A TV channel for '08 elections news

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

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

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