iTV Standard v1.1 Released 133
mbstone writes "The iTV Standards Initiative this week announced the release of version 1.1 of its proposed iTV Production Standards, an open XML-schema-based scheme for interactive TV. In other words your set-top box or PC TV card would use the proposed standard to let you click on something displayed on your TV screen, for example, to answer a poll or buy the product featured in a commercial."
Fascinating (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Fascinating (Score:1)
Nice first post attempt tho.
wait a second.... (Score:2)
This is pretty stupid stuff! (Score:1)
Pop-Up Ads (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Pop-Up Ads/TV SPY (Score:1)
ummm.. doesn't that say something?
No longer will your viewing habits be anonymous if you have a traceable button.
Re:Pop-Up Ads/TV SPY (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3, Funny)
Re:doughboy (Score:2)
Und noo a luuk et thees ifeneengs noos, bork bork bork.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
It will fail. (Score:4, Insightful)
People watch TV to be totally passive. They don't WANT to interact with the news channel. They just want to sit there and absorb information.
Re:It will fail. (Score:2, Interesting)
Otherwise, iTV simply gets in the way of TV viewing. If I want to talk to others or answer polls about my favorite TV show, I will do it on my computer after watching the show, not on my TV during the show.
Re:It will fail. (Score:2, Informative)
Mostly the URLs would accompany commercials. But it wasnt really intrusive or anything. Just a handy way to get more info on a product or whatever. I remember following one to the local Ford mega-dealership to get some info on one of their sales.
Not a bad idea. Didnt add much, didnt take away anything either. I could see how it could be enhanced to allow voting for stuff like American Idol or the other rash of 'reality' shows.
It will fail? I hope not ... (Score:2, Informative)
Regards,
John
Re:It will fail? I hope not ... (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm sincerely sorry to hear that. If I ever see preprocessor macro based exception handling again, I'm going to strangle something. Probably a kitten.
Re:It will fail. (Score:2)
Good points. Personally, I'd be more interested in the interactiveness if it allowed me to punch annoying advertisers in the face.
But why stop at commercials? If I could virtually punch Dawson or Pacey in the mouth and tell them what fu**ups they are, I might actually be lured to watch the show!
Information? (Score:1)
My Admission (Score:1, Offtopic)
Are you kidding? Soon enough (Score:3, Insightful)
Click on the little landmine at the bottom of your screen to see the 'Explosion of the Week [TM]! Direct from the battlefield. A CNN exclusive!!
Precognition (Score:5, Funny)
Bring on the Lawyers! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bring on the Lawyers! (Score:1, Interesting)
How about.... (Score:5, Interesting)
I have a $200 sony all in one remote that tries to provide a single interface to all my stuff. Problem is that it does not quite cut it, the Onkyo receiver does not quite do what it should.
Result is that only I can get the home theatre to work properly so I leave it turned off most of the time because I don;t want to spend all my time being sysop for the home entertainment system. Wish the wife would buy a Mac, then I could tell her she is absolutely on her own for service calls as I don't do Macs.
All I want is for a bunch of high end but still mainstream stuff to work together - we are not talking about obscure audiophile $25,000 turntables here. But there is no reason that a $2,000 TV and a $500 satelite receiver and $1,000 home theater box should not talk to each other either. We are not talking about big ticket changes, just an RFC822 or maybe a USB port.
Interactive TV leaves me cold, the stuff is real weak when you try the canned demos with oodles of thought gone into the interactive parts. Run of the mill content that will be seen mostly on non-interactive tv sets will be a bust.
There is no middle ground worth exploring between TV and videogames. Tombraider and such are lightyears beyond what iTV could hope to be. Why fight it trying to do interactive lite?
Re:How about.... (Score:1)
The same way the printer cartridge manufacturers handled it [slashdot.org] and the garage door manufacurers handled it. [slashdot.org]
They'll just run to the courts with it and explain just how bad it is that we are still living in a free enterprise system and how they should award damages because someone else is competing.
Someone really messed up a few years ago by not patenting the idea of putting a sliver of meat between two slices of bread.
Re:How about.... (Score:5, Informative)
Try this [yahoo.com]. I have everything programmed into one $30 Radio Shack remote, including an Onkyo receiver. It takes a little work, but it's definitely worth the effort.
Re:How about.... (Score:1)
Re:How about.... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:How about.... (Score:2)
It controls everything in my house that can accept some sort of IR commands. It will learn any command you can output from your original remote. So if the specific command(s) you are looking for aren't part of the default Oykno entry, there is still hope. I know that the Sony remote doesn't fully control a Replay TV and you need to program 2 or so button commands. If you don't, and you don't have an original working Replay TV remote, there is functionality that you lose with the Replay TV simply from having no access to it.
Re:How about.... (Score:2)
Use ethernet (Score:1, Insightful)
iTV... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:iTV... (Score:2)
Re:iTV... (Score:3, Funny)
ITV - 0
Slashdot - 1
this could change forever... (Score:5, Funny)
I truly can't wait
What about Microsoft? (Score:3, Interesting)
--sex [slashdot.org]
Re:What about Microsoft? (Score:2, Informative)
Check out the members here. [itvstandards.org]
Re:What about Microsoft? (Score:1)
Glowing Blue LivingRooms (Score:3)
Yea...TV nation. Move along, nothing to see here.
Re:Great (Score:1)
uhhhhhhhhhhg (Score:1, Funny)
Of all the "comming in 2 years" vapor (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Of all the "comming in 2 years" vapor (Score:2, Interesting)
Its no big whoop, or selling point for consumers.
Just when the ford commercial comes on you can go look for a little icon to link you to fords website. Probably doesnt add jack to the cost of a commercial, and can get info to someone while their interest is piqued. That's the theory at least. TV is and will no doubt always remain a passive medium for the most part.
Re:Of all the "comming in 2 years" vapor (Score:2)
I'd have to say that the real patron saint of "real soon now" has got to be the videophone. They've been talking about them since before the transistor.
Personally, I'm in no hurry.
Interactive TV is happening *outside* America (Score:2, Informative)
Maybe iTV is never going to happen in the States, but just as with cellphones, DAB and many technologies that gain momentum through standards and cross-border co-operation , the US is being left behind, as Interactive TV is thriving in Europe, especially in the UK [electronicstimes.com], and I'm amazed that many tech-savvy Americans don't seem to realise this [ojr.org]
~45-50% of UK households *with a TV* have digital TV [216.239.53.100], and of them 65 percent of have access to ITV [skyreport.com]
In simple numbers
There are about 6.25 million households with digital satelite [digitalspy.co.uk] alone. All of them have access to very, very advanced interactive services. There are about 2 million households with digital cable, using Liberate middleware [liberate.com]
The new Free to air DTT boxes [freeview.co.uk] are selling like hot cakes, and there are many Interactive services available through the BBC [bbc.co.uk] and others [digitalspy.co.uk]
Here's a wide range of iTV screenshots [itvt.com]
In europe as a whole 'interactive TV was estimated to be available in 31 million European households at the end of 2002, creating a potential audience of 72 million viewers'
Re:Of all the "comming in 2 years" vapor (Score:1)
And I would just add
amazing! (Score:1, Funny)
Oh great (Score:4, Funny)
is it just me...? (Score:3, Insightful)
if you want to do surfing-type stuff, the web is much better (there's more content out there, pc monitors have much higher resolution, etc.), if you want sports highlights then watch ESPN, and if you want to learn something either go to the library, use the web or watch The Discovery Channel :)
it seems that many parties are pushing for interactive TV, but that the closest thing that seems to be successful is TiVo.
i just don't think people want to *think* and watch tv at the same time, that's kind of the point.
Interactive? (Score:4, Funny)
Grrr.
Who'll be running this thing? (Score:5, Interesting)
They'll define his world. Everything in his life would be viewed from some context he learned from that company. It would innescable because everyone else around him would have personalities derived from the same source.
More likely, society will split between two groups. Those who favor homogenous information, lifestyles, entertainment. And those who don't.
The homogenous society will dress more or less the same, listen to the same music, watch the same shows. A large chunk of society will fall into this category, and you could identify them right away.
The heterogenous society will do whatever suits them.
Maybe things are like this already. Do people dress/think/act more similarly in large cities than in smaller ones?
Re:Who'll be running this thing? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd say its just the opposite. You go out to the small rural towns and everyone knows each other, looks and acts the same, and for the most part still shun ousiders to a degree.
In an urban setting you have more of a clash of all different cultures and whatnot, and a general aura of diversity that lets people feel more comfortable doing what they want.
The 'freak' with the goofy clothes, piercings, crazy music or whathaveyou looks out of place in the tiny towns, but noone bats an eye to see him in New York.
I think the smaller towns are more under the thumbs of the big media corps. I couldnt name the characters on "friends" or know who sings the mallcore ballad to the latest comic book turned into a feature film. But I bet everyone in this suburban neighbourhood I live in can.
Re:Who'll be running this thing? (Score:2)
I lived in Minneapolis for 10+ years, recovering from my upbringing in a small town. Thank god for Minneapolis; hardly a big city, it's the reason I have some sense in my head.
I am spreading a counter-culture here, slowly, gently. Converting the farmers daughters one by one...
In a place where TV is the only consistent entertainment, you result in a lot of shitty, market-fed ideas. Sadly, even the adults act like its fucking high school, and Cindy didn't ask them to the prom. Never do I see more close-minded people than in small towns. (There are some crazy hippies too - they are the fun ones...)
Off to bed my farmer's daughter... ;)
Re:Who'll be running this thing? (Score:1)
--paul
Re:Who'll be running this thing? (Score:1)
I am from a small town. I didn't have a tv while growing up. No, not for religous reasons or anything else. I was too busy learning things like hunting, fishing, how to live off the land, cooking, carpentry, how to actually fix something/anything. But, most importantly, I was learning to think for myself, how to solve problems, and again, how to think for myself. Television is the complete opposite for thinking for yourself. NEVER can a movie be better than a book. But, this world is made up of those who are easily wowed by flashy visuals, and don't want to think. That is why tv is as popular as it is. Back to your post, Where I am from there were less than 25,000 people for the entire county. Yes there was the guy with the spiked mohawk who didn't look like anyone else around, but he and the football captain, and the stoner crew, and us farmers and the geeks, well, hell, everybody! would all party together and have a great time. There were the usual teasing things happening, but I don't remember but one fist fight in our school. There was at least one fight a week with the rival school, but afterwards most everybody from both schools would go partying together.
There may be a "general aura of diversity" in a major city, but the small towns where I'm from seem to have a greater sense of community in that diversity than big cities. We didn't judge someone by which side of town they were from, we didn't care who had more money, etc. The portrayal you see on the tv of small town life being cliqueish and all children praying to leave, may be true somewhere, but not any of the small towns I've lived in/been to.
sports uses (Score:1)
Where's the demand for this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why doesn't the TV industry spend more effort figuring out what people actually like, instead of trying to convince us we want something that we really don't?
Re:No thanks.. (Score:1)
I stated what how I feel about the new interactive TV. It's an invasion of privacy. I don't like that. How is that a "troll"??
Whoever set this as a "troll" doesn't need to be modding posts.
I hereby proclaim my official complaint against the assignment of "troll" to my post.
That was MY opinion of the topic and it is 100% on topic.
Accurate, Active Schedules would be nice (Score:4, Interesting)
How about a way to have my PVR determine when a program really starts and ends, so that a preempted or delayed show won't cause me to record 20 minutes of a news cast or the show that was on before the one I wanted. A particluar network may slip a few seconds per hour, causing a missed lead-in for a particular show (eg for CSI this can be disappointing), and there is a trend lately on broadcast networks to run shows together by a minute or two either way with little or no break between them, which also throws off recording.
It should be relatively easy to send this information, per channel in the overscan area (close caption area) in the current scheme of things, but with interactive television on the way, I would love to see the broadcast be able to interact with automation devices as well as people, if only for this one feature.
Unless they completely disable our ability to record by the time this stuff is in use...
Re:Accurate, Active Schedules would be nice (Score:2)
This is an incisive statement, because the kind of integration that will be required to provide the features you seek (roughly, the recorder knowing what programming material is being recorded and played back at all times) will not be put in place to save you missing show teasers or missing the end of a movie. It'll be incorporated to allow DRM that prevents you from recording what you're not supposed to, or avoiding recording/playing back commercials. Enjoy the wild pioneer days of your PVR, because they won't last.
As for your teaser-missing problem, I set my VCR clock 30-60 seconds fast to avoid that on shows I watch (without having to remember to manually program in a buffer each time). I assume it's impossible to manually set the clock on your recorder?
Re:Accurate, Active Schedules would be nice (Score:1)
Re:Accurate, Active Schedules would be nice (Score:1)
Re:Accurate, Active Schedules would be nice (Score:2)
Re:Accurate, Active Schedules would be nice (Score:2, Informative)
In the UK, we already have this feature - even for analog VCRs. It's called PDC (Programme Delivery Control).
A google [google.com] turned up this explanation [uk.com] of how it works.
The actual standard [etsi.org] is also available (free registration required).
Of course, this is only for analog TV. Digital TV already has some information which could be used for this (Event Information Tables - EIT) but I don't know if any integrated digital reciever/PVR combos use it.
Saturation (Score:1)
The television industry SUCKS. (Score:2, Insightful)
They call this shit Marketing?! They claim this creates value for the consumer?! Fuck that. Those lying theiving sons of bitches, those marketing people.
Move over, old equipment? (Score:1)
Hopefully, they can time any hardware requirements to release about the same time the FCC yanks the plug on analog TV. That is, assuming there are any equipment requirements (I can't point and click at anything on my TVs, now, so I would assume so). Having another box in my entertainment center is not an option.
Ideally, some corporate jackass will provide me with a completely new, state of the art entertainment system, gratis, that includes cable/satellite/internet access, all also for free, and then I'll think about using this BS they're touting as interactive. You want real interactive TV, you should read Neal Stephenson's The Diamond Age. Until something like that is generally available, I'll pass on buying any new TV technology.
MHEG (Score:3, Informative)
Some of the interactive services are a bit naff, but some are pretty interesting.
Re:MHEG (Score:2)
One of my personal hates about the system is those incredibly annoying red dots or 'press red' logos [logofreetv.org.uk] they put everywhere. I expected it from Sky, but I am really disappointed to see the BBC reach such low levels also.
I don't care about them putting up those logos during the adverts, I don't watch the adverts anyway. But to plaster them all over the programs people watch is just wrong.
The only use for this would be... (Score:1)
Oh my, another DTV standard! (Score:2, Informative)
iMagicTV [imagictv.com], one of those TV over ADSL middleware providers uses HTML with 'tv in the browser' as does others like Minerva [minervanetworks.com] and Orca [www.orca.tv]...
Don't forget about hardware vendors who are already [pace.co.uk] shipping [kreatel.com] and this includes the big boys like Thomson/RCA [thomson.net]
So why yet another dtv standard.. I'm getting dizzy...
Re:Oh my, another DTV standard! (Score:2, Informative)
I had the same feeling. I've been developing digital TV apps and boxes for five years and every month there's a new "standard". However, these guys seem to try to address a need. From their FAQ:
However, for it to make a difference, it needs to be "compiled" on the distribution side to MHP/ATVEF/*Fad_Of_The_Month*/OpenTV... or packaged and interpreted on the terminal. Hence, someone needs to develop and deploy that software.
If you ask me, this is way premature. If someone comes up with ORIGINAL programming utilizing interactive TV (not commercials...) that is so fun and/or useful that every ITV network and user wants it, then the cost of implementing that on different distribution networks will exceed the cost of implementing and deploying the needed general software. Maybe then it will happen. Otherwise... Naaah! Get's my vote for fad of the month.
Fredrik
Interactive "Millionaire" (Score:1)
ITV's "Who wants to be a millionaire", previously interactive, is now going back to an interactive version that allows you to play along with the game, using the remote buttons to choose your answers. You can then enter into a prize draw to win:
Who Wants To Be A Millionaire Goes Interactive on ITV1
A fully interactive version of Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? launches this Saturday (15 February) on ITV1.
This interactive service, which will be sponsored by BT, follows a major agreement between ITV and BSkyB that will enable ITV to launch a range of interactive services on the digital satellite platform. Who Wants To Be A Millionaire - Interactive will also be available on DTT from Saturday and Telewest in the near future, making it available in approximately 8 million homes in the UK.
Using their remote control, viewers can play along with the contestant in the studio to answer questions, notch up points and enter a prize draw at the end of each programme. Who Wants To Be A Millionaire - Interactive has been designed by Carlton Active to mirror Celador's hugely popular television show experience as closely as possible, and the game is simple to play and enjoy for viewers at home.
A prize draw after each show will offer two viewers who register with the required score the chance to win one main and one runner-up prize. The highest scores (based on how quickly the questions are answered) will also be entered on a leader board, creating a weekly league of the best 'armchair' contestants.
As part of BT's renewed sponsorship deal, BT information graphics will run alongside the weekly league table. Interactive users will also be able to obtain further information on BT products and services by entering a BT branded information zone, accessed via digital TV handsets.
Paul Cooper, Carlton Active's commercial manager, said: "Millionaire is a fantastic brand and the interactive service is a natural extension to that brand. We are delighted that BT has renewed its sponsorship - this proves that interactive advertising works, and works well, when done properly. Viewers see BT as bringing a new experience - as well as the chance to get on the real show - into their homes and the value of that should not be underestimated."
Amanda Mackenzie, director of marketing services at BT, said: "The renewal of BT's sponsorship of Who Wants To Be A Millionaire - Interactive is great news, especially given that the programme is breaking new ground by being the first interactive programme accessible via all interactive TV systems. BT's relationship with Millionaire enables us to demonstrate our continued commitment to offering new and cutting edge communication. In addition the sponsorship brings families closer together as they play the game at home - consistent with our campaign theme of 'Bringing People Together'."
The deal between BT and Carlton TV was brokered by the Allmond Partnership and BT's interactive graphics have been designed and produced by ape TV.
Bruce Vandenberg, Head of Digital at Celador, said: "We are really excited now that Millionaire can be played interactively across all 3 major platforms. The technology is becoming more accessible and being able to reach 8 million homes will provide a substantial base for us to extend our programme brand and commercialise the audience."
BSkyB's Chief Operating Officer, Richard Freudenstein, said: 'Sky is delighted to welcome ITV as the latest terrestrial broadcaster to take advantage of the interactivity available on digital satellite and are delighted that they have chosen to use sky interactive's infrastructure for this launch on the digital satellite platform. Over 20 channels and 250 advertising campaigns have used this technology so far to enhance their offering, and I am sure ITV and its viewers will benefit from it too. We look forward to working with them as the services develop.'
What a load of pap.... (Score:2)
Or of course you could move away from the idea that XML is "interactive" and look at MHP [mhp.org] which covers alot more than this lot and has many more senior players.
Oh and of course... IS ALREADY RUNNING IN EUROPE.
That last being the reason why these people have come up with a braindead standard of their own. OpenCable in the US is based on MHP, and is supported by most of the cable companies. This is another wonderful case of the US deciding on 25 different standards while the rest of the world picks one.
Other "features" include: (Score:1)
-Accurate "hit counters" for TV shows.
-Cookie-based tracking of viewer's prefrences
-Targeted advertising
-Surviellance method for TIA
There are existing standards already (Score:1)
I can understand some motivation towards building simpler standards (e.g. not requiring a Java VM), but fragmentation in this field will not be a good thing. We're talking about a mass market (television / STB manufacturers) and it needs volume, which calls for a single, common standard.
Of course, I suppose the US industry wants to create its own proprietary standards for interactive television just as for everything else they do.
ah duh dum dumb (Score:1)
"Would you like to know more?" (Score:2)
what about privacy? (Score:1)
Re:A WHAT?! (Score:2)