Digeo To Ship Full-Featured Linux-based PVR 200
Gentu writes "Paul Allen, co-founder of Microsoft, has embraced Linux in his latest product offering, Moxi. Moxi is a PVR system from Digeo with some additional cool features, like wireless ethernet support, internet/router/firewall/gateway capabilities, DVD playback and more media functionality in general. OSNews has the article, screenshots and more information. "
Router? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Router? (Score:5, Funny)
Duh!
Re:Router? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Router? (Score:4, Funny)
For all of it's benefits, sometimes IP connections are better replaced by cereal port connections.
Re:Router? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Router? (Score:4, Interesting)
Ordinary analogue terrestrial,
digital terrestrial [freeview.co.uk] (previously known as On Digital and then ITV digital
Digital Satellite [sky.com], and
Various cable TV companies
I'm a digital satellite viewer myself; more on that later.
The various cable TV companies also offer cable modem access. For some companies, this is a seperate device, such as a standalone modem which is connected seperately to the TV set-top-box; but some cable companies have ethernet ports built into their digital decoders. These provide you with simple-to-configure (assuming you have an ethernet card and appropriate cabling to keep your PC a fairly good distance away from the TV, because there's nothing more annoying when you're trying to watch a film then to have noisy PC's running (or kids playing noisy games on the same)). In that sense, the device could easily be a router. (However, having had past experience with UK cable companies, they will advertise such as device as X, but it's really only a Y)
How this integrates with the plans of the TV cable companies, who usually run their own systems on equipment that they supply, not catering for user-acquired decoders, I don't know, but it may be an attractive prospect for some of them.
Back to the digital satellite. Sky also provide a PVR service, called Sky+. Essentially, it's a hard disk, connected to a satellite tuner, connected to a quad-LNB dish, allowing the box to receive MPEG-2 streams from two channels, record one, and view another at the same time, together with nifty features that TIVO users would be familiar with. I don't have one of these, but I expect one day I'll be persuaded to part with the GBP300 plus GBP10/month service charge. Because the satellite system is one-way, with interactive services provided over a telephone line, I can't see much use for a router in it, unless Sky plan to break into the ADSL market; although I'd still be uncomfortable with that (eggs, one basket, etc.).
Now, what I'd really like to see developed is a satellite/cable receiver, which records MPEG-2 to hard disk, and dumps the same to DVD-R instead of to video. I'd bet the movie industry would hate this idea though. However, given that the UK market for satellite receivers is far more open (you can buy them in the shops, and self-install, dealing with Sky only insofar as getting a contract to receive subscription channels and a viewing card), some bright spark out there should hopefully be able to design one of these. Let me test it for you!!.
Re:Router? (Score:2)
Re:Router? (Score:2)
Re:Router? (Score:2)
Seriously, if it could tell my microwave "wait a moment, the toaster oven is on" to avoid me running downstairs to reset a popped breaker I'm all for it.
Re:Router? (Score:2)
Re:Router? (Score:2)
I think you have a tad too much automation in your life.
True enough; life is just one big cron job.
Anyone else find this a little suspicious? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Anyone else find this a little suspicious? (Score:2)
Why would he pay licensing costs? He'd just create the company as a Microsoft spin-off, subsidiary or even business unit and after a little accounting, get it effectively for free. Therefore, there must be a technological reason for his decision.
Re:Anyone else find this a little suspicious? (Score:5, Informative)
Who knows what Perlman's motivation for linux was over Windows (my guess would be all the obvious stability, resource requirements, licensing issue), but at this point Paul Allen's associations with any other OS have nothing to do with why the box runs linux today.
I'm anxious to see when/if these boxes actually show up en masse in consumers homes.
Re:Anyone else find this a little suspicious? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Anyone else find this a little suspicious? (Score:4, Interesting)
Paul may piss off the people working on the X-Box, but he's not going to affect UltimateTV one iota.
Thinking of the X-Box... (Score:2)
MAME would be especially cool.
Big Question (Score:3, Interesting)
Here're the Big Questions:
Can the cable companies forbid us from modifying the source?
At least parts of it are going to be GPL. Will they still be able to resist giving us the source code?
Even if they do give us the source code, can they forbid us from patching it and modding the box?
Is there legal basis for charges based on "violating the spirit" of a contract?
I did (Score:4, Informative)
I noticed that when you said "Microsoft announced..." you pointed to a news article on another site, rather than a press release on UltimateTV's site. So I read that article, and sure enough, the author of that article says "Already, Microsoft has announced that they're discontinuing their UltimateTV [ultimatetv.com] set-top box,". So then I clicked his link to UltimateTV's site, and found absolutely no mention of any supposed discontinuation.
The Press Releases [ultimatetv.com] section bears no mention of any discontinuation. You can still buy it [ultimatetv.com]. If the company discontinued the product, it wouldn't make much sense that they'd still be promoting it.
This ZDNet article [com.com] mentions some restructuring:
But UltimateTV didn't take off as Microsoft had hoped, and the company recently announced it was restructuring that division and laying off some workers.
So I found that article [com.com].
And then what may be the source of this rumor. A ZDNet "Story" [zdnet.com] by David Coursey entitled, "Why UltimateTV was an ultimate failure." From the piece: "If you call Microsoft, as I did, you will find the company disagrees will [sic] my assessment that it is getting out of the DVR business."
So as near as I can tell, some guy thinks Microsoft is getting out of the market because they cut their staff from 500 to 160. I dunno, maybe they are, but my point is that there was never a "Microsoft announced..." moment. At this point, it's still rumor. So let's keep the facts-to-speculation ratio as high as possible on slashdot. You too, moderators.
Paul may piss off the people working on the X-Box, but he's not going to affect UltimateTV one iota.
If your speculation is what you were basing your conclusion on, then I must disagree. I doubt Microsoft is really all that happy that a founder's company is using Linux on anything, regardless of their relative strength in that market.
Re:I did (Score:3, Informative)
There was this [216.239.33.100] in DotCom Scoop, pointing to an article in the SJ Mercury. Unfortunately the article has been archived and they charge to see archives, but the beginning states:
"Source: KRISTI HEIM, Mercury News Seattle Bureau
Microsoft plans to cut more than 150 positions in a major restructuring of its troubled television business based in Mountain View, sources close to the company said Monday.The reorganization will eliminate Microsoft's UltimateTV division in Silicon Valley, which has about 500 employees. About two-thirds of those employees will be consolidated automatically into other Microsoft groups. The remaining 168 employees will be given three months to find other jobs within Microsoft or face"
That certainly sounds like they're doing away with it to me. As well, a search on buy.com yielded no results for UltimateTV and amazon.com has three matches [amazon.com] that all read "This item is not stocked or has been discontinued.". Tweeter.com stocks no UltimateTV devices, yet they were listed along with the Tivo receivers last year during X-mas.
So, before you cast stones, check your facts. It's obvious that MS has canned the current Ultimate TV platform as we know it.
The last press release on the Ultimate TV site is from Jan 7, 2002... They knew they were in for it when DirecTV officially partnered with Tivo because satellite was their biggest market.
Maybe a little bit more research was warranted other than going to the UltimateTV.com website before countering - if we all believed what manufacturers had on their websites, we'd all have 100% Herbal Viagra + Huge penises.
Re:Anyone else find this a little suspicious? (Score:2)
(Granted, that information has less value when not integrated with the TiVo hardware, but that doesn't affect the question of how much it costs to provide said information).
Somebody forget TiVo? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Somebody forget TiVo? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Somebody forget TiVo? (Score:3, Insightful)
Must be revenge... (Score:2)
(Not sure it really happened, though.)
Big deal is x86 (Score:2, Interesting)
PVR's? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just adding "Linux" to the title doesn't make it newsworthy.
Sorry, but its just following the trend of TiVo.
Re:PVR's? (Score:5, Funny)
Umm... Yes it does [slashdot.org]
This will be my PVR of choice. (Score:2, Interesting)
Slashdotted (Score:2, Redundant)
A few months ago Paul Allen's Digeo [http://www.digeo.com] company acquired Moxi, who at the time was working on a TiVo-like PVR Linux-based solution, also named Moxi [http://www.digeo.com/prodserv/mediacenter.jsp]. Many expected [http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/03/29/1459
We talked with Toby Farrand, Digeo's CTO last week, and he provided us with some exclusive insight on the inner workings of the Moxi product. Digeo specifically chose Linux as the underlying operating system because of its open nature that allows all kinds of modifications and because it is fast and stable. "It was a very easy decision", Mr Farrand told us. "Linux is secure, complete and reliable".
Digeo's developers have made a large number of check-ins to the 2.4 and 2.5 versions of the Linux kernel. These changes were mostly to do with partitioning code and its security options, but Digeo are also the main maintainers of the ext3 filesystem. In addition, the Linux implementation used in Moxi boots from Open Firmware.
The Moxi product is the most powerful PVR system to be found today in this specific embedded market. It runs on a 733 Mhz C3 Cyrix x86 CPU, uses a Broadcom graphics chipset with dedicated video capabilities and is fully configurable by a cable provider. It comes with 40 GB of hard drive, but can easily use more than 100 GB. Moxi supports HDTV and has a TV-out (naturally), but no VGA output. Providers can customize the machine and the OS will also provide the required software for any additional peripherals (for example, a DVD or a CD-RW drive).
Digeo is concentrating on making Moxi a presentation device and a media center (it includes decoders for MPEG, MP3, DVD, Real but not Quicktime) and direct camcorder support is being considered for the future.
However, another very useful feature of Moxi is its ability to be... a server. It can function as an internet gateway and has a built-in firewall and router. It includes a modem so you can connect to the Internet directly, while it also supports plain ethernet and even wireless. Although these features will not be useful to all people, they bring Moxi a step ahead of the competition and they come pretty much "for free" due to the use of the GNU/Linux operating system. However, the Moxi is not (yet) an internet appliance so it does not offer a web browser.
Moxi can also be used as a VideoPhone. It can connect to other Moxis or via the PC, and supports the H.323 protocol. It will include MSN Messenger as well.
Moxi is the realisation of what Microsoft and Apple are trying to achieve with their notions of a "digital hub". Moxi is a PVR with the ability to play DVDs and other multimedia files, connect to a digital camera, view PhotoCDs (or view images on TV via an ethernet link to your computer), provide access to the internet and more. Mr Farrand believes that PCs can't be as successful in this particular area, because home computers do not interact correctly with TVs and cable providers, and that computers can't work as integrated with a channel (e.g. a scrambled cable channel like HBO which needs special bypassing) as a dedicated solution can offer. PCs take a "top-down" approach to try to behave as specialized devices, while in reality they are multi-purpose devices. This can create specific problems in usability and functionality of the system. Also, PCs are not secure enough for the PVR purpose, as most channel providers won't like to see their content easily pirated. Moxi provides such security after special agreements with the cable provider or channels. Another critical problem with PCs is latency and multithreading. "You don't want your recording to freeze or lose frames while you are checking your email or running a scheduled CRON job you had forgotten about", says Mr Farrand. "You expect recording and playback to work as well as when watching it on TV, live. Microsoft's or other solutions wouldn't have the same sophistication and seamless integration that a dedicated product would".
The current focus of the company is the USA market, but creating compatible versions for other regions wouldn't be too hard, Mr Farrand told us. In the US TV market, the Moxi can record on 5.1 surround sound, at 256 KB/sec and preserve this quality on playback. Users can change these settings via the TV user interface (which uses Macromedia Flash!).
The company plans to add OpenGL (and CGL) and 3D support and also license and port some games to their platform. The current games included in the device are simple games using Flash. Another useful feature of Moxi is that the ROM and operating system can be completely upgraded on the fly from the cable operator via the included modem. This way any bugs or other problems on the customer's device can easily be fixed.
Moxi will be available via cable providers or other Premium TV companies, and the hardware will be custom for each one of them. The price is not set in stone yet, but the company expects it to be in the same price range as the competition. Leasing options will also be available.
Moxi is expected to be launched in the begining of the new year, and it looks set to be an interesting player in the growing market of the PVRs and personal media center systems.
What about higher layer software? (Score:3, Interesting)
I would love to get one of these and start writing collaboration apps that run on it, but if the development model is closed, how can I?
MythTV (Score:2, Interesting)
Visit: www.mythtv.org
Ugh... (Score:4, Insightful)
Just what I want (Score:2, Funny)
From the article... (Score:5, Interesting)
Sold. I -love- my TiVo, but the lack of HDTV functionality is going to kill them if they don't rectify the situation quick. Several people I've talked to about getting TiVo are reluctant not because they have HDTV now, but because they want to be "ready" for it in the future. They don't want to invest in a technology that's near a dead-end.
Moxi will be available via cable providers or other Premium TV companies, and the hardware will be custom for each one of them.
IMO, that will be the biggest problem for them. Standalone TiVo is ubiquitous. It can be used with just about any source... anyone's cable box... any satellite system.
Of course, 90% of consumers (maybe more) are sheep. It might work out well for Moxi since the hardware will be coming from "their cable company" and not some third party. Do you think most cable consumers have any clue who makes their cable box and what features is has? To them this thing will be just another cable box with some cool stuff.
-S
Re:From the article... (Score:2)
True 'dat, but market research has shown there is a large techno-phobe population that would prefer to "lease" their Tivo from the cable company, a la their STB's and modem's today.
By making it an integrated offering, the cable company can find a new revenue stream (which they need...), and hook more customers who would simply prefer that the nice man from the cable company show up sometime between Noon and 6:00pm to install and configure everything for them. And, rather than shell out $400 for the box, plus a subscription fee, they'll pay $19.99/mo instead.
Re:From the article... (Score:5, Interesting)
Moxi will be available via cable providers or other Premium TV companies, and the hardware will be custom for each one of them.
IMO, that will be the biggest problem for them. Standalone TiVo is ubiquitous. It can be used with just about any source... anyone's cable box... any satellite system.
It's funny, the people on the TiVo forums feel the opposite way. They generally think that the biggest threat to TiVo is the fact that cable companies will be delivering their own boxes to their customers for $10/month with no hardware to buy. If it integrates a digital cable tuner in the box, it has a huge advantage over the TiVo, which has to change the channels over IR (or serial in one rare circumstance).
Personally, I think TiVo has an amazing interface, but I could see how someone who didn't have TiVo could be happy with a Moxi box from their cable company.
Can't let this one pass... (Score:2)
I have DirecTiVo, and it has the *slowest*, *clumsiest* interface that I have ever used on any computer, including everything since the TRS-80 days. The interface hangs constantly for long pauses, refreshes the channel and program list so slowly that you can miss entire pages (!), and the for some stupid reason the program guide is alpha'd over the live signal, rather than scaling the live signal down into a corner box (which would allow me to keep watching it). All of these problems are true for the TiVo-style interface, and are worse for the DirecTV-style interface (you can choose which program guide you want). For chrissakes, TimeWarner's digital cable interface is better! (Do you know how much I hate to say that?)
I suppose you could argue that the pure-TiVo portions of the interface (i.e., other than the live tv parts) are okay, but even those are laggy, with poor layout and poor interaction (e.g., why doesn't hitting down at the bottom of a menu put you back up to the top?!). I find the whole searching mechanism totally unsophisticated, too. I'm generally disappointed with TiVo because it seems like a great idea and a poor implementation. Factor in the choice of USB as the sole digital interface for the next generation, and you can be certain that my next PVR will be the alternative: a PVR that supports wireless LAN (or at least ethernet), and that has a quick interface that supports channel surfing.
Re:Can't let this one pass... (Score:2)
Why don't I use it? Because it's only available when you're watching live TV. If you're watching live TV then you just don't understand Tivo. Either that or you have too much time on your hands. Get up and go do something useful.
My Tivo's "Now Showing" list provide 2-3 times more stuff than I have time to sit in front of a TV watching and I don't even have premium cable.
"Search by Name" is much faster and more efficient than and guide organized by air date/time or channel.
"Season Passes" are highly customizable so Tivo keeps "Now Showing" filled without needing constant interaction from me.
"Suggestions" effectively supply additional shows to fill out "Now Showing".
And "Wish Lists" and allow my Tivo to keep watch for shows that aren't on in the near future. Tivo keeps on the lookout for any show, movie, actor, director, or subject even for years in advance.
Oh, and the ATI All in Wonder in my Athlon allows me to capture anything I want to keep long term. The problem is that the user interface is lousy and user intensive compared to Tivo. Flashy, but not as efficient as Tivo.
I wouldn't object to a faster CPU in my Tivo, since "Wish Lists" are a little slow to process, but the software is very near perfect at serving its function.
Ugh...not again... (Score:2)
If you're watching live TV then you just don't understand Tivo. Either that or you have too much time on your hands. Get up and go do something useful.
First of all, if I want to channel surf, I ought to be *able* to do it without fighting through a laggy, crummy interface.
Secondly, some of us that own TiVo like a certain measure of uncertainty in our lives, and are not the sort of pre-programming automatons that you apparently think we *all* are.
If you put TimeWarner's DTV live TV interface next to TiVo, and think TiVo is better, you are hands-down, certifiably insane.
As for TiVo's search functions being sophisticated, I really have to continue to disagree. It's basic, and it works, but it's hardly the full-blown rules-based system that it could be if they put a little bit of thought into it. Plus, it's laggy, and there's no way to quickly scroll through the huge lists of results that it gets, and you can't attach boolean rules to recording instructions (e.g, record auto races with 'formula' in the title, but not 'formula vee'), and it's very difficult to tell what channel multiple instances of the same show is on because it only gives you the wierdo DirecTiVo channel designation (e.g., 'NY4' instead of translating to 'Local ABC', in spite of the fact that DirecTV supplies that information to it). Shall I go on?
TiVo: -1, Overrated.
Re:Ugh...not again... (Score:2)
I enjoy uncertainty in my life as well, and I've found there's quite a bit of it once you get out of the house and start interacting with other people in a non-"staring at the tube" manner.
I said Tivo's interface was efficient. I didn't say it was a sophisticated boolean search engine. I think perhaps you should really take a look at how much of an influence TV is on your life. Do you really need to do boolean searches on TV listings? Is there any system that meets your needs today? If it's really a popular feature I expect Tivo will add it, since they've added several very nice features afterI bought mine.
I recommend Tivo because it lets me catch the stuff I want to see with a minimum of time and effort so that I can spend more time away from the TV. It sounds like you want to maximize your interaction with your TV.
I'm not trying to force you to love Tivo, but instead of making sweeping statements like "I have DirecTiVo, and it has the *slowest*, *clumsiest* interface that I have ever used on any computer, including everything since the TRS-80 days." please at least consider that maybe there is a target market to whom Tivo's interface is ideally suited. And maybe next time you'll do a little more research before spending a couple hundred dollars on something that apparently causes you so much distress.
Re:From the article... (Score:4, Insightful)
Related articles:
http://www.adage.com/news.cms?newsId=36471 [adage.com]
http://www.broadbandweek.com/news/010122/ 010122_through_pvr.htm [broadbandweek.com]
Re:From the article... (Score:3, Insightful)
Sold. I -love- my TiVo, but the lack of HDTV functionality is going to kill them if they don't rectify the situation quick. Several people I've talked to about getting TiVo are reluctant not because they have HDTV now, but because they want to be "ready" for it in the future. They don't want to invest in a technology that's near a dead-end.
Okay, that's all fine and good, but don't you think it's a little over-the-top to think a lack of (current) HDTV support is going to kill TiVo? You know HDTV has been 'coming' for 7 years now right?
And while I'm on it, where did everyone get this notion that if they don't have a compatible television, they'll be left in this lifeless wasteland of analog non-viewing, down on their knees like Heston, screaming 'Whyyyyyyy???' (not directed at you, sdo1, just a general question). There will always be a converter box for whatever you're using. Sure it won't actually be HD but guess what, consumers are not screaming for it. They like it - maybe even love it - if they see it, but otherwise the unwashed masses are pretty happy with their TV.
Re:From the article... (Score:2)
HDTV requires hardware integration. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's like the DirectTivo, which stores the encrypted, compressed satellite feed on the disk directly, and only decompresses / decodes when you watch. This requires custom, DirecTV-specific hardware. For DRM reasons, I doubt that any satellite or cable operator is going to let you grab unencrypted, but still compressed HDTV data from their set-top box and make it available in form to an external "standalone" PVR.
Of course, traditional VHF/UHF broadcast is a different matter, but keep in mind that, unlike a standalone Tivo, a PVR that supports broadcast *won't* automatically work with a cable or satellite system for the reasons described above.
Dear Valued Customer, (Score:5, Funny)
All those neat features you thought were too good to be true, that led you to buy the box? They were bugs. We fixed 'em. No need to thank us.
Lovingly yours forever,
The cable company.
Re:Dear Valued Customer, (Score:2)
DRM "feature" Creep.
Dear subscriber:
We fixed a little bug that lets you play pirated DVDs with your 4/1/03 patch; and on your 5/23/03 update, we fixed the bugs that allowed you record copyrighted movies.
Regards,
Broadband Customer Service
It's not ROM (Score:2)
Re:Dear Valued Customer, (Score:2)
I can just see some user implementing an authorization-required system for updates, so you'll be able to look at the changes and decide whether or not to implement them.
It'd probably have something to do with iptables, and whatever port the box receives updates on. Probably notifying a userland logger, which would move to quarantine any changes made by the updating software.
Wireless LAN (Score:5, Interesting)
I hope this thing is expandable, it would be cool then to have it be the wireless hub as well, serving out connections to laptops, etc around the house.
It will be interesting to see if they're as liberal is TiVo with the hacks though.
I'd still rather roll-my-own (Score:2)
Even if they're using linux, with "server-like" capabilities, I really doubt they're going to give you any method to archive media outside of the box.
Re:I'd still rather roll-my-own (Score:5, Informative)
You could also try a TiVo with lifetime sub, and a video capture USB device (like a Dazzle or Pinnacle), and add it to your existing computer.
Both will guarantee that you'll get a far better interface than one that you could build, plus an exceedingly rich featureset.
But rolling your own does have a "I want to figure out how this works" appeal, as well...
Re:I'd still rather roll-my-own (Score:2)
Why is this unscrupulous?
Re:I'd still rather roll-my-own (Score:2)
I think the general feeling amongst TiVo users is that using said technology may cause a Hollywood backlash against TiVo. I think Tridge coded his own backdoor into the files but didn't publicize it out of respect for the company and its interests.
Linux does not beget an OS. (Score:2)
This machine is designed as an embedded system. However, given the level of flexibility Linux provides, a *nix-savvy person shouldn't find it too difficult to add shell support, and I'm sure that, if Moxi doesn't come with a full distribution, then I'm sure some group will wing one out within a month or two of initial release. After all, there's an open-source OS for Lego Mindstorms, isn't there?
Re:Linux does not beget an OS. (Score:2)
Others will just buy the product for the convenience of it already being put together and set up. Anyone have figures on how many people install Windows an Wal-Mart OS-less PCs?
Re:Linux does not beget an OS. (Score:2)
Their strength is in the software and interface which will allow you to record every possible episode of Invader Zim on any given channel without the need to interact with the machine after initially telling it that you like Zim (or more appropriately, Gir).
Re:I'd still rather roll-my-own (Score:2)
This would include Season Passes to record every episode of a given show, Wishlists to record everything Alyson Hannigan has ever starred in, everything Coppola ever directed, or everything with even the slightest mention of Poker; A well-designed and customizable remote which works well with satellite receivers, cable boxes, and regular antennae, and both hardware and software upgradeability.
But again, as I mentioned in my first post, I don't deny the appeal to rolling your own PVR--from both obtaining the technical knowledge, to perhaps contributing something to the Linux community at large. But if you're looking at a PVR from the standpoint of cost-benefit analysis, you'd likely be better off with a mass-produced unit.
It's Linux-based, remember. (Score:2)
So unless interaction with the hardware was done at the userland level (ack!) with binary-only programs, then the code is available for you to hack at and change any way you want.
This is the GPL at its finest, allowing a competent user to implement his own ideas into an otherwise static featureset.
MSN Messenger (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:MSN Messenger (Score:2)
What's the point? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What's the point? (Score:4, Insightful)
Come on! I've been watching TV since 1995 on my P200 under Linux with a simple bttv878 tv tuner.
If "Freevo" cannot record tv shows, how does it compare to Tivo or any other PVR?
How can you think that Freevo is more newsworthy than this PVR?
Re:What's the point? (Score:2)
multimedia centers on Linux (Score:3, Interesting)
Curious on costs... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Curious on costs... (Score:2)
to delete or rotate this photo... (Score:2, Funny)
'nuff said
It runs Linux and plays DVDs? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It runs Linux and plays DVDs? (Score:2)
Re:It runs Linux and plays DVDs? (Score:2)
There just seems to be something really "insecure" (from the MPAA's perspective) in allowing unencoded data to be stored on a modular medium with a filesystem freely accessible.
It would require something like black-box encryption to prevent the data from being transferrable to another machine.
And the fact that these things can directly access the Internet on a high-speed connection, well, It must be giving the MPAA chairman nightmares.
Re:It runs Linux and plays DVDs? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:It runs Linux and plays DVDs? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:It runs Linux and plays DVDs? (Score:2)
First commercial HDTV PVR (Score:3, Informative)
Of course, since they mention that it will be sold as a customized box for cable & satellite services, it's not clear what 'shipping' means. Does that mean that Moxi is done with the platform, or that DirecTV/Dish will be ready to ship a unit that I can buy?
If it's the former, it will be quite a while until we see these.
What is TimeWarner thinking? (Score:5, Interesting)
Which leads me to ask, why doesn't TimeWarner wait for ScientificAtlanta's Moxi-based device? I mean, TW is pushing HD in several markets, and yet the Explorer 8000 doesn't even support HD (even though the literature says it does... check the wiring diagrams, no HD).
Hopefully they will offer Moxi soon. I love my TiVo, but a sweet device like Moxi, integrated with my digital cable service, combined with HD support equals TV HEAVEN.
I love my Tivo, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Sad to say it, if they sell a box with those features, thats as easy and convenient to use as my Tivo, my Tivo may be relegated to my bedroom instead of my living room...
Come on.. (Score:5, Funny)
This is only
If Bill Gates created a Linux-based vibrating buttplug, it'd be front page news on
(personally I'd use OpenBSD for that, less chance of a backdoor assault.)
:P
Re:Come on.. (Score:3, Funny)
Here we go again (Score:5, Funny)
Uh oh....embrace and extend anyone?
Since the cable company will own it....No mods! (Score:5, Interesting)
If I could simply buy the hardware, great! But they know that they will make a more steady stream of money offering essentially a tivo like cable box to cable companies who can rent them to customers for $20/mo or more, who will gladly pay for them rather than $400 or more for a Tivo.
It's a great business idea, and I see them putting Tivo out of business in the larger markets. Tivo (and other pvr companies) will have to maneuver furiously to maintain their current customer base, nevermind a growing base.
But all is not so happy in geek land. You won't be able to record shows, or even pause shows, that providers don't want you to - and eventually that'll be most movies, lots of first run shows, etc. Skipping commercials may be disallowed at the providers descretion.
It's essentially a bid to take back TV, while providing customers with a facade of extra functionality. I bet they'll win, since eventually service providers will be required to use such devices if they want to carry certian premium channels - though that's a while away, it's coming.
-Adam
Assuming they can get a foot in the door... (Score:2)
It would be a great business idea, if someone hadn't already thought of it first. Tivo had this same business idea three years ago and had been trying to get exactly such a digital cable box device w/Tivo created. Cable companies weren't interested in buying from Tivo. They *are* interested in buying from existing cable box makers, like Scientific Atlanta.
SA's latest digital box has "Tivo-like" functionality, which basically means it can record to it's hard drive in much the same way you'd program a VCR. By time, with repeating recordings possible. In other words, it ain't too bright, but it does do minimal recording abilities.
Moxi has to compete with these heavily entrenched cable box manufacturers. Scientific Atlanta and thier ilk have been making cheap crappy boxes for cable headends for a long, long, long time, and have a product that is seemingly "good enough" to someone interested more in claiming "our cable company provides a PVR service!" than claiming "we provide a *good* PVR service".
Re:Assuming they can get a foot in the door... (Score:2)
I have a TV and a DVD player. No cable, satellite, or even an antenna. My life is plugged into the wall, both for 110VAC and Ethernet access.
The idea of having a flexible, Linux-based system as the front-end for my TV stands a good chance of getting me to buy this PVR, even if it means subscribing to cable. I could dedicate its spare CPU cycles to something like fold@home or my home beowulf cluster. (currently consisting of a 166 laptop, a 200MHz computer, and a 700MHz Duron.)
Now picture Comdex...If geeks know that one particular hotel in Chicago has PVR's in every room, and chrooted shell-and-X11 access on a site-wide Beowulf cluster, where do you think they'll stay for a night?
Pretty powerful cluster, too. figure four floors of 100 suites each, an average of 1.5 TVs per suite (money can snag you a two-bedroom suite with a TV in each room.) That works out to be a 600-machine with a total cycle count of 420 GHz.
On the other hand, a chain of hotels, with just 10 hotels like this one, would be able to sell (ala IBM) 4.2THz of processing power as one large WAN, or parceled out in whatever division you please.
Take this to a large chain with a "two-in-every-state" approach to locations, and you'll have 42THz to work with. Anyone know the conversion from Hz to FLOPS?
Figure maybe five chains with this kind of roomage, and you've got 210THz of processing power, which, while probably not grouped into one network, would still be really helpful for research institutions into things like modeling the Big Bang, or examining star collisions. Protein folding would be a cinch.
Anyway, it's a massive potential revenue for hotel chains, as well as any other system that has a lot of cable TVs. (Schools, anyone? Talk about a fundraiser.)
Re:Assuming they can get a foot in the door... (Score:2)
They would have to do that because if the box has signal decoding/decyphering capabilities then anyone with more than 'record', 'change channel', and 'volume' is going to either gain valuable info about how a particular station is encoded, or be able to have it decode all stations without paying for full service.
The tricky thing is - how does the GPL fit into this? Are they going to require cable companies to distribute a CD with every installed box and say, "You'll never need this, but by law we are required to give you the source code for this box, except the proprietary (useful) bits that are seperate binaries..."
-Adam
Re:Assuming they can get a foot in the door... (Score:2)
After the dust settles on that one, there'll be another couple:
Were any companies seriously burned by embedding Linux in their otherwise proprietary systems? Will it serve as a warning?
Re:Assuming they can get a foot in the door... (Score:2)
Even distributed computing in the sense of separate clusters, for parallelable computations, is faster than the same number of individual units in an @Home-style distributed system.
Re:Since the cable company will own it....No mods! (Score:2)
How will consumers react when they can't do something they are now able to do?
All of the newest copy protection schemes seem to revolve around the concept that joe consumer will give up certain abilities for higher quality or more bells and whistles. The new SACD, for instance, or HDTV with its record flags. They learned a lesson from macrovision - you have to put the hardware in the player, so you have to own the rights to anything that can play it (like every VCR has some royalties to, IIRC, RCA, but they require every manufacturer to put in a circuit which enables macrovision to work as a copy protection scheme). Thus, create a new format, create a new player (MiniDisc), own certian necessary patents (HDTV, MP3) and require everyone to buy into your copyright protection.
Which, in reality, I don't have a problem with. If I miss a show, movie, etc, I haven't really lost anything - if anything I've gained time. But fair use is still worth fighting for, it impacts much more than just being able to watch a show when/where/how it's convenient to me.
-Adam
TiVo vs. Moxi (Score:3, Informative)
Paul Allen / Linux angle (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure the costs or WinXX, and power of Linux were factors in that decision. But, it's not like he just snubbed MS, his cash cow, because Linux was too compelling.
My name is... (Score:2, Funny)
Moxi is old news (Score:5, Interesting)
Hell, it won "Best of Show" at CES in January and they still haven't shipped a product. Their claim to having a deal with Dish Network also turned out to be completely bogus. Then, they nearly went bankrupt, fired their founder/CEO and got sold to Digeo.
Don't get me wrong. The stuff Moxi demo'd at CES in January was incredible and if they can pull off even a fraction of it, they'll eat TiVo for lunch (assuming TiVo doesn't respond with similar features). However, their kitchen-sink approach is hugely ambitious and it'll be tough for them to ship all the cool stuff they demo'd at CES, such as wireless distribution. That, coupled with the fact that they're selling boxes only through cable companies and other TV service providers, rather than as standalone devices, will probably keep the feature set minimized.
So don't hold your breath about getting everything they're capable of delivering.
Business Model? (Score:4, Insightful)
You would think that people would realize that it is difficult to make money selling hardware. Somebody will always try to sell it for less. Without a decent margin on your equipment, why bother?
And I think that Tivo has shown that there is not a huge market left of people who want to pay a $10/mo subscription for updated channel programming lists.
So how exactly do these guys expect to make money?
-S
Re:Business Model? (Score:2)
The things that eat into this ability are mainly other things that draw your attention away from the TV set, and competitors for your purchasing dollars. This device could have some of the functionality of a PC, and "save" you the cost of a DVD player, DVR, Set-top box, etc.
Unfortunately, it doesn't really offer the consumer as much as the headline would suggest.
(But then again, how many Paul Allen companies (even with a great product) turn a profit?)
Gates and Allen meet in the Executive Washroom (Score:5, Funny)
Bill: What's up?
Paul: I brought you my latest toy, man. It's a PVR and stuff.
Bill: Cool. What's it running, CE? XP?
Paul: Linux.
Bill: Linux? Linux? You frigging idiot, we're trying to crush Linux!
Paul: Since when?
Bill: I sent you an email, you retard.
Paul: Yeah? You'd better read your own freaking manual, bigshot genius, because you didn't copy me on that.
Bill: Crap. Oh, well. That's what I pay all those goddamn lawyers for. Look, I'll buy you out and go Chapter 6 or whatever it is these days.
Paul: But...but I don't want you to buy me out. This is my baby. Why don't you go think up something novel on your own? Oh, wait - you can't, can you, Mr. Innovation?
Bill: Piss up a stick, Allen. I want that Linux hellspawn dead asap.
Paul: Well, you can...what's that rumble?
Bill: Sounds like the plumbing.
Paul: Wait - don't tell me you turned the hoppers into smart devices.
Bill: Yep. Booted them up today, and they haven't been hacked yet.
Paul: What time this morning?
Bill: About ten minutes ago-
(Sounds of exploding geysers, shrill screams, porcelain shattering.)
sonicblue (Score:3, Interesting)
No VGA Out?!?! (Score:2)
Perhaps I'm missing the point and they have component video out, but not VGA? In this case, it's even sillier that they did not include a VGA out option.
Re:No VGA Out?!?! (Score:2)
Re:No VGA Out?!?! (Score:2)
I'd like o see a PVR PCI board that supports Linux (Score:2, Interesting)
supports Linux to come out of this.
Right now I use Nuvrec (on a 1.5Ghz AMD) and
when the recording is done I make a second pass and encode an MPEGII file.
Nuvrec works great with a Wintv card at 720x480x30fps!
But I'd like to do hardware mpegII encoding.
Re:All is proceeding to plan (Score:2)