as required, while the TV benefits from remote access to Web 2.0 technologies & features without having to manage any of the complexity or grapple with unforeseen future technical obsolescence.

Behind the scene: With delusions of grandeur, PC-industry executives' ambition lay somewhere between unreasonably optimism and wanton incompetence in believing that a PC running a Windows operating system could bring a cost-effective and stable ‘experience’ when integrated into the TV. Their failed efforts, moreover, set back needlessly the adoption of thin-client technology and opportunities to bring to the living room the immersive software and web experience of the PC which is still found lacking on the TV.

PC companies like Intel, Microsoft and AMD have for several years now sought to promote sales of PCs connected to the TV in the living room. Brands such as Intel Viiv, Windows Media Center Edition (MCE) and AMD LIVE! remain associated with these efforts. Despite the look of a sleek DVD player, or the feel of a high-end home theater console, these PCs never met much consumer enthusiasm. Facing the inevitable, news reports indicate that Intel has now decided to, “Scale Back on Viiv Digital Living Room Branding”.

Central to this failed endeavor was the notion that placing a PC in the “critical path” of the content flow [i.e. routing the TV signal first through the PC] would somehow be mutually beneficial to both PC vendor and ‘content’ owner alike; whereas in reality it simply increased the risks without bringing much benefit. First, Intel was forced to “work with content companies to certify that movies and other video fare delivered over the Internet worked well with a remote control and looked good on a TV screen,” an endless and needless effort. Second, contrary to conventional, if flawed, reasoning [and as I have been pointing out for several years now], a PC is not really required to access video over the Internet. There are other options, all of them less expensive, and all of them producing less heat, noise, or maintenance issues associated with using a Windows operating system. These facts did not stop management, however, from supporting overly ambitions objectives regardless of the evidence to the contrary.

Also of note, the brands listed above where not only primarily focused on PCs attached to the TV but also confusingly associated with extended-PC plans -- but without explaining how these two approaches were separate. In the case of Intel, the extended-PC approach required use of a Viiv client or an MCE Extender box at the TV location, rather than a Viiv PC connected to the TV.

Apple did not make this mistake with the Apple-TV, which is a client of an Extended-PC or Extended-MAC. Apple has clearly indicated that the Apple-TV is the device to connect to the living room TV.

No doubt the decision to promote the PC-in-living-room by PC industry players was the result of both little experience in marketing consumer appliances and a failure to produce client devices that function well. Those sold to date were Digital Media Adapters (DMA), a device category not readily understood by consumers. Their associated marketing campaigns are now severally criticized by the press and analysts. And yet, Microsoft, undaunted, is about to launch its second generation of Extenders, with a price tag of nearly $350 each, which likely makes these offerings dead on arrival (DoA).

The strategies employed by Intel and AMD, including “Viiv client” and “AMD LIVE! Ready” branding campaigns, have never gotten off the ground, since having failed to recruit to the cause significant numbers of established consumer appliance manufacturers (largely due to onerous branding requirements and meaningless technical specifications), and having championed broadcast reception in the PC (required to keep the PC in the critical path of content flow), these branding programs have inevitably come afoul of consumers. These consumers have no appetite for the cost, attendant technical issues, and networking complexities. As a consequence, broadcast reception technology was never integrated with thin-client technology; and so we find ourselves with DMA client boxes rather than TVs integrated with network and thin-client support.

Compounding these problems, the PC industry has tied Internet video support to premium PC operating systems, in insisting that Windows Media Center rather than basic Windows XP (with its massive installed base) be the requirement to run a Media Center Extender device.

Since progress is never linear when it comes to technology adoption, at this stage in the Internet video development game, there is a market for low-cost DMAs such as the D-Link DSM-520. It is used by early adopters and supports existing TVs which naturally do not have integrated network support. Of course, the DMS-520 works with all widely used PC platforms. Early adopters can use them today to watch lots of varied Internet-delivered video, currently without much advertising support or any expense for content access (no cable TV bill). With this increasingly compelling experience, greater numbers of consumers are eventually going to realize what they are missing. . .

To this end, the alternative active-TV technology approach relies on an Extended-PC only to assist the networked TV or networked STB, when it is needed. Whenever the TV or STB encounter software complexity or require other support (i.e. access to home photos or video stored on the PC, video reformatting, complex UI features and the like), it can call on the PC. Most importantly, the PC is not in the critical path of content flow: A TV or STB client performs traditional TV tasks entirely alone, without PC assistance; in other words regardless of whether or not the PC is turned on or off.

The “complex software” which even the next generation of TV chips cannot support includes advanced UI features and Web 2.0 technology (e.g. mash-ups, widgets, RSS feeds, etc.) – which continues to advance in ways unforeseen, and for which the PC is supremely able to keep in stride. How to help the TV in the living room gain access to ‘the Web 2.0 experience’ remains the central question and has always been the only real task for the PC. In short, it is accomplished via the home network and without a PC connected directly to the TV. It follows that active-TV technology was developed precisely to accomplish this task, and this is why it has gained acceptance among the more traditional TV developers.

While moving away from the living-room-PC, the rumor mill reports that Intel is working on an x86- based TV chip, codenamed Kenmore, of which we are likely to hear more about at CES 2008 (January). Prior attempts to integrate x86 technology into a TV system-on-chip (SOC) have not been successful – but, to be sure, the attempts have been many. Intel nevertheless has made acquisitions to gain access to the necessary technology. It is not clear if the ‘first generation’ will be a multi-chip module. The chip is unlikely to be used with Windows, but will better enable Intel customers to offer standalone support for Web 2.0 technology in a TV. It might even be used in a future Apple TV. Suppliers of non x86-based TV SOCs can still offer complete support for Web 2.0 via active-TV technology integrated directly with their displays and in combination with assistance from a networked PC or laptop.

In conclusion, to some the unassisted “TV goes it alone” approach may appear to have advantages over the “TV with remote PC assistance” one. However, looked at more closely the differences in network support are likely irrelevant as all of these systems are going to be networked regardless of where they are located in the home. Any user of these systems almost certainly already maintains a PC and keeps the web access technology or applications up-to-date (i.e. Flash updates, Java plug-ins, browser add-ons, virus scans, etc.). Relying on PC assistance, therefore, removes the added burden of keeping not just the PC but also the TV software up-to-date. The PC, with its much shorter refresh cycle (2 - 3 years vs. 6 - 10 years for the TV) can always be upgraded in the future and consequently it (or the TVs it supports) will not likely run out of processing power. Lastly, there are likely cost and TV-technology advantages to a TV supplier by continuing to use low-cost and established TV chip suppliers.

Feedback, corrections and comments welcome. Contact me for more information or support with active-TV technology development.
Daniel Mann

Clearing the Fuzzy picture for Apple TV

2007-11-27T14:22:00.000-06:00

The Issue: Regarding Internet video distribution, some reporters and analyst seem to be lagging behind actual marketing and engineering developments. They continue to suggest that open Internet-delivery of video to the living room TV has not yet been achieved, and is beset by insurmountable barriers.

Solutions: Current solutions do exist and mostly make use of DMAs, but these will soon be accompanied by the necessary technology integrated directly into TVs and hybrid-STBs. These solutions are open; that is, they are not tied to any particular video portal service.

Behind the scene: Active-TV technology enables TV developers to offer consumers an option to enjoy TV-web ‘browsing’. Today, anyone is free to build a TV-web formatted website or channel. TV-browsing (of TV-web channels) is freely available and as open as PC-browsing (of PC-web sites).

CNET’s Tom Krazit sees a “Fuzzy picture for Apple TV”. This comes at a time when there has been much speculation about an Apple TV ver. 2.0. The issues regarding how the Apple TV might develop next have been covered previously in this blog. The constraints remain the same, the choices include:

Exploiting the benefits of a new and hopefully lower cost chip from Intel.
Hiding the high-end DMA cost ‘behind-the-glass’ by integrating Apple TV into a TV.
Morphing the Apple TV into a box that consumers already understand, such as a STB or DVD player
Opening up Apple TV for other developers and marketers to exploit.

Ross Rubin of NPD is quoted in the CNET article saying: “the [DMA] category of devices is so nonexistent”. What he is fundamentally overlooking is that Internet delivery to the living room TV does not have to be via DMA or via closed system. Instead, it can be via a TV with integrated network support and in a manner that is completely open to all video distributors. Compounding these misperceptions is the way in which Krazit describes delivery of Internet to the living room TV as “a question that has eluded the PC industry for years”. I disagree with this: there are systems available at retail today that proof Krazit wrong (see: http://www.dlink.com/activetv/). Any failure may be in marketing the solution, not in making it technically feasible.

Responding to the CNET article, Steve O’Hear at the Last100 states “and yet it’s still difficult, if not impossible, to get content originating from most Internet TV services onto a television”. He goes on to say: “why has the AppleTV failed to ignite the market for PC to TV devices?” Two reasons are suggested: One is that Apple-TV uses PC-assistance to support its features. The second reason, which gets CNET support, is that Apple TV is a ‘closed system’, with its tight and exclusive ties to the pay-to-download iTunes Store.

Rather than being “impossible” to get Internet TV service to the living room TV, it is actually rather easy. Both Krazit and O’Hear are missing the important fact that DMAs and STB boxes are available today that support open distribution of video content. These are boxes supporting active-TV technology. Most of the Internet Video sites support an API or RSS video distribution. There is little engineering effort required to connect these to template TV-web channels. Future template developments will eliminate even these simple engineering steps. Active-TV technology is currently being integrated directly into TVs, which eliminates the little understood DMA.

Web pages formatted for the PC are not appropriate for living room viewing. This is because small text, pop-up menus and keyboard interactivity is unwanted in the living room. This does not create any great difficult for the web designer, they simply follow a new set of ‘guidelines’ which suit web pages built for the TV; Know as TV-web, interactivity is via the TV IR remote.

As Apple and others have discovered, there are overwhelming reasons why the TV is best not burdened with any direct integration of the technology required to support web 2.0. The optimal solution is networked PC assistance. After all, what web 2.0 user does not already have a networked PC?

Also missed by Krazit and O’Hear, is the ability of active-TV technology TVs to support ‘open browsing’ of TV-web formatted sites. There are a lot of interesting sites already available. Anyone is free to build a TV-web site -- there are even templates available. Moreover, active-TV technology enables all these sites to be delivered to the living room TV. Today, it is not difficult to build a TV-web version of any of the popular PC-web based Internet video sites. It is quite easy to connect their RSS feeds into available TV-web template pages.

Whatever so called “barriers” remain to Internet-delivery of video to the living room TV, they are not primarily technical, limited to exclusive content, or downright unavailable. Reporters should catch-up with this fact and better serve their readers.

Feedback, corrections and comments welcome. Contact me for more information or support with active-TV technology development.
Daniel Mann

Living room TV advertising support for TV-web channels

2007-11-12T10:55:00.000-06:00

The Issue: The ease with which Internet-delivered video can now reach the living room TV is certain to lead to renewed interest in new forms of advertising, assuming they complement, rather than detract, from TV-web viewing.

Solutions: Since Active-TV technology supports Web 2.0 technology, this allows PC-web based advertising techniques to be reapplied to TV-web channels.

Behind the scene: Click-to-view video advertising for TV-web is demonstrated using a new TV-web channel for vintage jazz enthusiasts. Given that a TV-web channel can potentially provide hours and hours of uninterrupted viewing, viewers should not be burdened with excessive or distracting advertising. Click-to-view advertising will have to be appealing.

Assuming a healthy balance is struck between the desires of viewers and the needs of advertisers, I suspect there may be music labels interested in associating their jazz CDs with vintage jazz video clips.
Terry Teachout, drama critic of the Wall Street Journal, shares an ARTSJOURNAL weblog on the arts in New York City. With over 4,500 blog entries, it is a busy site. In addition to daily postings, the site also features a list of mostly vintage American Jazz video clips uploaded to YouTube.

Oddly, Terry does not maintain a YouTube playlist for these videos per se, but I have nevertheless made a playlist from the links on his 'About Last Night' web site. Rather than single play, it is more convenient to watch the videos as one long uninterrupted sequence on the living room TV, as a 'jazz documentary' if you will. To enable this I have added new features to the TV-web template channel available at http://active-tv.blogspot.com/, making it easier to create a “YouTube Jazz” channel with these features. (See the TV image below.)

Under the “settings” option on the top horizontal menu, a feature to 'auto-play' the list of video can be selected. Below is a typical in-between videos TV image. This is displayed for a few seconds after the completion of the current video and automatically replaced by the next video in the sequence when the latter starts to play.

Below is an image of the next video playing. In practice, videos are not typically watched in the menu-context window shown; they are more likely watched in full-screen mode. The in-between video information ‘page’ is still briefly presented while transitioning between videos in full-screen mode.

As well as adding the 'auto play' option under the settings page (shown below), there are also new options to change the background color shading and select permanent left or right positioning of the box where the video plays on the menu page (instead of auto swapping at regular intervals).

There have been inquiries from readers as to how advertising could be included in TV-web channels. Google offers video AdSense for this task. AdSense is normally used with PC-web pages. It works by examining the contents (HTML code) of the page and delivering ads that are relevant. A block of HTML code must be inserted into the PC-web page to make calls to an AdSense server, which then delivers the video and adverting information displayed on the web page.

The same mechanism can be used with TV-web channels. To demonstrate this, I have added support code into the example TV-web channel. A small still-image appears in a box below the video viewport. When the advert-box is highlighted via screen navigation (as shown below), information provided by the advertiser is temporarily presented in the video-information area (below the video viewport).

If the user pushes ‘enter’ on the TV IR remote while the advert-image is highlighted then the associated ad video is played in the main viewport (a full-screen video-advert option is also supported). This is essentially “click-to-view” video advertising. If the user does not ‘click’ the ad image, they are not forced to watch the ad video and are only subjected to the still-image.

Naturally, the still-image, associated video, and text information are all supplied by an ad server such as AdSense. For the demo system, I just used YouTube video matching the search criteria “Trunk Monkey TV advert”. A new advert is requested from the server at frequent intervals such that the still image changes without any prompting from the user.

The word “advertisement” appearing below the advert-image is programmable by the HTML support code. In fact all advertising can be completely turned off (if so configured). The mechanism could likely be used for other purposes, such as distributing general announcements, displaying urgent news or maybe presenting an instant messaging session. These options will likely be explored here at a future date.

Feedback, corrections and comments welcome. Contact me for more information or support with active-TV technology development.
Daniel Mann

D-Link TV channel delivered to living room TV

2007-11-09T09:38:00.000-06:00

The Issue: there is a lot interest in bringing TV channels to a TV audience without having to deal with the established TV networks or video broadcasters.

Solutions: Internet-delivered video provides a solution. It is now just as easy to build a TV-web channel as it is to create a blog or simple PC website. Adding network access to a TV enables it to ‘browse’ and view these TV-web channels.

Behind the scene: Use of active-TV technology makes it easy to build TV-web channels to very nearly replicate the traditional TV experience. These channels can support all manner of genres such as: shopping, education, product announcements, community information and no doubt a lot more.

D-Link maintains a PC-web based video service called D-LinkTV. They describe it as, “your online video source for networking know-how”. Using the D-Link DSM-520 box, it is now possible to bring the same video to the living room TV. The DSM-520 box connects a TV to the home network and to the Internet via active-TV technology. D-Link describes this as active-TV online.

The D-LinkTV PC-web page has been reformatted for TV-web viewing. This is shown below. The PC-web channel from D-Link is arranged into three groups: “home & office”, "business", and “questions & answers”. Videos are arranged under these headings. I will include the necessary support files at the http://active-tv.blogspot.com/ web site for those who wish to add the D-LinkTV channel to their own TV-web channel line-up. In practice, any TV or STB using active-TV technology can access the D-LinkTV TV-web channel.
The DSM-520 is not just for D-LinkTV, it supports a great many other TV-web formatted channels as well. Like PC-web sites, new TV-web sites or channels are made every day, whether for leisure or commerce. Just like adding PC-web sites to a browser’s “favorites” list, new TV-web channels can be continually added to the list of ‘browsable’ TV-web channels.

In a recent Media Post article by Laurie Sullivan, she reports that, “many of the 10 million people who visit Walmart.com on Thanksgiving Day will end up in the store on Friday”. Clearly, PC-web site activity helps drive in-store business. How much more productive would this mechanism be if shoppers could view “new items” from the convenience of a living room TV rather than on a PC screen – via a Wal-Mart TV-web channel...?

Feedback, corrections and comments welcome. Contact me for more information or support with active-TV technology development.
Daniel Mann

ROO Channels turned into living room TV-web

2007-11-02T16:32:00.000-06:00

Active-TV Ecosystem Developers,

The Issue: YouTube is famous for video sharing, but often the video is criticized for being of amateur quality, whether due to the short duration of most clips or the poor resolution in which they are streamed. There are other internet-video distributors, however, such as ROO, who supply a great deal of professional quality video.

Solutions: Using active-TV technology, it is easy to bring this professional quality video to the living room TV in the form of TV-web channels.

Behind the scene: The amount of video information and entertainment available to a networked TV in the living room is now reaching impressive levels. There are literally hours and hours of entertainment viewable via a broadband connection – all without the need to attach any PC directly with a TV. The benefits include no monthly cable-TV fees or interruptions from familiar TV advertising. The endless supply of video is continually refreshed via RSS feeds.

ROO is a leading supplier of online video. They recently announced a partnership with GeoBeats, a premier video travel guide for international destinations. They also offer video RSS feeds that currently include about 170 video categories.

ROO support a diverse yet highly targeted audience. They currently stream millions of videos to approximately 880+ diverse web properties, including the NYPost.com, The Sun UK, and Times Online.

The ROO video channels are easily made viewable on a living room TV, or any networked TV around the house, for that matter. Below are TV-web images for just a few of the ROO video feeds. They are formatted for widescreen viewing (16x9) on an active-TV technology-enabled TV.

We have entered an Internet-based TV era, wherein the shift from ‘network TV’ to ‘networked TV’ will bring untold millions of video to the networked home. The tools are now readily at hand to organize streamed video into countless channels catering to all manner of tastes and hobbies, and all easily viewable on TVs throughout the home, thanks to active-TV technology.

Feedback, corrections and comments welcome. Contact me for more information or support with active-TV technology development.
Daniel Mann

YouTube Channels turned into living room TV-web

2007-10-27T10:39:00.000-05:00

Active-TV Ecosystem Developers,

The Issue: The path to bringing Internet-delivered video to the TV has been a long one, with lots of disappointments and delays.

Solutions: The barriers to adoption until now include overly-ambitions business models, inappropriate use of complex technology, high-priced solutions and poor communication with end-users. These have all contributed to delays in bringing Internet video to the TV. It is now possible, however, using active-TV technology, to demonstrate simple and practical, as well as reliable, solutions that overcome these barriers. These solutions are on sale today in many consumer electronics retail stores (see http://www.dlink.com/activeTV/ ).

Behind the scene: The ease with which it is now possible to construct TV-web sites, supported by active-TV technology, will quickly lead to a flood of TV-web channels for living room TVs.

Starting with the premise that YouTube members can select their own video favorites, create or use existing playlists, and even arrange videos into a “channel”, individuals as well as companies such as National Geographic, BBC, Sony and many others, actively use YouTube as a means of further distributing their video portfolio – they upload with great frequency a veritable treasure-trove of interesting video clips. For example, at last count the National Geographic YouTube ‘channel’ included 252 videos, and the CBS channel had 3711 videos.

YouTube provides an interface for requesting these videos over the Internet. They actually provide the cut-and-paste code enabling the video to be embedded into a blog or website. I have taken a different approach and effectively pasted them into a TV-web channel. The simple steps and tools for accomplishing this where recently described in a blog article.

To demonstrate how easy it is to build TV-web channels, I have quickly created the 9 examples below. I will supply the support code at the http://active-tv.blogspot.com/ for anyone who wishes to add these channels to their active-TV technology-enabled TV or Set-Top Box. Additionally, D-Link is now supporting a free website for DSM-520 owners who want to add active-TV technology.

National Geographic TV-web image (based on National Geographic ‘channel’ on YouTube)

This BBC Top Gear channel looks interesting, but is not a success. Interestingly, anyone uploading video to YouTube can ‘mark’ the video, so limiting viewing options; in this case much of the video is marked “not to be embedded”. This means the video can only be views from the YouTube PC-web page. This is rarely a problem, but many of the very popular BBC Top Gear videos are ‘marked’ as such and cannot be viewed outside the YouTube PC-web page.

Warner Brothers music video TV-web image (based on Warner Brothers ‘channel’ on YouTube)

David Pogue is a New York Times technology columnist. He does not have a YouTube channel. But it is still possible to group relevant videos into a TV-web channel. Without the use of YouTube channel grouping, there is always a small chance that the video selection filter used to gather video clips may allow an inappropriate or unrelated video to be included in the ‘Pogue’ TV-web channel line-up.

Sony Pictures UK TV-web image (based on Sony’s ‘channel’ on YouTube)

CBS

Intel

Rudy Giuliani

Hillary Clinton

There was a bug in the TV-web Flash support code released previously at http://active-tv.blogspot.com/ . The bug was introduced by a software protection tool. It is now fixed and the blogspot download software has been updated. I was not able to devote the time to clearing this problem up sooner. The bug caused a problem with left-right swapping used to protect Plasma TVs. All should be resolved now.

So far I have made examples in 4x3 TV format, but will start adding widescreen or 16x9 format, as there have been several requests for this.

Feedback, corrections and comments welcome. Contact me for more information or support with active-TV technology development.
Daniel Mann

Internet video development tools ensure "no TV left behind"

2007-10-10T16:09:00.000-05:00

Active-TV Ecosystem Developers,

The Issue: Lack of low-cost and easy-to-use technology-in-a-box for Internet-based video has kept it from reaching a living room audience.

Solutions: Established companies (with only mixed success so-far at resolving both business and technical issues…) appear stalled due to conflicting business agendas.

Behind the scene: A new Web 2.0 ‘mash-up’ site for TV-web content makes it easy to build customized TV channels for delivery right to the living room TV. You no longer have to wait for established companies to make great strides in enabling a path to the living room TV.

In a recent Knowledge@Wharton article, Wharton Business School marketing professor, Peter Fader, argues that “by adopting so-called web 2.0 techniques -- such as consumer rating systems and new combinations of content – [TV] networks could create a sense of community, much like that found at social networking sites like MySpace and Facebook”. He is referring to the broad adoption of Internet-based video streaming directly to the TV.

Key to Fader’s argument is not “to resist the urge to protect content but instead to focus on giving users a good experience.” Also, that “the goal is creating connections and a trail to eventually buy a DVD. Doing that would create revenue and a deeper relationship [with consumers]."

To this end, the PC industry has done a poor job of delivering on its promise of elegant yet cheap technical solutions that deliver Internet video to the living room TV. This is clearly pointed out by Matte Richtel in a New York Times article: so far, “here’s the reality: laboriously hook your computer to your TV; watch low-definition photos of the family vacation. At no risk of hyperbole, the promise of the digital home has fallen desperately short”.

Richtel goes on to describe a “new crop” of boxes which take a “more modest” approach to satisfying the needs of consumers who want to watch YouTube on the TV. Given this new potential, and the perhaps little understood but far-reaching consequences of a power shift in the TV industry, he speculates that “television makers could demand a share of advertising or subscription revenue from content partners who are given access to the viewers of their TVs”. Hence, content owners and TV builders would effectively side-step or supplant the current business model led by dominant service providers and relatively subservient set-top-box providers. It is a scenario most suited to the US market.

What is more likely to drive market development is extending the reach of PC-web-based social networking and video sharing sites to the ‘big TV’ via TV-web supported devices that use active-TV technology. To show how easily this can be done, a ‘mash-up’ of Web 2.0 components are available at www.active-TV.org. With the availability of active-TV technology-enabled boxes such as the recently upgraded D-Link DSM-520, it is quite easy to bring Internet-delivered video to any TV. What is next is a mash-up combining or merging Web 2.0 content for both PC-web and TV-web. At that point it will be easier to build your own TV-web channels than building a blog.

Feedback, corrections and comments welcome.. Contact me for more information or support with active-TV technology development.
Daniel Mann

Joost on a Set-Top Box within 18 months !

2007-10-03T12:26:00.000-05:00

Active-TV Ecosystem Developers,

The Issue: Joost and other PC-based P2P software users want to deliver video to the living room TV.

Solutions: A standalone solution (i.e. direct access to Internet video by the TV, without PC involvement) involves managing complex technical problems, including integration of P2P sharing software into a very low-cost TV chip and related system components. Joost estimate this project may take 18 months.

Behind the scene: An immediate and more powerful solution is available using active-TV technology (which uses the PC to format and deliver TV-web to the TV). This approach favors the existing long replacement cycles expected from a TV. As well as ensuring, unlike a PC, zero TV maintenance and upgrading. And also an easy path for integrating new features, with lower incremental TV hardware cost. Active-TV technology requires PC-assistance from a networked always-ready PC, to be sure, but what potential Joost user doesn’t already own a networked PC?

Steve O’Hear asks in a Last100 blog entry, “how long before we see Internet TV service, Joost, running on some kind of a set-top-box” (STB)?” He provides Joost CEO Mike Volpi’s response: [within] “the next 18 months”. Volpi goes on to say, “Over the long term I think we kind of expect that… we have to have to other platforms that attach to the television set because we are delivering a high quality viewing experience”.

Like BitTorrent, or similar video-sharing PC-web sites using peer-to-peer (P2P) technology, Joost may be trying to integrate P2P firmware directly into TVs or STBs. This is very difficult to achieve and maintain. It also offers a path to fewer useful features, not to mention problems dealing with the fact that buyers do not like to replace their TVs or (in the U.S. at least…) STBs very often.

In contrast, it is actually very easy to put Joost video on a TV or STB, using the active-TV technology approach. This requires networked-PC assistance. But to the critics who keep asking, “Why can’t the TV process TV-web video without the assistance of a networked PC?” the answer is simple: The chip inside a TV costs $15 or less. It is hard to get this chip to perform many of the same functions that a PC does, which costs closer to $400 or maybe more; if it did, you can be certain there would be initiatives under way to build a PC from a TV chip!

Using active-TV technology, P2P software continues to run on the PC. Just the Joost video and the TV user interface (UI) is sent over the network to the TV or STB. Last100 also questions whether or not Joost will build an “open” internet service or a “closed” IPTV portal service like Apple TV. Is Joost’s development delay due to the construction of a closed system?

I hear TV-web template software will shortly be freely available. The example code I have seen includes support for YouTube video and some other sources. However, it appears very easy to change the XML parser to feed on a Joost library-API, rather than, say, the YouTube API. In fact, the TV-web example (below) could be easily modified to use any of the video sharing services with freely available library-APIs.

(Picture below: TV-web for active-TV technology TVs or ‘MCE-conformant’ platforms. The example uses a 4x3 TV format, but 16x9 is also available.)

As a result, for those TVs or STBs using active-TV technology (such as the recently upgraded D-Link DSM-520) it’s quite possible that Joost video might appear on the TV very soon. For Joost enthusiast there is certainly no reason to wait 18 moths to get video on a TV or STB.

The TV-web template software available soon may look different from that shown above. I believe the code is now at a design firm for a style “make over”.

Regarding competitors to Joost, Apple TV also offers an attractive TV UI. But it is not an open system and consequently I have not heard of any TV-web template software available for constructing a TV-web channel living room viewing.

(Picture below: Apple TV using a 16x9 TV format)

It remains to be seen how both proprietary and open approaches to bringing internet video to the TV evolve. As simple and cost-effective hardware devices from D-Link and others proliferate in the market, it will be increasingly incumbent on PC-web video portals and aggregators to develop a viable TV-web strategy; their approach must take into consideration the economic realities of TV design and engineering and the familiarity and practicalities of PC ownership. In doing so, they can bring new and compelling services & features to consumers, eager to bridge the gap between what they currently view on their PC and what they would like to view on their TV. Active-TV technology offers such a path.

Feedback, corrections and comments welcome. Contact me for more information or support with active-TV technology development.
Daniel Mann

Arrival of more boxes supporting internet video for the TV

2007-09-30T18:15:00.000-05:00

Active-TV Ecosystem Developers,

The Issue: more boxes are arriving to support internet-video viewing in the living room TV.

Solutions: For cost and technical reasons, most of these boxes require the support of a networked PC.

Behind the scene: Web pages formatted for the TV are known as TV-web. Interaction with these pages is via an IR remote, not a keyboard or mouse. To ensure a box can display the greatest number of TV-web pages or ‘channels’, and also ensure a TV-web channel can reach the greatest number of TVs, they should both support HTML, JavaScript and Flash, building blocks of Web 2.0 technology.

New boxes supporting access to internet-delivered video are arriving in the market from a variety of prominent and lesser-known vendors. The most important criteria by which to measure potential success are box cost and quantity of video sources. Which TV-web device is likely to be offered at a price acceptable to a wide range of users? Previous DMA-styled devices have been priced too high for rapid market adoption, and remained esoteric gadgets

It was recently reported that “Microsoft is going in a hyper-announcement mode: it is announcing its plans to help launch a new line of media extenders”. The report indicates Linksys will introduce a $300 DMA2100 and also a $350 DMA2200 with integrated DVD player. This latter might be better described as a networked DVD player.

A Microsoft press release states “Microsoft Shatters the PC-to-Television Barrier, Releases First Details on Extenders for Windows Media Center”. Microsoft’s general manager for eHome, Dave Alles, states, “the new Extenders for Windows Media Center make it easy to get a wide range of personal and Internet content not only on someone’s main TV but on all the TVs in the house”.

There is also an article in Forbes titled “The iFlop”, which discusses the weakness of Apple-TV. This is also mentioned in paidContent., which states “Apple struggled. It wanted to keep the price low at $300”. The Apple TV is a sort of Microsoft Extender or Digital Media Adapter (DMA). But it has more standalone capability than an Extender, sometimes functioning without the assistance of a networked PC.

There has also been a lot of reporting on the new Vudu box. Much of this reporting is of an optimistic, yet likely misplaced, nature given the $399 price tag. Fortunately, Erica Ogg of CNET remembers prior attempts to build similar boxes. Her report brings a more cautious view, reporting the Yankee Group’s Josh Martin analysis, that, "the biggest strategic misstep by all of these companies is their inability to lease the box and charge for content, or give the box away for free and charge more for content”. He also states, "we're dominated by service providers that subsidize equipment" and "Users get used to that." This is very true for the US market.

The ATSC Set-Top Box (STB) does not have the consumer-acceptance of the European equivalent DVB-T STB. This is why there is more US interest in the DMA-styled box, rather than a networked DVB-t STB.
A D-Link press release, indicates that the DSM-520 DMA “adds more than 200 channels of internet video on your TV” – these are MCE-conformant TV-web channels. This is accomplished using active-TV technology. The D-Link DSM-520 has two advantages over the boxes listed above; I have seen it for sale at a street-price of $150, therefore at approximately half the price of Microsoft Extenders, and it supports more TV-web channels (or sites) than any other box. This is enhanced by active-TV technology’s support for the Flash video format. It is also easy to add more TV-web channels as they become available. This is because active-TV technology supports legacy HTML formatted TV-web. See the chart below.

Media Center Edition (MCE) formatting was initially proposed for TV-web development. It continuous to be most widely used, and is supported by prior and existing display platforms, as indicated in the table above. With the new crop of recently announced Microsoft Extenders (MCX v2), a new TV-web format has been added, which unfortunately is not supported by the legacy of existing platforms.

For those who keep asking, “why can’t the TV process TV-web without the assistance of a networked PC?” the answer is simple. The chip inside a TV costs $15 or less. It is hard to get this chip to perform much the same function as a PC costing $100s. With the PC and TV working together there is also the option of combing PC-web with TV-web operation, with Web 2.0 mash-ups that have not yet been widely demonstrated, but likely offer significant opportunity for enterprising Web 2.0 developers.

This is why it is important that TV-side technology be very low cost to implement – such as active-TV technology. There is also an unwillingness to put complex PC operating systems, such as Windows, inside a TV.

Microsoft’s first round of Extender products had little success in the market. It is difficult to sell such boxes when they cost as much or more than an Xbox 360 or Sony Playstation (now at about $138). These game platforms can also play DVDs and function as DMAs or Extenders. The most compelling scenario involves integrating active-TV technology directly into the TV, thereby eliminating the need for a DMA or Extender, unless it is needed to support the installed base of pre-networked TVs.

Feedback, corrections and comments welcome. Contact me for more information or support with active-TV technology development.
Daniel Mann

How TV-web gets to the TV

2007-09-07T11:46:00.000-05:00

Active-TV Ecosystem Developers,

The Issue: Brining internet video to the TV is relatively easy compared to supporting the related TV UI and its associated application software.

Solutions: Other than Apple TV, all the entertainment ecosystem proponents are evolving to support Web 2.0 applications at the TV.

Behind the scene: For TV-web developers, understanding the competing technologies is essential in order to quickly reach a large living room TV audience. Active-TV technology continues to involve the simplest and most open path amid complex options.

Adoption of home networking is enabling the ecosystem approach to digital convergence to gain market share. The ecosystem enables internet video to be delivered to the TV, and also for the TV to gain access to PC-stored libraries of photos, video or music. The ecosystem is formed by networking a PC or notebook computer with Set-Top Boxes (STBs) Digital Media Adapters (DMAs) and networked TVs. The approach appeals to TV manufactures as it adds little complexity or cost to the TV, but provides access to PC-browser-based software applications.

Web 2.0
Reported in the NY Times is Microsoft’s introduction of Window Live. This is a package of browser based software applications, often referred to as Web 2.0 applications. According to the article: “Hundreds of companies in Silicon Valley are offering every imaginable service, from writing tools to elaborate dating and social networking systems, all of which require only a Web browser and each potentially undermining Microsoft’s desktop monopoly”.

The TV’s use of a networked PC as a remote computation engine enables Web 2.0 applications to appear as if they are ‘running’ on the TV. When web 2.0 applications are built for PC use, they rely on the keyboard and mouse for user inputs. When Web 2.0 applications are built for TV viewing, they make use of the TV’s IR remote to receive user inputs. Additionally, TV-web formatting does not use pop-up menus and small text or other formatting options unsuitable for TV viewing.

The list of those developing a browser-assisted approach to TV convergence includes: active-TV technology, DivX Connected and Microsoft Extender technology. I leave out Intel ViiV as it is not clear if they are still pursuing the approach or relying on one of the other suppliers. Apple TV is a partial ecosystem approach, as the Apple TV has more stand-alone capability. This is achieved at great cost and complexity for the Apple TV platform.

Inside a TV chip
To understand some of the technical difference between these approaches we have to take a quick look inside a TV SOC chip (TV System-on-a-chip). There are two ways they can present video and graphic images on the TV screen: One is via the built-in video decode engine; the other is via the small built-in 2D/3D graphics engine. Traditionally, a TV chip would receive a digital broadcast stream and send the video stream to the decode engine for TV display. TV schedule information, or Electronic Program Guide (EPG) data, is sent to the graphics engine for rendering into a TV image. TV chips have a means of combining the video and graphics images into a single TV-ready output. With the introduction of TV chips that support networking, video and graphics information can be sent to the TV via the home network in addition to broadcast reception.

Normally, Web applications run in the PC’s browser and the image is sent to the PC’s graphics engine for rendering and ultimately display on the PC monitor. With TV-web ecosystem support, the TV-web applications still run on the PC browser, but the image is sent over the network for display by the TV SOC. There are two ways to send the browser image over the network: one is to the TV SOC’s graphics engine, and the second is to the TV SOC’s video engine. Existing active-TV technology implementations and Microsoft Extender technology use the graphics engine approach. DivX Connected uses the video engine approach.

The graphics engine approach requires the TV SOC to have a larger than ‘normal’ graphics engine. This is likely why Microsoft chose the ATI Xilleon chip for use in its first Extender. But this was many years ago and there are now more TV SOC options with robust graphics engines. At the time, the Xilleon video engine only supported MPEG2 video decode. Now, however, there is a wide selection of chips which include support for MPEG4, WMV and H.264 video decode.

There are advantages and disadvantages to each approach. The video engine approach probably places more of a burden on the PC, particularly in terms of reducing the latency in TV UI response. Demands are also likely placed on the PC’s graphics card, which is likely used to assist with the video encode process. The burden also grows as the TV resolution improves, requiring high-def DivX video streams to be encoded and sent from the PC. However, the approach is possibly lighter-weight on the TV-SOC side, placing lesser demands on the graphics engine, integrated CPU or system memory. This may help reduce costs or ensure operation with lower-cost and less capable TV SOC options.

The video engine approach also makes it somewhat more difficult to support video ‘playing’ in a small window within a TV-web layout. (Microsoft calls this a video viewport). The problem can be solved by decoding the video then re-encoding into a single TV-UI DivX stream. Alternatively, the video viewport could be sent to the TV SOC as a separate video stream and then reassembled using Picture-In-Picture (PIP) technology. These complexities are likely the reason the DivX Stage6 TV-web UI does not currently support embedded video.

The graphics engine approach has the advantage of optionally combining video streams (decoded by the video engine) with TV-web images rendered by the graphics engine. This is particularly useful when supporting new forms of TV advertising via overlay TV web. The approach is under evaluation by several active-TV technology developers. Red Bee Media (formerly BBC Broadcasting) developed a prototype for IBC (Amsterdam) last year. The reduced PC-side burden may make the approach better able to simultaneously support multiple TVs in a single home network.

Some TV web pages (or channels) make calls on library support routines. With the introduction of the Media Center Edition (MCE) PC, Microsoft provided an API specification for these routines. The actual support code was included with a MCE PC purchase. The support code was not made available to Windows XP users. This may have encouraged purchases of new MCE PCs. TV-web channels, called Spotlights by Microsoft at the time, where written in HTML, formatted for TV viewing, and called on the API helper-routines.

An active-TV technology collaborator, MediaMall, built a version of the helper routines conforming to the same API. With the corresponding support code available to Windows XP users, TV-web sites can be viewed and more importantly sent over the home network to active-TV enabled TVs and Set-Top Boxes (STBs). There is no requirement to use an MCE PC or an Extender which relies on Microsoft’s Extender Technology – an alternative to active-TV technology.

The Xilleon TV SOC used in the original Extender only supported MPEG2 native video. Microsoft added support for WMV video by incorporating an ADI Blackfin co-processor to assist the Xilleon TV SOC. This enabled TV-web sites to utilize WMV video.

Active-TV collaborators have added PC-side transcode support for more video formats, including Adobe Flash (FLV) and DivX. This enables TVs using active-TV technology to display a wider range of video formats.

DivX has introduced its first DivX Connected DMA – The D-Link DSM-330. It is not clear if this is initially only for the European market. There is only support for DivX encoded video. The DSM-330 is based on a Sigma Designs chip. There has been criticism (1, 2) from possibly Microsoft-leaning reviewers on the limited video codec support. But there is no inherent limitation as to what video formats can be supported. Maybe the Extender did not include DivX support because Microsoft did not want to pay royalties to DivX. There may be some similar licensing rather than technology explanation for DivX’s decision. Few DivX enthusiasts will complain about the lack of WMV support.

This brings up a good point: all the available ecosystem technologies, active-TV, Extender and DivX Connected, can utilize the same TV SOC. This gives them equal access to native video codec support. They are all able to implement PC-side transcode. However, as seen with the latest active-TV platforms, the need for DivX transcode is eliminated when the TV SOC has native support. It will become increasingly difficult to differentiate ecosystem technology on the basis of native video codec support.

With the introduction of Microsoft’s next generation Extender technology, MCX v2, code named Pika, Microsoft is adding support for TV-web formatted with MCML (Media Center Mark-up Language). This will be supported by Vista Premium and Vista Ultimate PC platforms. Consequently, TV-web channels formatted using MCML will only be viewable to a portion of Vista PC owners; and since few of these are attached to a TV, the real audience is only Extenders supporting MCX v2 technology like the Xbox 360. Given the unattractiveness of this proposition, compounded by the continued sales of Windows XP and Vista Home, further reducing the number of new and existing PCs capable of supporting TV-web channels formatted using MCML, it is likely that TV-web developers will continue to use HTML formatting.

DivX Connected also uses HTML formatting, but rather than using the MCE API, a new set of helper widgets has been defined. These make calls on OpenGL support routines. This means that a TV-web channel formatted for DivX Connected may not work with the Microsoft’s MCX v2 ecosystem. However, given that TV-web channels used by active-TV technology and DivX Connected, both use HTML formatting, it can be possible for a single TV-web channel to selectively call the DivX support routines or alternatively the MCE support routines depending on the underlying ecosystem. Additionally, the use of these support routines can be greatly diminished by avoiding certain features, such as the use of video viewports.

DivX will provide a TV-web SDK (software development kit) for those building their own TV-web channel. Given that existing HTML-formatted TV-web channels can make MCE API calls which are not resolved by the DivX Connected run-time environment, it is difficult to support all of the existing TV-web channels using DivX Connected platforms. Fortunately, some of the MCE applications (such as those from Scendix) make little or no use of MCE API, so in this case the HTML formatting can be compatible with DivX Connected.

It will be difficult to get a large number of TV-web developers to switch to exclusive use of DivX formatted TV-web, unless there is a large number of DivX Connected platforms already sold. DivX’s primary TV-web channel is their own Stage6 portal. They will have to drive demand for their platforms via exceptional interest in Stage6. Simple support for TV access to PC-stored DivX video will not be enough to drive demand since it is likely that every TV-based ecosystem device (at least the active-TV ones) will already offer support for DivX video viewing.

In conclusion, like PC-web developers, TV-web developers can make use of Web 2.0 technology. Only HTML formatted TV-web ensures reaching the maximum TV audience. Adobe Flash combined with HTML and JavaScript is the ideal choice for TV-web development. While promoting the adoption of MCML and Silverlight, Microsoft must also continue to support original MCE and HTML technology with MCX v2, if it is to support its legacy of spotlight-formatted TV-web channels plus future HTML users. This reduces the key formats to HTML-MCE/active-TV and HTML-DivX Connected. The differences are diminished by avoiding unique ActiveX and MCE API features.

A single TV-web site could be compatible with both underlying technologies, although it may have to make selective calls depending on the browser user-agent. This is very much like the days when Netscape and Internet Explorer were in development and competing with new features. In the long run, however, devices and TV-web channels will likely coalesce around the most pervasive and familiar of formats, namely HTML with Flash, thereby spawning wide adoption of Web 2.0 applications from the TV.

Feedback, corrections and comments welcome. Contact me for more information or support with active-TV technology development.
Daniel Mann

A TV channel for '08 elections news

2007-08-23T11:49:00.000-05:00

Active-TV Ecosystem Developers

The Issue: Reaching a living room TV audience has never been as easy as reaching PC-web users.

Solutions: Internet connectivity is reaching the living room TV and enabling developers to offer their own TV-web channel to anyone interested.

Behind the scene: Active-TV technology now makes it relatively easy for someone with HTML and Java Script skills to construct a TV channel. It is not any more difficult than constructing a PC-web page.

The popularity of YouTube and other video sharing websites makes it easy to share video with other PC users. Now, with active-TV technology reaching TVs and networked Set-Top Boxes (STB) in the living room, and utilizing the YouTube API interface, it is easy to build a TV-formatted video-channel for living room viewing. Let’s see how this is accomplished.

TV-formatted web, or TV-web, is much like PC-web, except interaction is via an Infra-Red (IR) remote and not a keyboard and mouse. A TV UI is also much simpler, making use of larger clearer images and not making much use of text. Microsoft provides suggested guidelines and example TV-web layouts. Microsoft also provides tool plug-ins for FrontPage (its webpage development tool) which simplifies development of TV-web. There is also an updated Microsoft Vista-compatible version of the development tools, which includes support for MCML as well as HTML formatting; but use of MCML will limit the number of TVs which can view the TV-web channel.

There are no strict requirements to use the Microsoft tools or even follow its guidelines. Other HTML development tools can be used. With the availability of active-TV technology, there are few restrictions regarding what Windows operating systems is used: a Media Center Edition (MCE) PC, a Windows XP PC, or a Windows Vista PC, will all do. Note that during the introduction of the MCE PC, Microsoft used the term “MCE Application” for HTML formatted TV-web.

There is also more information about building TV-web at the Microsoft supported Sandbox blog, or at the The Green Button information-share site. MediaMall has also provided the HTML source file for its YouTube TV-web channel, which enables access to YouTube, with alternative support for Veoh and Vmix favorites. The MediaMall example does not rely on HMTL alone, but also uses Adobe Flash to deal with the TV UI layout. Active-TV platforms support the use of Adobe Flash.

One of the simplest ways to build a TV-web channel is to utilize YouTube for video distribution. Video can first be uploaded to YouTube and then retrieved by embedding the associated video tag, or embedded URL, into the TV-web Page. In leveraging YouTube in this way, only the TV-web pages need be provided by some 3rd-party server which is also accessible via the internet.

Without going through the process of first up-loading video to a server, let’s look at building a TV-web channel relating to the 2008 US Presidential Election. Relevant YouTube video can be found by entering appropriate search-words at the YouTube PC-web UI. However, YouTube also offers a search service via a REST request; know as the YouTube developer API. This consists of sending a URL-string to a YouTube HTTP server. The URL-string contains the search-tags used to match video held in the database. The request takes the form shown below.

http://www.youtube.com/api2_restapi_parameter1=value1&api_parameter2=value2&api_parameterN=valueN

http://www.youtube.com/api2_restmethod=youtube.videos.list_by_category_and_tag&dev_id=xxxxxxxxxxx&category_id=25&tag=hillary&tag=clinton

YouTube offers several ways to format a request for a search of its video library. The above example uses the “category method”, where category parameter 25 identifies “News & Politics”. With a successful REST request, YouTube returns a file in XML format. Below is an example.

- <ut_response status="ok">
- <video_list>
<total>8576</total>
- <video>
<author>ParkRidge47</author>
<id>6h3G-lMZxjo</id>
<title>Vote Different</title>
<length_seconds>74</length_seconds>
<rating_avg>4.17</rating_avg>
<rating_count>7212</rating_count>
<description>Make up your own mind. Decide for yourself who should be our next president. NOTE: This is a mashup of the famous Apple 1984 Super Bowl ad. Search for the original on YouTube.</description>
<view_count>3676321</view_count>
<upload_time>1173116996</upload_time>
<comment_count>12078</comment_count>
<tags>Hillary Clinton Barack Obama 1984 Apple Macintosh Ingsoc</tags>
<url>http://www.youtube.com/?v=6h3G-lMZxjo</url>
<thumbnail_url>http://img.youtube.com/vi/6h3G-lMZxjo/default.jpg</thumbnail_url>
<embed_status>ok</embed_status>
</video>
- <video>
<author>tpmtv</author>
<id>9BEPcJlz2wE</id>
<title>Hillary Clinton Sopranos Parody</title>
<length_seconds>95</length_seconds>
<rating_avg>3.55</rating_avg>
<rating_count>847</rating_count>
<description>Hillary, Bill, and Chelsea's car are "The Clintons"</description>
<view_count>289202</view_count>
<upload_time>1182266618</upload_time>
<comment_count>1143</comment_count>
<tags>Hillary Clinton Pres' 08</tags>
<url>http://www.youtube.com/?v=9BEPcJlz2wE</url>
<thumbnail_url>http://img.youtube.com/vi/9BEPcJlz2wE/default.jpg</thumbnail_url>
<embed_status>ok</embed_status>
</video>
- <video>
. . .

Typically, a TV-web page uses Java script to construct the URL-string for the REST-formatted search. Then the TV-web page uses more Java script to parse the returned XML file in search of interesting videos. Data such as the <title> or <thumbnail_url> image are extracted from the XML file and positioned on the TV screen layout, as shown below. The URL address for the video which is to appear on the TV must be passed to the TV-client. Remember to use the MediaCenter.PlayMedia(mediaType, mediaURL) method for this task. The steps used to add a new TV-web channel to the channel listings has been covered in prior blog entries.

The above example was selected for illustration purposes only. A developer can easily make changes to construct their own TV-web channel on some other topic. The availability of active-TV enabled boxes such as the recently upgraded D-Link DSM-520, and others entering the market shortly, make it increasingly easy to reach a living room TV audience.

In short, it is relatively easy for someone with HTML and Java Script skills to construct a TV channel. It is not any more difficult than constructing a PC-web page. At one time building a blog required HTML authoring skills, but this has been eliminated with the introduction of pre-formatted bloging tools – such as Blogger. In time, TV-web layout productivity tools will make the process of formatting a TV-web channel as easy as building a blog.

Feedback, corrections and comments welcome. Contact me for more information or support with active-TV technology development.
Daniel Mann

The PC industry shift from PC sale to ecosystem sale

2007-08-09T17:00:00.000-05:00

Active-TV Ecosystem Developers,

The Issue: Until recently the PC has been mostly a standalone device, albeit with internet access. Falling PC and CPU prices are demanding new application for the PC which can reverse the relentless price fall.

Solutions: Support for a networked ecosystem of appliances based throughout the home is establishing a new PC platform standard, which can lead to higher valuations for PC and their component suppliers.

Behind the scene: There are several ecosystem technologies being proposed. Active-TV technology has the advantage of light-weight operation, ease of implementation and openness of accessibility.

The finance.yahoo.com chart below indicates that the Intel and AMD stock price has not grown since about year 2000. Since then it has generally been declining or appears flat. This is partly caused by what is sometimes referred to as the maturing of the PC industry. Intel and AMD are the major suppliers of the CPUs used in PCs and laptop computers. In prior years, improvements in CPU performance, architecture, system integration and fabrication technology, led to improved company fortunes. But with the maturing of the industry, a shift in the use of the PC is required to maintain growth.

With falling PC prices, or Average Selling Prices (ASP), retailers responded by offering more PC add-ons or extra devices which support PC operation. This has traditionally meant printers, extra storage or disc writers. The important shift occurring now is to sell an ecosystem of devices which interoperate in useful ways. PC industry ambitions to sell a PC attached to the living room TV have now faded. Positioning the PC as the ‘center’ of a network of home appliances has also met with very mixed success. Now the PC is being positioned by some as an equal partner in an ecosystem of mostly special-purpose appliances, such as networked Set-Top Boxes (STB), networked TVs or networked audio players.

The leaders in the PC industry know they must shift from promoting a stand-alone PC. Consequently, they are developing ecosystem solutions. The intention is to raise CPU and PC ASPs by having the PC valued in terms of its contribution to the ecosystem. Via the home network, the PC supports the operation of devices in each room of the house. Such as streaming audio to an Apple Airport Express, or even recharging the music in an iPod for use away from home.

At one time the PC industry wanted to put a PC in every home. Then Microsoft had ambitions to promote Windows in every room. But most people don’t need a PC in every room. They also don’t want the cost or maintenance of owning multiple PCs. In the US, most people who want a PC have already bought one. They may look to replace the PC if it is old or can better support an ecosystem of home appliances.

CPU manufacturers are also developing dual- and quad-core CPUs. However, the industry has never found the “killer application” that would justify the use of such impressive performance by the majority of home PC users. Yet these CPUs are expensive to make and may struggle to be sold in a way that improves the PC ASP. The solution is to apply the extra cores to support ecosystem operation. The new “killer application” turns out to be: support for ecosystem operation. A multi-core PC has plenty of performance to support traditional PC operation and assisting the operation of, say, a networked TV elsewhere in the home network.

The Intel chart below shows the relentless decline in price for Performance and Value-Segment PC markets. If PC buyers appreciate the value of higher performance, via whole-home ecosystem support, then the problem of declining ASP can be successfully dealt with.

Microsoft’s latest ecosystem approach is known as HME – Home Media Ecosystem. It first appeared with Windows Media Player 11, but it is also part of Vista. It enables a PC to serve streaming media to a network of embedded client devices. The use of HME enables Microsoft’s Windows Media Player to be a “core” software tool for managing media throughout the ecosystem.

Microsoft has tried before to build a PC-supported ecosystem using Windows Media Connect (WMC - their version of UPnP) and Extender technology (MCX), but with little success. The latest HME strategy is likely two-tier, with WMC used for lesser functionality and the Extender technology replacement, Pika (MCX v2), used for higher levels of operation. Ecosystem appliances connected via WMC support a local standalone User Interface (UI). Ecosystem members connected via Pika technology support a PC-assisted UI; This means a TV-web -like UI, formatted and distributed over the network by the PC.

Apple is building what might me described as an iTunes-based ecosystem. Networked appliances, such as Airport Express or Apple TV all connect with a PC or Mac via iTunes operation. In the case of Apple TV, some amount of standalone operation is supported, such as simple access to YouTube video. However, the more an ecosystem member is equipped to support standalone operation the more complex and costly it becomes. If an ecosystem member relies on assistance via networked support, then the cost and complexity of the ecosystem member is reduced.

Intel has been developing its ViiV ecosystem. By not being dependant on Microsoft ecosystem development plans, Intel has an opportunity to find its own solution to the complex technical and business issues relating to ecosystem adoption. Additionally, by having an ecosystem in which they retain some Intellectual Property (IP) rights may enable them to differentiate their ecosystem from another supported by AMD, assuming that any Microsoft ecosystem is made equally available to Intel and AMD.

Intel’s promotion of the home ViiV PC in support of growing amounts of digital photos, video and music, was intended to significantly contribute to addressing the decline in PC ASPs. It continues to be widely agreed that the PC’s support for consuming digital-content at the TV locations (the living room) is key to ‘growing’ the use of the PC, and possibly sparking a replacement cycle for higher-level performance and higher ASP processors. However, the ViiV TV clients still have not appeared. This has caused many to say “where is the ViiV Extended-PC ecosystem?” Without an ecosystem, ViiV is just another MCE PC. After years of development, Intel has been forced to depend on the limited functionality of the Microsoft ecosystem clients – primarily the Xbox.

ViiV ecosystem technology is much like the Microsoft ecosystem approach: They both depend on PC-assistance for delivering a TV-web -like UI. They have both shown a more PC-centric approach than the alternative active-TV technology, in that they suggest broadcast TV reception should be accomplished at the PC, rather than the networked-TV approach promoted by active-TV technology. This has technical and business-development disadvantages, which may have led to lack of ViiV ecosystem acceptance.

It will be interesting to see if Intel will revive the ViiV ecosystem or replace it. They could fall back on relying on Microsoft’s HME with MCX v2 technology. This positions the Windows Media Player (WMP) as key ecosystem application software. Alternatively, they could make more use of the Apple ecosystem and use of iTunes as a key ecosystem application.

DivX Networks has recently introduced is DivX Connected technology for ecosystem interconnect. Again, this is a PC-assisted approach. DivX is working to get its thin-client support firmware embedded into networked TVs. Of course, this is very much the strategy of the other ecosystem developers. Via DivX Connected, a networked TV can access TV-web-like formatted internet-video channels.

Except for Apple, the competing ecosystem developers make use of a common base-level of technology, such as UPnP and DLNA. Apple may have determined that consumers have generally no understanding of these technical-oriented ‘standards’; and hence promote higher-level features such as access to YouTube video. The difference between DivX Connected and the other advanced ecosystem technologies is primarily how they support advanced TV UI features via PC-assistance.

TVersity offers ecosystem-like interconnect of devices without requiring all devices be part of a homogeneous ecosystem. Because of this pragmatic approach, TVersity is not proposing a specific ecosystem technology. But, it very much adds to improved PC valuation via its ability to combine the operation of several devices – such as the Sony PSP, Xbox, networked STB and even iPhone – so as to better utilise and appreciate the new supporting role of the ecosystem-PC.

TVersity can support a PC-assisted TV UI via active-TV technology. However, the UI is by and large generated locally via micro-browser or UPnP support. A local UI usually offers less UI features or UI polish, but it works using the basic ecosystem client’s capabilities. Easy to use buttons are starting to appear in video sites, such as G4TV, making it simple to connect a home-networked media player with available video.

AMD has posted losses for three consecutive quarters. In the fourth quarter of last year it lost US$573.8 million. In the first quarter, it was in the red US$611 million. AMD expects its quad-core processors, due out in August, to drive revenue in the second half of 2007. For this to happen it has to improve the ASP of these processors.

AMD has gained some market share from Intel, but as reported: “its average selling price fell to $75 at the end of the year from $99 at the beginning. Intel’s average selling price fell, but at a far lower rate, to $130 from $137”. Like Intel, AMD will use Extended-PC ecosystem development to address the problem. AMD’s choice has been active-TV technology, although they typically brand this as AMD LIVE! Ready.

Active-TV technology is not owned by any one company, but AMD has been a noticeable user of the technology. AMD and its collaborators have worked closely with MediaMall, a significant supplier of active-TV technology. Using its internet browser, a PC assists video-sharing sites to reach the TV in the living room. In short, all video sharing and distribution sites can be accessed via a PC. Active-TV technology extends this by delivering a TV-formatted web-accessed UI (known as TV-web) to any networked TV in the ecosystem. The PC and its browser ‘engine’ remain the standard universal platform for formatting a TV UI.

AMD used to be a second source for CPUs which were pin-compatible with Intel PC products. With the transition to its own x86 architecture a new non-compatible mother board infrastructure was required. AMD had to work closely with collaborators during this transition. Now, with the PC maturing, new industry trends and business pressures, a transition is required to a PC-platform which is the ecosystem’s engine for running web-based application. This PC-engine supports simpler ecosystem members having the benefit of web-based software.

In alignment with this new AMD and PC industry direction, BroadQ is developing is Qtv ecosystem application software. Initially intended to support BroadQ’s active-TV technology for the Sony Playstation2, this web-based application can support any active-TV enabled networked TV or Set-Top Box. From the TV UI, Qtv enables network access to photos, music and video; but it also supports access to internet-delivered videos. These different ecosystem-supporting applications, such as Qtv, iTunes, WMP and more, make use of different underlying technologies; but they are likely to see similar developments such as: support for playlist sharing, social networking, and advertising delivery.

More than any other advanced ecosystem technology, active-TV technology supports the objectives and constraints of the networked appliance developer. It is light-weight in terms of resources required or consumed, easy to embed and its openness enables access to a great deal of internet video. As much as the PC industry needs ecosystem technology to improve business, the consumer appliance industry also requires advanced support for network operation to improve its own products. Any reluctance to engage in ecosystem development will enable Apple, and the like, to attempt to fill the market holes with more offerings to follow on the success of Apple TV.

Summary: Technology companies are giving priority to supporting consumer demand for improved features offered by networked ecosystem operation. At its best, ecosystem operation can combine the best of the PC industry with the best of the entertainment appliance industry. The striving to gain a key role in any widely adopted ecosystem has led to business models and technology proposals which contain elements of exclusivity. Consequently, cross-ecosystem incompatibility is a concern for developers and consumers alike.

For a long time, the Win32 API was the standard for developing PC application software. More recently, Google and others have developed applications which don’t use the Win32 API standard but execute on-top of the popular PC browser. These web-based applications, sometimes called Web 2.0 technology, are evolving a new standard. Active-TV technology enables web-based applications to support ecosystem operation. For example, an Extended-PC assists the operation of a networked TV and enables interaction with the web-based application software at the TV UI.

Feedback, corrections and comments welcome. Contact me for more information or support with active-TV technology development.
Daniel Mann

Winning the TV firmware battle

2007-08-01T18:39:00.000-05:00

Active-TV Ecosystem Developers,

The Issue: Enabling a living room TV to access video is the next big step in internet video distribution.

Solutions: Most proposed ‘solutions’ have followed a proprietary approach. The problem has defeated efforts from both large, well funded companies and inventive start-ups.

Behind the scene: Active-TV technology enables the success of PC-based video browsing to be re-applied to delivery of internet video to the living room TV.

The PC is the accepted platform for accessing internet video at home, but the video rarely reaches the living room since the PC is little used as a box attached to the TV. The lack of a common platform for internet-delivery of video to the TV has stalled progress overall and produced a long, drawn out race to solve the relevant technical and marketing problems. This race is driven by prospects of profit from offering TV viewers greater choice for video entertainment and supporting internet-delivery of TV advertising. The competition to find a solution has lasted several years now, perhaps more than ten, and progress seems so slow that it hardly seems worthy to be called a race.

Several years back, most observers felt the PC industry held the advantage: The PC had the performance, flexibility and software to tackle the problem, whereas system-on-chip (SoC)-based solutions used by TV and Set-Top Box (STB) manufacturers fell short. Years of development by TV SoC providers, however and repeated missteps by the PC industry have done much to level the playing field, but there is still no winner.

A modified PC platform using a Windows operating system is not likely to power the TV of the future. Only Apple is showing some success with this type of approach. But Apple TV uses a Mac OS and is a relatively expensive add-on box. The real race involves using the TV industry’s low-cost components while maintaining support for increasingly complex software to enable access to internet video. How can this be achieved?

Years of familiarity with the PC has led users to take for granted the PC’s ability to support complex operations under a polished user interface. The PC can easily be updated or applied to new tasks, whereas TV SoC solutions have far less flexibility. Over the years there have been many efforts to devise a solution; Including Intel VIIV clients, Microsoft’s Extenders, Akimbo’s STB and many lesser known projects. They have all failed to get the necessary software working reliably on low-cost platforms that are understood by users and therefore adopted in large numbers.

Yet the race goes on, with little reference to prior failures. Each new ‘solution’ is a dedicated single-task box, not a universal platform like the PC. There are 'good' reasons for this. Boxes are tied to a particular video service and the service provider is not interested in helping competition reach the TV. Each box includes software for the TV user interface (UI) and network communication. To add more options only adds to the cost and technical complexity of the box. No standard has emerged for universal stand-alone box operation, so the players each compete in the hopes of becoming the new de-facto standard. They stand little chance of ultimately succeeding.

Now, DivX is trying to enter the game and establish such a standard. A recent report on DivX Connected gives few details regarding the prototype GejBox. However, the report indicates: “so it's safe to say that while a select few beta testers will get to play around with a GejBox, this device will most likely never make it to market -- at least not in its current form. (DivX is really trying to get hardware-makers to pick up their platform; we don't think they want to be in the box business.)”

The GejBox prototype, like the Apple TV, is a Digital Media Adapter (DMA) variant but likely built from lower-cost TV SoC technology rather than PC technology. In such a case it may have less stand-alone capability than Apple TV, relying more frequently on networked PC-assist for streamed content.

Like the Apple TV or the D-Link DSM-520, DivX Connected accesses photos, music and video stored on a networked PC. We can expect easy access to video encoded in the popular DivX codec. However, the D-Link DSM-520 also supports access to DivX encoded video. And Apple could easily enable support for the codec if it made marketing-sense to do so, and assuming the codec licensing fee was acceptable.

DivX Connected TVs access internet video from the DivX Stage6 and Google Video sites. Google video support is likely a vestige of prior agreements between DivX and Google. There is no mention of YouTube video which is primarily available in Adobe Flash Video (FLV) and increasingly available in H.264, and which possibly indicates some incompatibility between the use of these codecs and DivX Connected. There are also reports that other video sites will be added via DivX Connected plug-ins. This strategy would keep DivX in a controlling position regarding the look-and-feel and ‘suitability’ of an alternative video sharing site, a degree of control which consumers and video suppliers may not wish to accept.

The GejBox does not appear destined to enter the market. Instead, DivX plan to get hardware retailers to re-brand the box or port the DivX Connected technology into other boxes or TVs using similar SoC hardware. To accomplish this, DivX will have to drive demand for their Stage6 video sharing site. Without this demand, hardware retailers will show little interest. I think it unlikely Apple will add support for Stage6 via Apple TV. To achieve this demand, DivX co-founder Jordan Greenhall is moving to lead the Stage6 spin-off. From PaidContent.org: Stage6 is in tough competition and would require more investment and focus, something DivX can’t really afford . . . The success of Stage6 has been driving a significant increase in operating expenses, which has in turn impacted DivX operating income.”

Joost would also like to reach the living room TV. Mike Volpi, recently appointed CEO, stated in an interview when asked about his move to Joost: “Television is a massive market, and when you put it together with the Internet, and to be on the ground floor of that, there weren’t many other opportunities to do something this big.” A report claims, “a year from now we will see Joost in the living room”. This will require Joost embedding its version of the necessary support software into TVs and Set-Top Boxes. Likely the Joost software (generally know as firmware when embedded into a TV or STB) will make use of their own peer-to-peer networking protocols rather than the video streaming utilized by DivX Connected and Stage6. There are already set-top boxes in development making use of p2p technology from other bit-torrent software suppliers, but not surprisingly they are tied to other video portals, not Joost.

Unlike DivX, Joost has yet to reveal a prototype box. Joost has stated: “We would love to put Joost on the Apple TV platform”. But the lack of a universally accessible TV platform has resulted in winner-takes-all business models which rarely lead to such collaborations between ambitious players. In sum, both DivX and Joost have an uphill task to convince Set-Top Box and TV manufacturers to embed their particular firmware needed to access their respective internet video sites. This is why we see them promoting a DMA box solution, where the add-on box is tied to a particular video service. These boxes, however, compete with DMAs like the D-Link DSM-520, which have the advantage of using active-TV technology to enable universal access to TV-web.

Of particular interest among the DMA-styled approaches is BroadQ’s active-TV software for the Sony Playstation 2 (PS2). This enables existing PS2 users (over 100M) to access TV-web formatted video channels without being tied to any particular video portal. The PS2 continues to offer a price advantage over DMA alternatives for new adopters.

On the TV hardware side, it seems manufacturers all have projects to add computer networking support. Project teams have a lot of firmware options, but they don’t like the choices offered by video portal promoters. A typical TV shopper expects a TV to last between six and ten years, or more. It is hard to expect embedded video technology tied to a particular video sharing service to remain current for anything like this period. It is not unusual to see several updates per year for a video sharing site accessed via the PC. Moreover, the process of updating the TV firmware or ensuring prior TV purchasers can support new features is just too complex. Hence, why add to the cost and complexity of a TV, given so many unknowns and competing business models, when much of the uncertainty and challenge can be passed off to the PC? TV manufacturers would prefer to add a single firmware component that enables access to all internet video providers. This option exists for PC-assisted operation but not stand-alone TV operation. It is referred to as active-TV technology.

Video sharing sites all support access via the PC browser. In short, all video sharing and distribution sites can be accessed via a PC. Active-TV technology extends this by delivering TV-formatted video to any networked TV. The PC and its browser ‘engine’ remain the standard universal platform for formatting a TV UI. Future developments in technology and software are dealt flexibly by the PC, to ensure that the networked TV remains operational and up-to-date for many more years than could ever be achieved by a TV operating alone. Embedding complex software development into a TV SoC chip is essentially replaced by lower-cost and universal PC browser-based software development. There are a great many advantages to this approach. Consequently, active-TV technology has gained acceptance with TV manufacturers producing TVs sold in the retail market who need not bet on any particular video portal service but can support them all, whether YouTube, MySpace or others.

Ultimately, the networked TV is the ideal approach. But the cost increment must be very small, and the traditional TV characteristics of longevity, zero maintenance, universal channel access and reliability must be guaranteed. PC-assist via active-TV technology satisfies all of these requirements. The very open glasnost approach of active-TV means that the TV consumer is largely removed from divisive embedded firmware battles, such as with a Joost box not supporting access to DivX’s Stage6 or the Apple’s video portal; or with DivX Connected not supporting access to Joost video or the Apple’s video portal; or with Apple TV not supporting access to Stage6 or Joost. These exclusive business strategies have been failing for years, although they continue to be promoted.

In summary, given the history of miss-steps and technical and marketing complexities of brining internet video to the living room TV, Steve Jobs has wisely indicated that Apple TV is a long-term project. After some reflection a Joost spokes person has added: "Some recent articles have reported that Joost is moving into the home. While technically possible, the emphasis is all wrong. Joost does want to be in the living room, but it's going to take time. Right now we're focusing on creating the best software for the current platform - the personal computer”. Meanwhile, the ability of active-TV technology to re-apply the PC’s success with web-based video sharing makes it formidably competitive: it can deliver internet video to the TV without requiring that a PC be built into the TV.

Feedback, corrections and comments welcome. Contact me for more information or support with active-TV technology development.
Daniel Mann

D-Link to support living room access to YouTube and other TV-web channels

2007-07-19T13:37:00.000-05:00

Active-TV Ecosystem Developers,

The Issue: D-Link improves support for internet video access via its Apple-TV-like alternative.

Background: D-Link is adding active-TV technology to their DSM-520 networked media player. This will enable universal TV access to TV-web formatted internet distributed video.

Behind the scene: Access over the internet to materials specifically formatted for TV viewing should be as unrestricted as access to internet materials formatted for the PC browser. D-Link now makes this possible at a new low price via their innovation and market leadership.

D-Link is well known as a major supplier of networking technology. They also make a range of Digital Media Adapter (DMA) appliances which connect the living room TV into the home network. With broadband service to the home, the DMA gives any TV access to video over the internet. To be sure, this is similar to the operation provided by Apple TV – Apple’s DMA. An announcement on Tuesday at iTV Con, the Internet TV Technology Conference in San Jose, indicates that D-Link will add active-TV technology to their DSM-520 MediaLounge media player. With active-TV support, the DSM-520 will have access to a wide range of TV-web formatted video channels, and have an advantaged position when competition with Apple TV.

This is because adding active-TV technology means the DSM-520 is not limited to the TV User Interface (UI) incorporated into the box’s firmware. The TV UI is transmitted over the internet in TV-web format, just like a PC’s browser page-layout is provided in PC-web format. There is increasing use of TV-web formatting for internet video channel distribution. With a DSM-520 firmware upgrade, there will now be TV access to YouTube and other video sources such as Veoh, Vmix, BBC, Comedy Central and much more.

The DSM-520 is based on the EM8620 TV System-On-Chip (SOC) from Sigma designs. As with Apple TV and the latest generation of media players, there is support for High Definition (HD) video connections. Yet, unlike Apple TV, there is also support for older Standard Definition TV connections such as S-video and composite. There is also a USB port connection for access to photo, music or video materials retrieved from a USB-connected storage device. The EM8620 has support for the latest advanced video CODECs such as MPEG-4 and WMV.

We can anticipate active-TV technology will likely appear in other appliances in the existing D-Link product range. The iTV Con announcement indicated that D-Link will provide an active-TV technology firmware upgrade to existing DSM-520 owners. The Circuit City website currently shows the DSM-520 for sale at $179, which is currently only 60% of the base Apple TV price.

It is not unusual to see new appliances supporting access to internet video, tied back to a particular portal service; Such as the BT Vision Set-Top Box (STB) or the initial release of Apple TV. This may be driven by business interests. The plan could be to use the appliance to drive a revenue stream from the video accessed from the portal. The reasoning behind the plan may be an attempt to replicate a business model similar to that used by US cable TV industry. However, this business strategy is not applicable to a retailer of TVs or boxes such as the DSM-520.

I suspect the portal strategy is sometimes hidden behind a claim to “maintain UI standards”. That is the appliance supplier can’t guarantee the quality of operation from some user-chosen portal. Internet video consumers will eventually see thought this. For example, a Dell PC buyer does not expect the PC’s browser to only access Dell web sites, on the grounds that Dell.com can guarantee the quality of the web site. I am sure Dell does make its best efforts to build the best web site, but it can’t expect PC buyers to be restrained in such a way.

Similarly, TV retailers don’t try and sell TVs which can only access public broadcast channels because of their decision that, say, FOX channels are not adequate in quality, and hence should not be accessible.

In short, the same is true with TV-web access. For example, Apple TV can try assuring the standard of its own portal, but it can’t take responsibility for other developers TV-web material. Users likely don’t expect Apple to take on this responsibility, and equally they will expect Apple TV to ultimately support access to other TV-web internet addresses.

The D-Link DSM-520 with active-TV technology could be the platform that everyone wants because it enables universal access to TV-web. Using active-TV technology makes this possible. The DSM-520 will offer more choice than Apple TV and at a lower price. This is likely to remain the case until BroadQ introduce support for TV-web channels on the Sony Playstation 2. Naturally, this will cause further downward pressure on DMA pricing.

Internet video distributors can make use of TV-web formatting and the DSM-520 to offer video to the living room TV. This seems ideal for a retail product such as the DSM-520. I suggest for significant success as a retail product, there should be unrestricted access to any web-channel that may come along. Each video supplier, be it Veoh, Vmix or other, will work to ensure the quality of its video service. TV users, like PC users, understand these issues. There is always another HTML/Flash developer that thinks he or she can build a better UI layout. TV user would rather decide for themselves what internet video channels they want to watch; they will naturally avoid the bad and the ugly.

Feedback, corrections and comments welcome. Contact me for more information or support with active-TV technology development.
Daniel Mann

Apple TV next steps ?

2007-07-13T11:18:00.000-05:00

Active-TV Ecosystem Developers,

The Issue: What might be next for Apple TV in terms of new platform features, services or collaborations?

Background: Apple TV is off to an interesting start. It has overcome obstacles in: cost, noise, features, ease-of-use and simplicity in terms of maintenance – all of which have defeated many previous attempts to bring internet to the living room TV.

Behind the scene: The competition to deliver Internet video to the living room location is fierce. Unlike PC-web development, the market has no widely accepted delivery platform; it lacks the equivalent of a universal PC with a web browser. Competitors are thus forced to respond to steadily emerging low-price options by combining internet video access with other appreciated features or service. This downward pricing trend may also force collaboration among those trying to gain a leading position.

Steve Jobs has indicated that Apple TV is a long-term project. Apple TV enables a living room TV to access the Apple video portal and YouTube shared video. Maybe Apple felt there was not enough video at the Apple portal to drive sufficient demand for the Apple TV box, and hence has added YouTube. Or, Apple may also have felt Apple TV sales were vulnerable against a competitor’s box which supports YouTube access.

Jobs has pointed out that “a lot of people failed” to make a business out of internet delivery of video to the TV. In part, he is likely referring to the Media Center or Home Theater PC. Jobs states they will “work on it [Apple TV] and improve over the next 18 months or two years, we can crack that”. What might he have in store?

With Microsoft Extender technology and Intel ViiV client technology not making much traction in the market, active-TV technology has emerged as the primary PC-assisted competitor to the Apple TV approach. Apple TV also partially follows the PC-assisted or Extended-PC approach. However, the consequence of enabling Apple TV to have some stand-alone capability (a 40 GB hard drive is included), is a much higher cost and more heat than desired emanating from the box. Apple TV technology has also not been integrated into a TV or Set-Top Box (STB) with broadcast TV reception capabilities, thus is in no position to reap the cost savings that would result, and hence is at a disadvantage.

Steve Jobs is reported as saying “our model for Apple TV is we want to be like a DVD player for the Internet”. Now, DVD players can be bought in the US for $30. Unfortunately, the high Bill Of Materials (BOM) for Apple TV results in a current price of $299. Most importantly, it will not prove easy to get the BOM cost down. Apple TV is made from PC components, minus any display; a ‘headless-PC’, if you will. Consequently, it has the BOM cost of a low-end PC rather than high-volume consumer appliance technology. Alluded to earlier but little appreciated is that it also generates the equivalent heat output of a low-power PC.

Concerning TV versus PC material costs, PC companies have already struggled with building a low-cost PC-like box. They were familiar with the problems: of 1) high BOM cost, 2) too much heat and noise, and 3) ensuring the Windows operating system is reliable and low-maintenance. Failure to overcome these difficulties is what led to the PC-assisted or Extended-PC approach using active-TV technology, rather than the rapid adoption of a PC dedicated in the living room. The former approach requires very little work be performed at the TV-end. Instead, the work-load is handled, almost invisibly, on behalf of the TV by a networked laptop or PC located elsewhere in the home.

To its credit, Apple TV has solved the problems of noise and operating system operation which defeated the Home Theater PC (HT-PC). The Apple box may be a bit hot but it is fan-less (thus, noise-less). By way of improvement, Intel is likely working on a lower power next-generation chip which will further relieve the heat problem. As to the software used, Apple TV runs a version of Mac OS X which makes it very easy to build application software, even if there is a slight cost adder. Active-TV technology compares favorably with this approach as it enjoys similar productivity, since TV applications are built to run on a Windows browser. All in all, whereas the cost of media support can be absorbed into the price of a laptop or PC, it is not clear that a living room entertainment device like the Apple TV can absorb this cost, when compared with mass-market video entertainment prices.

In contrast, Active-TV technology platforms use chips from companies like STMicroelectronics, ATI, Sigma Designs and NXP. These are low-cost and low-power TV Systems-On-a-Chip (SOC). It is impossible to build comparably priced TV-like appliances using PC components. So Apple TV is vulnerable from a competitor product which enables access to internet video, such as YouTube, but at a lower TV-appliance rather than PC-appliance cost to the end user.

Given the cost advantage of TV-like appliances, what might such devices look like and how might they influence the future direction of Apple TV?

1) TV manufacturers are rapidly developing networking technology for their next-generation high-end TVs. Adding support for active-TV technology adds very little to the cost or complexity of a networked TV; in fact, most of the extra hardware cost may be for additional memory only. Hence, networked TVs may be the least costly option for anyone joining the TV-web revolution, and stand-alone boxes or Digital Media Adapters (DMA), would have a difficult time competing successfully.

Moreover, combining broadcast reception and internet video processing in the same box enables processing of overlay TV-web in synchronization with broadcast TV. This offers advanced support for new forms of TV advertising and social networking. This is also another way to justify the cost of including a hard drive (HD) as the disc can also be put to work supporting digital video recording (DVR).

Support for broadcast reception also enables a low cost solution for what is often described as “sling box” operation. In this case the TV or Set-Top Box sends the received video over the network to a PC where it can be further processed or distributed by software such as TVersity. The approach avoids running complex software directly at the TV. In fact, any materials stored in the PC, or accessible by the PC over the home network, can be appropriately formatted by TVersity and sent-on to a cell phone, Sony PSP or other ecosystem-connected devices.

Tversity is also well known for its use in distributing PC-stored or network-acquired materials to a networked TV utilizing a local TV UI rather than a TV-web formatted UI produced via PC-assistance.

2) With the world wide shift away from analog to digital broadcast TV, many existing TVs are being equipped with digital reception capabilities. This is particularly true in Europe where there is rapid adoption of free-to-view DVB-t boxes. The TV chips used with DVB-t boxes don’t support the Mac OS. It would add greatly to the cost of Apple TV to combine digital transport stream (TS) processing with the PC-like innards of an Apple TV box. Maybe Intel can solve this problem by integrating the hardware required for broadcast reception into an Apple TV SOC solution.

3) Apple TV currently supports component video or HDMI connection to the widescreen TV. This can be an obstacle for those lacking sufficient TV-input channels. By integrating a DVD player into Apple TV, the existing inputs used by the DVD player could be put to better use. This is not news to Apple but maybe because of the extra $15 of support hardware, they have chosen not to do so. The use of component signaling does produce a clearer image when viewing digital photos or the TV UI, but it is not necessary for the current YouTube video quality.

Currently there is no support for the popular European SCART connector. However there are conversion boxes which allow Apple TV to be daisy chained with other SCART appliances. This helps reduce competition for TV input signaling for European users.

4) Apple TV technology could be combined with an existing TV service provider’s Set-Top Box (STB). The subsidized or free-with-service STB is the approach most familiar in the US. As previously discussed, such STB providers are more interested in generating new revenue from IP video or advertising delivery. They are not much interested in providing free access to TV-web channels, and hence would rather use the internet to support their existing broadcast shows. Apple could provide a closed-garden solution, but the cost of the extra Apple-TV hardware would be difficult to absorb without passing along some of the cost to the end-user.

In contrast, active-TV technology enables the STB or service provider to provide access to TV web channels at lower hardware costs and possibly negotiate directly with the internet video provider, rather than via Apple and its portal. Subsidized STBs associated with closed garden web access may be challenged in the market by an increasing trend to purchase boxes in retail which are not constrained within a walled-garden environment.

5) Competing with hybrid STBs that include internet access to TV-web is challenging enough, but when Voice-over IP (VOIP) is added to the STB, the pressure is only increased. For this reason, Apple may add some type of VOIP to a future Apple TV. Scendix has developed Skype support for active-TV technology ecosystems. Scendix’s TV-web formatted UI can be used in conjunction with, say, a wireless Skype phone from the living room. The image below shows how an incoming call is announced on the TV.

6) As previously discussed, the Sony Playstation 2 equipped with BroadQ’s version of active-TV technology will have the advantage of enabling a large number of existing PS2 owners to gain access to YouTube and other sources of internet delivered video. The PS2 now sells for about $130, and there may be some additional cost for network support, but some YouTube enthusiasts may see the PS2 as a cost-effective option for viewing YouTube on the living room TV.

Summary: A Piper Jaffray analyst report, states that iTunes is becoming the “de facto standard” for handling media on a PC. With currently 110 million iTunes users, they project that this will lead to Apple securing “$1.2 billion in Apple TV revenue [2008] “, given that the “digital living room market in calendar year 2008 will be $4.7 billion”. They also state, "We are currently modeling for Apple to sell 2 million Apple TV units in calendar year 2007”.

It is interesting that Piper Jaffray tie the success of Apple TV so closely to its interoperation with Apple’s successful PC-side software. I do agree with this ecosystem view of market development – PCs and laptops are clearly going to work in close cooperation with future consumer appliances such as networked TVs. But there is a lot of competition in the PC software business and active-TV technology enables these companies to have a critical presence at the TV. There is also a large and established living room video appliance market that is determined to maintain or grow its market share. Apple securing a reported 25% of the 2008 digital living room market will be a great accomplishment.

In conclusion, Apple TV is an impressive first salvo from an accomplished marketing team into the realm of internet video viewable on the TV. But the lack additional features, an integration path directly into the back of a TV, or TV appliance-like BOM costs, will put great pressure on the marketing team trying to grow sales volume. For now, however, the challenge lies before all those other device manufacturers who wish to build on what Apple TV has achieved, and who will be compelled to use the PC to assist with formatting and delivering universal content to the TV at costs that consumers can readily embrace.

Feedback, corrections and comments welcome. Contact me for more information or support with active-TV technology development.
Daniel Mann

YouTube access added to Apple TV

2007-07-10T10:44:00.000-05:00

Active-TV Ecosystem Developers,

The Issue: An Apple TV upgrade now enables access to YouTube video at the TV.

Background: YouTube PC-web user-awareness makes it ideal for a TV platform developer to promote sales of networked TV or Set-Top Box (STB).

Behind the scene: Alternative hardware developers, TV UI software developers and video sharing start-ups, are looking for TV technology which enables them to compete in the internet video market, and therefore with Apple TV. Active-TV technology, which can provide open access to competing solutions and contributes to the delivery of internet video to the living room TV in a cost-effective manner, is likely to be a worthy competitor to Apple TV.

I have been trying out the latest Apple TV support for YouTube video access at the TV. Looking at the latest Hitwise network traffic data (below), it is easy to see why Apple added support for YouTube. Hitwise reports: “As of May 2007, YouTube's market share was 50% greater than those 64 [other video] sites combined”. There are also reports of over 100M YouTube video viewings per day.

Apple TV’s access to YouTube video adds greatly to the amount of video available at the TV. YouTube’s popularity can clearly help drive adoption of the Apple TV device. Currently, the only other video accessible via Apple TV is from the http://www.apple.com/ portal or local video, in the appropriate format, from a home networked PC or Mac.

When iTunes is used on a PC, it can display multiple video formats, assuming the necessary codec plug-ins are added. However, Apple TV only displays videos in H.264 format; this includes videos stored on a networked PC and streamed to the Apple TV. Those individuals with large collections of DivX or Xvid-based videos will surely be disappointed. That said, there are reports of how additional codecs can be added to the Apple TV, without having to open the box. Alternatively, video can be transcoded to the H.264 codec using various third-party solutions.

When accessed from a PC, YouTube video has been provided in Adobe Flash Video (FLV) format. Now, likely to support Apple TV, Google is rebuilding the YouTube catalog in H.264 format. Reports indicate "thousands of videos designed for Apple TV will be available at launch, but that the remainder will become available by the fall”.

I have not found any information about expansion of the API which gives access to the YouTube catalog. Rebuilding the YouTube catalogue and maintaining both H.264 and FLV versions is surely a major effort. Maybe Apple gains a slight quality advantage from H.264 over FLV, at the cost of a higher bit-rate. It is also likely the encoding resolutions are specifically optimized for Apple TV and iPhone usage. If YouTube provide new API information for accessing their video catalogue in H.264 or FLV formats, other users such as active-TV enabled platforms will be able to select the must appropriate video format. Networked TVs utilizing active-TV technology are able to support the H.264 format.

Last year there was an announced partnership between Google Video and DivX for use of the popular DivX video codec. But it remains unclear where this partnership is leading with respect to the streaming of video to interesting and capable living room appliances. The http://stage6.divx.com/ video-sharing website has emerged as a potential competitor to YouTube – serving-up video in the DivX codec format.

The emergence of Apple TV and active-TV platforms which are not dependant on Microsoft’s Windows Media Video (WMV) format (although active-TV technology has shown optional support for WMV), does raise the question whether or not YouTube will feel the need to maintain yet another copy of its video catalog in WMV format. For now, however, given the lack of Extender-based TVs, or the like from Microsoft collaborators, or even any market significance behind Microsoft’s next generation Extender technology (Pika), there seems little urgency.

Returning to Apple TV, and what the user experience is like, with an upgrade in firmware, a YouTube entry now appears in the top-level menu. After making this selection, the YouTube menu page (shown below) appears. Note I had previously entered my YouTube user-id and password. A blue box is shown around the current selection; this box is moved around the screen using arrows on the small and stylish Apple TV remote.

I had no difficulty using the Apple TV UI. It works well. Selecting the Top Rated menu entry produced the TV layout shown below. A similar layout is used for many of the YouTube support menus. Of course, the video can be made ‘full screen’. Even with the new H.264 formatting, the YouTube video is not high-quality, but I don’t think that will deter YouTube enthusiasts.

Video search at the TV is supported, as shown below. It is easy to enter text strings and the YouTube search engine responded quickly. A new video can be added to a user’s list of favorites. Disappointingly, however, many of my favorites accessible on the PC (in .FLV format) did not appear in the Apple TV YouTube favorite listings, as they have not yet been re-encoded into H.264 video format.

One thing I did miss was support for favorite playlists. On a PC, iTunes supports playlists and YouTube PC-web supports playlists. In contrast, YouTube video favorites organized under playlists, lose their playlist grouping, when accessed from Apple TV. This feature has been discussed in terms of using an Apple TV as a point of sale display controller. In this case, JPEG slide-shows, video clips or YouTube video could be arranged into a playlist sequence.

My interest in organized playlists is to reduce the amount of TV interactivity. The Apple TV UI still feels like a bit like a PC-web interface – that is, something one person is involved with. I think a group of people viewing the TV are not likely interesting in watching another person continually engaged in driving TV operations. One way to overcome this limitation would be to first create a playlist while accessing YouTube via PC-web on a laptop computer, and then sitting back and watching the playlist via the TV. This would allow YouTube video to be formatted in the more familiar TV experience as a channel for YouTube video or as an assembled playlist.

In summary, Apple’s first effort at adding YouTube access to Apple TV is quite good. No doubt they will continue to offer significant improvements. However, there are other software developers which will soon offer alternatively formatted YouTube UIs for the TV. Underlying this are TVs and Set-Top Boxes (STB) supporting active-TV technology, which provide the necessary platforms and means to demonstrate and profit from the inventiveness of new UI software – should they be able to understand what the TV user really wants. Currently, only the Apple TV UI is available for the Apple TV platform.

Regarding video, YouTube competitors also have ambitions of delivering internet video to the living room TV. They can improve their market share by offering a TV-web formatted UI which is more appealing than Apple TV’s YouTube UI.

In the realm of hardware, there are also networked TV and STB manufacturers who do not incorporate embedded Apple TV hardware, but must offer a TV UI for user access to video sharing sites. TV-web channels made accessible by a TV’s support for active-TV technology, provide TV manufacturers with the necessary mechanism to compete with Apple TV’s support for video access.

Given developers are working on TV-web formatted access to YouTube and other video sharing and distribution sites, there is going to be competition and continual development to reach the best TV UI. This new convergence market could be significantly driven by a breakthrough in either hardware or TV UI technology, such as a $100 hybrid STB or low-cost networked-TV; or a TV UI which bridges the gap felt by a large audience of familiar TV users looking for easy and appropriate TV access to networked delivered video.

Steve Jobs is reported as saying “Our model for Apple TV is we want to be like a DVD player for the Internet”. This may have led to the Deutche Bank statement “[Apple TV] will eat up a good chunk of the US$26-billion DVD player market in the next several years” and “one of the primary drivers of this change will be the availability of YouTube content on Apple TV”. While demand may be strong, platform costs are not insignificant: I would doubt that Steve expects a big financial impact from his ‘Apple TV hobby’ in the near term, given the material cost of an Apple TV.

Nevertheless, looking to the long-term, Jobs also said “A lot of people failed to make [media centers] a business, such as Tivo and Microsoft. If we work on it and improve over the next 18 months or two years, we can crack that”. He may not be alone. Despite lackluster or failed attempts in the past, the exceptionally low cost structure of an ecosystem based on active-TV technology will make it hard to build a lower cost box than one based on active-TV technology. The appeal of YouTube and other internet video sites, with content viewable on the TV, is certain to drive overall demand.

Feedback, corrections and comments welcome. Contact me for more information or support with active-TV technology development.
Daniel Mann

An update for Microsoft Extender Technology

2007-06-27T10:22:00.000-05:00

Active-TV Ecosystem Developers,

The Issue: Bringing internet-delivered TV-web video to the living room TV requires mastering multiple engineering disciplines and marketing constraints.

Background: Microsoft offers an option for most, but not all, of the pieces needed to form a home entertainment ecosystem.

Behind the scene: Whereas Microsoft is pursuing a Vista-reinforcing digital media strategy, active-TV technology enables a large ecosystem of TVs, PCs and TV-web channels, by offering considerable openness and flexibility in terms of what devices will work well together within the networked ecosystem - including multiple PC operating systems.

A Microsoft supported blog by Chris Lanier, provides more information about Microsoft’s next generation Extender technology: “Microsoft launched there new MCX Partner Site for Pika the other day. Pika is the codename for Media Center Extenders (MCX) v2. “

Following the provided link to the Microsoft’s MCX web site reveals: “Windows Media Center Extender Technology (or "MCX Technology") is platform-independent software that will enable home network connected consumer electronics devices to deliver full, high-definition Media Center experiences.”

Those of you who have been tracking digital media convergence for some time likely remember the first Microsoft Extender device, including its strengths and weaknesses when it was introduced to the market some years ago. Extender technology, now in its second generation (v2) and codenamed Pika, has some similarities, yet important differences, with active-TV technology. Both require the assistance of a networked PC to complete the processing of a TV-web channel; both claim platform-independence for the firmware portion, the portion integrated into the Set-Top Box (STB), TV, or DMA (Digital Media Adapter). It is the significant differences, however, that I will now outline.

First, to what extent is Pika being adopted in the market versus alternative solutions? Recent news from Beijing regarding collaboration between Microsoft and a Chinese TV maker may indicate that the later is considering the use of Pika: "The project focuses on in-home network digital entertainment - how to connect PCs, TVs and the Internet to provide this digital entertainment experience". To be sure, Microsoft Extender technology can be integrated into a TV or STB, but it is noteworthy that so far no European or US developer has introduced such a product. However, there have been announcements from several US and European developers regarding their adding active-TV technology.

The first Media Center Extender device would only operate fully when networked with a Media Center PC, rather than a PC using Windows XP. The Xbox also supports Extender technology but offers reduced functionality when networked with a Windows XP PC. If Extender-enhanced devices were popular they would help drive adoption of the newest premium PC operating systems. However, reduced functionality is not very satisfactory for existing Windows XP users or TV manufacturers that want to sell a networked TV which will work with XP – there are over 100 million licensed XP users. With Pika technology aligned with Vista-based PCs (a small but growing user base) and not the massive Windows XP installed base, the reduced Extender functionality provided to the XP user, may have limited appeal. Of note, Apple-TV (another DMA variant) also operates with a companion networked PC (know as an Extended-PC), but is not ‘keyed’ to a particular version of the Windows operating systems (OS).

In contrast, active-TV technology does not place any restrictions on the version of Windows used by a PC supporting the operation of the networked TV or STB. For this reason, it is easy to see the appeal this flexibility has for the networked TV manufacturer; it allows them to sell a networked TV which accesses internet-delivered TV-web channels to any existing PC owner – not just a subset of new PC owners.

Active-TV technology is also able to support far more TV-web channels than currently accessible through Extender-enabled DMAs. This is because there are lots of ways to build a PC-web page, and equally, many different ways to build a TV-web channel. However the TV-web channels promoted with the Media Center PC, originally known as spotlights, made use of the Windows Media Video (WMV) codec. It is important to underscore that the Extender platforms do not have support for important video codecs such as the popular Adobe Flash (FLV) – however, here is supported for MPEG2.

As a result, a TV-web channel which uses the FLV video codec, such as the recently described YouTube TV-web channel, can not be displayed on an Extender. Adobe Flash Video is likely the most popular video codec in use by video-sharing PC-web sites. Given that a TV-web channel can draw upon the same video database used by the PC-web site, it is much more convenient to use FLV for a TV-web formatted alternative. Active-TV technology works with any video codec and is very flexible in its support for differently formatted TV-web channels.

Microsoft has introduced MCML and WinFX formatting (Media Center Markup Language and WinFX browser apps) for future TV-web channels. Should a TV-web channel developer chose to use these formatting methods they will only be accessible to Extender platforms which have the necessary underlying support – will this mean only a Pika-enabled DMA and a Vista PC? So far, unless an Extender is connected to a PC using the latest version of Windows, there is reduced functionality, such as only supporting basic DLNA operation when used with Windows XP (no TV-web channel access). Slide 4 of Microsoft's WinHec06 presentation indicates that only Vista Premium or Ultimate will support complete Extender functionality. Earlier Windows users can not expect support for “3rd party applications”, which is Microsoft-speak for no TV-web channel access.

Of course, TV-web channel developers may continue to use HTML, Adobe flash and other formatting methods supported by the legacy of browsers used with older PC operating systems. This will likely give them access to the greatest audience, particularly when delivered to the living room TV via active-TV technology.

Lanier’s blog states that Sigma Designs will provide the chip used in the Pika-based Extender v2. ATI provided the chip for the Extender v1. Likely critical to Microsoft’s decision is chip-support for the VC-1 (WMV9) codec. An alternative chip supplier would have been STMicroelectronics – using their ST710x family. Not surprisingly, active-TV technology developers such as Avtrex , Futarque and others, already offer support for Sigma Designs and ST-Micro based TVs and STBs – they also support ATI-based active-TV systems. ATI is a major supplier of chips for the US digital TV market. ST-Micro is major supplier of chips to world-wide TV and Set-Top Box developers. Not to be left out is NXP-based STB developer TeleGent which has also indicated the importance of active-TV technology support. Note that several other STB and TV developers are listed on AMD’s active-TV support page, including: Wyplay, WorldSat, Dream Multimedia and more. Active-TV technology is not owned by any one company, but AMD has been a noticeable user of the technology.

Returning to the recent Beijing news regarding the use of Microsoft technology by a Chinese TV maker, it is not surprising given the developments of leading US and European manufacturers, that their counterparts in China are also evaluating active-TV technology.

Feedback, corrections and comments welcome. Contact me for more information or support with active-TV technology development.
Daniel Mann

Growth of TV-web channels

2007-06-16T08:12:00.000-05:00

Active-TV Ecosystem Developers,

The Issue: How many TV-web channels are available for TV viewing? What standard do they use?

Background: The freedom associated with a PC’s access to PC-web via the internet, has changed our lives. This same freedom will enable TV-web channel developers to bring TV-web to the living room TV

Behind the scene: Anyone can build a TV-web channel, and many major companies already have. With active-TV technology, the growth in TV-web channel development is accelerated, given that it brings to TV-web the same freedoms associated with PC-web access.

I don’t know how many PC-web sites exist, or how many new ones are added to the web every day. Similarly, I don’t know how many TV-web channels [i.e. websites formatted for access at the TV] exist. But like the early days of PC-web, while the number may be relatively low, it is growing rapidly.

I have attached below a list of known TV-web channels or sites. However, such a list quickly falls out of date. I did not include sites from the USA which would have included some interesting examples, such as access to YouTube, Google Video, Veoh, Vmix and more. Also not included are sites from Japan, Korea or Taiwan, whose listings’ would have required additional font support.

As previously described, there are many ways to build or lay out TV-web. When Microsoft introduced the Media Center Edition (MCE) PC, it offered a suggested set of guidelines to show how TV-web, intended for MCE presentation, should look. Although there may be practical reasons for following these guidelines, a TV-web developer can nevertheless build anything they see fit, using any web publishing tools available.

The MCE PC has a means of adding “more programs” to the TV-web channel listings. The name “more-programs” may not be ideal; it is likely left over from the time when TV-web was also known as media applications. Any TV-web channel can be added under the “more programs” channel listings. However, Microsoft selected certain TV-web sites to reside at the top of the TV menu and called them “spotlights”. TV-web channels added to the TV menu via use of “more programs” appear lower down on the TV menu. With the introduction of Vista, Microsoft has instead been calling TV-web channels “on-line media,” rather than MCE “more programs” or “spotlights”.

Like PC-web, once a TV-web channel is offered on the internet, anyone with a capable browser can access it. Using active-TV technology enables any Windows PC to access the site on behalf of a networked TV or Set-Top Box -- there is no need for an MCE PC. A number of TV-web channel suppliers are trying to restrict access to their site to certain geographical locations – such as, for example, the BBC limiting access to the UK. This is generally accomplished via IP address filtering: If the viewer’s IP address is not determined to be located in the correct geographical region, the request for access to the TV-web channel is not granted by the server.

Because Adobe Flash Video (FLV) is very popular with PC-web sites supporting video sharing, it is increasingly used with TV-web channels. Use of FLV was not covered in the MCE TV-web development guidelines. Current active-TV technology supports the distribution of TV-web channels using FLV to devices such as networked TVs and networked STBs located around the home. However, other devices with similar technology, including Media Center Extenders, do not support the use of FLV video. Where these Extenders are similar to active-TV technology is in their support for Windows Media Video (WMV) and MPEG2 video.

Feedback, corrections and comments welcome.
Daniel Mann

link to list of non-US TV-web channels

Will YouTube access justify cost of Apple TV ?

2007-06-07T12:12:00.000-05:00

Active-TV Ecosystem Developers,

The Issue: Apple TV unit volumes are lower than some had expected.

Background: Building a low-cost living room appliance which enables internet video access, remains a challenge. This continues to be the big obstacle preventing many companies expanding into living room video delivery.

Behind the scene: active-TV technology enables low-cost access to internet video in the living room, via enlisting behind-the-scenes support from a networked PC or laptop computer.

In a CNNMoneny.com article, Brent Schlender of Fortune argues that Apple TV is a “dud”. No unit shipment numbers are presented but the lack of promotional advertising is sited as indication of its unacceptability.

Listed as key weaknesses are:

the requirement for an HDTV connection

high price ($299)

inability to order movies from the TV UI

lack of DVD

access to photos from only a single networked computer

A review of Apple-TV, comparing it with active-TV technology, in September 2006, entitled “Apple Takes the Extended-Path”, predicted many of the problems outlined by Schlender’s article. In view of these limitations, it can be assumed that Apple knew support for only widescreen high-def TVs would be limiting and their shipment numbers may consequently be inline with their initial expectations. What is needed to produce greater unit shipments, however, is a lower cost Apple TV and support for popular video - such as a YouTube channel.

Last week at the D conference, Steve Jobs announced that Apple TV would soon include support for YouTube viewing. It was stated that the TV UI will be “embedded into the AppleTV interface”. Also, TV access to YouTube “works off a live Internet connection that does not have to go through the PC”.

Apple TV’s ability to access YouTube video without the aid of a PC, is partly why the device is so expensive. Clearly the inclusion of a DVD player would make Apple TV more attractive, but this would add further cost to an already expensive appliance. I am sure Apple understands all the tradeoffs, but so far has chosen the more expensive path of a device with greater standalone capability.

A BusinessWeek article “What Apple TV costs to Make” by Arik Hesseldahl, estimates a bill-of-materials (BOM) of $237. This results in an untypical low profit margin for an Apple product. The Intel CPU and chipset are estimated at $68. Hesseldahl states “by typical Apple standards, the new set-top video box may as well be a hobby given how unprofitable it is in its current form”.

Long-term analyzers and developers of platforms bringing internet TV to the living room are familiar with the tradeoffs Apple TV faced. In short, it is difficult to build a reliable, low-maintenance and inexpensive box that that can enable flexible and polished access to internet video. Yes, the PC achieves this, but it has little acceptance as a device attached to the living room TV. Microsoft faced the same set of tradeoffs when it architected the Media Center Extender.

There is plenty of interesting video available from YouTube, Veoh, Vmix and many more. What the market needs is an acceptable low-cost hardware platform brining internet video to the living room TV. With over 100M shipments of Sony Playstation 2 (PS2) and a current price of about $130, BroadQ’s active-TV software for the PS2 is likely well positioned to challenge the market for DMA-styled devices – such as Apple TV. Fortunately, the PS2 also plays DVDs and games.

The active-TV technology approach results in very low additional cost at the TV side. This is particular true when active-TV technology is built directly into a networked TV. This is achieved by relying on a networked PC ‘invisibly’ doing all the “heavy lifting” work. The approach produces a different set of tradeoffs for the home user. For those that already own a networked PC or laptop computer, it is likely the least expensive way of bringing YouTube and other internet distributed video to the living room TV. Developers of traditional Set-Top Boxes, now working on enhancements such as network connectivity, or TVs with network connectivity, are using active-TV technology to enable internet video access with very little increase to the TV’s bill-of-materials.

The embedded Apple TV UI for YouTube will likely be of typical Apple quality. With active-TV technology it is easy for anyone to design and build their own YouTube TV interface. Active-TV technology developer MediaMall has recently updated its TV UI for YouTube. See image below.

Similar to early reports describing the Apple TV version, it uses IR remote Triple-Tap Entry to enter text strings when searching for new videos. This will likely be very popular. I also like the alternatively supported approach of selecting favorites from the YouTube PC UI, which then appear in the listings to the left of the screen. This can be done while using a wireless laptop PC in the living room along with a big screen TV showing the YouTube TV UI via active-TV technology support.

Apple TV problems such as the inability to access photos from more than a single networked computer are likely easily fixed. Existing active-TV alternatives already support this feature. The debate over what is appropriate for a TV UI (TV-web) and what should be left to the PC UI (PC-web) will continue, but I don't see keyboards making their way into living room for TV support. Apple is skilled at making these judgments, but the openness of active-TV technology allows anyone to offer their own solution, if they could just figure out what TV-UI users really want. Active-TV technology also works with standard-def or high-def Set-Top Boxes and TVs.

Feedback, corrections and comments welcome.
Daniel Mann

An alternative to "please use my portal"

2007-05-23T11:19:00.000-05:00

Active-TV Ecosystem Developers,

The Issue: Ambitions strategies to secure a key or exclusive role in the delivery of internet video are still the game for many.

Background: Some experienced companies are seeing collaboration is the better way to reach an audience.

Behind the Scenes: Active-TV technology is the glue enabling collaboration between video distributors and living-room hardware (e.g. TV) developers.

A Wall Street Journal article states that several major TV industry companies are “betting that they can build their own Internet video portals”. However, CBS plans to revise its Innertube portal strategy, with the use of widespread syndication rather than a single portal. After a year experimenting with a portal approach, CBS has concluded “forcing consumers to come to one site -- its own -- to view video hasn't worked.”

Access to video portals is mostly accomplished with a PC using broadband service. The accompanying UI is typically formatted for PC usage, assuming a keyboard and mouse will drive the UI. Many portals are not accessed via the PC browser, but via a “player” (PC software built specifically for accessing the portal). In some cases, such as Yahoo Go for TV, UIs have been formatted for the TV; But since the approach requires a PC to be attached to the living room TV, there are few users.

CBS is reported to have “abandoned attempts to build its own blockbuster portal”, but it has signed deals with smaller video distribution companies like Veoh. This enables a path for CBS video to reach the living room TV, as Veoh as well as supporting PC-web formatting, has a TV-web formatted option.

I suggest the scramble to secure a significant role in the delivery of internet video to TVs around the home, has produced overly ambitions strategies. Different companies are hoping to have the one portal that matters or the one TV UI that everyone uses or the one TV advertising delivery mechanism that has the numbers. Maybe the MBAs in these companies are required to promote exclusive ideas in order to support their projection of business growth. But without a widely accepted rout to the TV in use, there is no clear yardstick to measure ambitions proposals.

Participation in the scramble is particularly difficult because most companies don’t build or market the necessary hardware needed to deliver video to the TV. Without this piece of the puzzle it is hard to control the outcome. This likely contributed to Apple introducing its Apple TV platform, enabling the user to access the Apple portal.

Most companies are not able to make the deals needed to extend their strategy to include delivery of video to a large number of TV or Set-Top Box (STB) in living rooms. If the manufacturer or supplier of a networked STB constrains its access to a preferred portal, it may not meet with user approval. Each TV viewer may want to exert his or her own choice. This conundrum adds an amount of irony to the scramble.

The introduction of networked STBs supporting the popular DVB-t transmission brings a solution to the European market. These STBs are bought at retail, and there is little business pressure to constrain them to a single portal. They are popular due to the uptake of free-to-air digital broadcast TV. Using active-TV technology with a DVB-t STB, the buyer is free to access any TV-web formatted channel. Technically speaking, a similar approach using free-to-air ATSC, or cablecard, and active-TV technology could be used in the US market. Such boxes are available from Avtrex and others, but US STB users expect the box to be provided by a cable TV service, and do not buy a STB in retail. This is why US reports often speak of the networked game console leading the uptake of internet video delivery to the living room TV.

Just as PC-web pages that are only accessible by one type of PC browser would meet will little web user approval, producing a TV-web channel which can only be viewed through a single player or unique hardware, will reach a reduced TV audience. This may ultimately determine the lesson to be learned by developers of video portals and eliminate the cry "please use my portal". The home user wants the freedom to select their internet video source and be assured it will always be viewable via the hardware and TV in their living room.

Active-TV technology provides TV-web with the same universal access and opportunity available to PC with PC-web. It is the glue for collaboration. It enables the video distributors to be confident their channel will operate with living room hardware. It provides the independent hardware developer with video to demonstrate their product in action.

Feedback, corrections and comments welcome. Contact me for more information or support with active-TV technology development.
Daniel Mann

crossing the divide

2007-05-22T10:10:00.000-05:00

Active-TV Ecosystem Developers,

The Issue: Early growth of internet video delivery has concentrated on PC users, but this is expected to expand to include TV viewers.

Background: The networked game console and Apple TV-like boxes, will initially bridge the internet to the TV.

Behind the Scenes: Active-TV technology is used to support more than internet video streaming. It allows a TV UI to be delivered over the internet to the TV without adding significant complexity or cost to the TV-side hardware.

A report by ABI Research agrees with other observers that online video is currently viewed at the PC, but “the ultimate destination for much of this content will be the TV”. They estimate that $1.5B in service revenue will be generated from networked delivered video-to-TV by 2012.

An outline of the report indicates that they expect platforms form Apple, Netgear, Sony and the like, to “bridge” to the TV and “cross [the] divide” that separates the PC and TV. The networked game console is expected to lead the way for video delivery.

Currently, a reported 24% of video downloads to the PC are transferred to DVD and then watched on a TV via a DVD player or game console. The DVD-burn and walk-net process is completely eliminated with a networked game console or networked Set-Top Box.

The sale of over 100M Sony Playstation 2 game consoles, which for now continue to outsell the Xbox 360 and PS3, makes them a leading candidate for early adopters. There are estimates of about 10M PS2 already installed in US home networks – to support network gaming. Using active-TV technology software from BroadQ, the need to burn a DVD is eliminated. BroadQ's software is installed in the PS2 just like any game disk. But when running, the TV attached to the networked PS2 can access video, photos, music and more from any PC in the home network. Further, it can reach across a broadband connection to access TV-web channels.

In addition to the installed base, the low cost of the PS2 will pressure the Digital Media Adapter (DMA) alternatives, such as the Apple TV. Suppliers of networking technology may find a niche in the DMA segment by integrating their wireless networking technology. Ultimately, the TV will be network enabled with active-TV technology integrated directly into the TV. Certain TV OEM’s are currently working on such projects, which is expected to add further value to the TV and benefit the home user.

Feedback, corrections and comments welcome. Please Contact me for more information or support with active-TV technology development.
Daniel Mann

Demand for internet access at the TV

2007-05-18T10:46:00.000-05:00

Active-TV Ecosystem Developers,

The Issue: PC users have experienced internet video, now they want it on the TV.

Background: The living room PC has limited acceptance, but networked TVs and networked STBs are emerging to accomplish the task.

Behind the Scenes: Active-TV technology and TV-web formatting solve the technical and cost constraints in enabling living room TV access to internet video.

In the New York Times article Internet Meets Large Screen, personal efforts to converge the internet and the TV are described. The biggest obstacle remains “finding the right hardware”. This refers to finding a living room appliance which does not have the cost, heat, noise and maintenance requirements of a PC connected to the TV; But allows viewing of internet delivered video. This problem is solved with networked TVs and networked Set-Top Boxes (STB) supporting active-TV technology.

The article goes on to say “the standard graphical desktop interface is hard for couch dwellers to use” – referring to PC-web pages not being suited to TV viewing. This is solved with TV-web formatting. TV-web is normally formatted with large fonts – if any text is required – and does not require a keyboard or mouse. Correct TV-web formatting eliminates the reported “constant challenge” of “juggling computer settings to make fonts readable”.

The benefits of Hewlett-Packard’s networked TV approach, MediaSmart TV, are described as enabling access to PC video “without bringing the pain of the PC into the living room”. However, MediaSmart TV like, Apple TV, do not support completely “open” access to TV-web formatted channels. Apple TV enables access to video from Apple’s web site or Apple portal.

Steve Perlman is quoted in reference to the emergence of a suitable TV-web format, “when that happens, you’ll see an utter transformation of the business”. Well it is starting, and active-TV technology is enabling TV-web to reach living room TVs via home networking. I don’t think at all that “broadcast stations will all turn off”. They will likely use the same technology to support and build audience interest in popular broadcast shows.

Feedback, corrections and comments welcome.
Daniel Mann