Comments on: Chipmakers Hope Widgets Bring the Web to TV

By: Long View: As Devices Converge, Chip Vendors Girding For a Fight

Long View: As Devices Converge, Chip Vendors Girding For a Fight — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 15:19:14 +0000

[...] If most of a user’s applications can be accessed via the web, ARM just needs to focus on making its chips work with various browsers and common web protocols, such as Flash. Storing data in the cloud also negates the need for large hard drives for keeping files. At [...]

By: Intel Inside Becomes Intel Everywhere

Intel Inside Becomes Intel Everywhere — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 22:46:12 +0000

[...] it does have some advantages. While other chip companies such as ARM and Broadcom do a lot of work porting software to their chips to make sure things like the web run seamlessly, Intel processors are what the web was built [...]

By: Stacey Higginbotham

Stacey Higginbotham — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 03:14:49 +0000

Jesse, given that some new STBs deployments have been delayed by the crappy economy, you may be right that they might push out products with this type of functionality. I never know what MSOs are going to do. They want to push broadband, but at the same time have ad revenue to protect from their video biz as well figuring out how to keep the content providers they currently pay from going straight to the consumer.

By: Are Widgets or Raw Files Destined For Our Livingrooms? « SiliconAngle

Are Widgets or Raw Files Destined For Our Livingrooms? « SiliconAngle — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 00:36:22 +0000

[...] Higginbotham at GigaOm today reports that Broadcom will be ensuring content from the Chumby would run on their chips, which she sees as [...]

By: Jesse Kopelman

Jesse Kopelman — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 22:27:49 +0000

“given that most consumers in the U.S. get their TV programming and set-top boxes from a cable provider that may disable such functionality”

This is the key issue. Stacey, have you done any research into whether MSOs (both cable and telcos with TV services) plan to support this sort of thing? I actually think they will allow it, as it makes the broadband bundling all the more compelling and doesn’t seem to involve any rights issues that would get them into trouble with their content suppliers. I would expect there will be a fight over whether they are entitled to a cut of revenue from any sort of App Store. Another issue is the slow dissemination of new STB throughout the customer base. MSOs usually only upgrade the box at customer request — usually to support some new paid feature (HD, DVR, etc.). Even if they are totally ambivalent to this technology, it could easily take 5 years to spread to a significant portion of the customer base. I’d think Internet support in the display devices might actually spread faster given we are still relatively early in the replacement cycle to enable HD.

By: Blog: Om Malik | Bscopes Feeds

Blog: Om Malik | Bscopes Feeds — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 15:14:50 +0000

[...] Blog: Om Malik tagged with: Post: http://gigaom.com/2009/02/23/chipmakers-hope-widgets-bring-the-web-to-tv/ [...]

By: NeoTechie

NeoTechie — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 12:33:30 +0000

If my memory serves me correctly AOL tried this years ago and it failed.
It might be a better idea to bring more TV to the web.

By: cheese

cheese — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 08:20:20 +0000

Well, chip makers are probably hoping that something, anything, will help them push chips ! The real question is : Would you want to mix pleasure with productivity? Because a TV is about entertainment and laid-back viewing while widgets is about multitasking and productivity. Let’s not get distracted by the rate of acceptance of technology push in mobile phones – because phones are not meant to be entertainment devices. If phones offer productivity apps, that is not unexpected. If they offer entertainment options, that is welcome bonus. However, a TV is a another animal. It is not a “personal” device. Also, lying 10ft away, it is a bit too far to do productivity. In fact, a TV is always closer to a beer than it is to “productivity internet”. Given this, Netflix on TV makes sense – because it is about using the internet for TV. Widgets, unfortunately, seem to have exactly the opposite interest (TV for internet). Yes, everyone is doing widgets, but the question is will anyone make money from them. Don’t bother checking Yahoo! for answers.

By: Screen Sleuth

Screen Sleuth — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 06:37:44 +0000

This is where HDTV (and media in general) is headed, and will to continue to head.

By: Mark Sigal

Mark Sigal — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 04:40:15 +0000

I posted about some of the logical applications some time back in a post called:

Wall Widgets: Fixed Wireless at Home
http://thenetworkgarden.com/weblog/2008/05/wall-widgets-fi.html

Here’s an excerpt: Imagine a device called a ‘wall widget’ that functions as a piece of art in your living room or on your office wall. It can receive and play information feeds, photos and/or video streams, albeit in a wall-mountable form factor. I call it a wall widget because it leverages Wi-Fi connectivity, is service-aware, and is manageable by non-technical users. By manageable, I mean that by making template-driven decisions, consumers can remotely ‘program’ information or media flows handled by the wall widget to meet their experiential needs.

Check out the full post if interested.

Mark

By: Chumby and Broadcom Hope to Bring the Web to TV « NewTeeVee

Chumby and Broadcom Hope to Bring the Web to TV « NewTeeVee — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 01:32:15 +0000

[...] For anyone who recalls the Chumby as a countertop device for accessing widgets, you’re thinking of the right company. It’s merely joining a growing pack of those looking expand its efforts beyond hardware to become a platform. In January it signed a similar integration deal with Marvell to get its widget platform onto digital picture frames. For more on bringing the web to televisions check out the full story on GigaOM. [...]