[03:41] <tgm4883> ok, who is Ian Santopietro and why am I just now seeing his Ubuntu TV mockup (via reddit btw)? I think it might be my favorite Unity mockup yet
[03:41] <imnichol> link?
[03:42] <tgm4883> https://plus.google.com/photos/107517157558649473024/albums/5681290039391072097
[03:42] <tgm4883> I saw it as I was browsing reddit.com/r/ubuntu
[03:43] <tgm4883> I still hate the login screen (the whole idea), but the rest isn't bad
[03:43] <imnichol> I agree about the login screen
[03:45] <imnichol> It looks pretty sweet, although that's probably because it's the best looking one so far
[03:45] <tgm4883> I still think it's missing some things as well, but from a basic UI standpoint it's not bad
[03:45] <imnichol> Yeah
[03:45] <imnichol> I think my only issue is how the lenses would work
[03:45] <tgm4883> imnichol, I think it's the horizontal launcher bar, it just feels like it's not wasting space
[03:46] <tgm4883> as opposed to the vertial launcher bar
[03:46] <imnichol> Which picture has the horizontal launcher?
[03:46] <tgm4883> well I guess technically it isn't the launcher
[03:46] <imnichol> That's the thing: it doesn't have a launcher
[03:46] <tgm4883> yea
[03:47] <tgm4883> it's just the bottom of the lense?
[03:47] <imnichol> Looks that way
[03:47] <tgm4883> the bottom horizontal bar on the netflix slide
[03:47] <tgm4883> not exactly sure what to call that
[03:47] <imnichol> He calls it a lens
[03:47] <imnichol> https://plus.google.com/photos/107517157558649473024/albums/5681290039391072097/5681290098048169570
[03:47] <imnichol> That's picture 4 there, the description calls it a lens
[03:48] <imnichol> Can you do anything more than just filter files with a lens?
[03:48] <tgm4883> imnichol, I hope so, otherwise we are doomed :/
[03:49] <tgm4883> what happens when you search for music?
[03:49] <imnichol> Lemme check ;)
[03:49] <imnichol> It just brings up a list of songs and then below that a list of albums
[03:49] <tgm4883> :/
[03:49] <tgm4883> I'd like to see something like this http://xbmc.org/wp-content/gallery/aeon/aeon_info.jpg
[03:49] <imnichol> It would be really awesome if you could implement a netflix app in a lens
[03:50] <imnichol> What's the context of that picture?
[03:50] <imnichol> Is it just the description for a movie?
[03:50] <tgm4883> you hit info on a movie, it would bring up that screen
[03:51] <imnichol> Like, the user wanted to see what the movie was about so they clicked on the "info" button and that's what showed up?
[03:51] <imnichol> Oh ok great
[03:51] <tgm4883> you can then play trailer, see actor info, etc
[03:51] <imnichol> I've always interpreted lenses more like Libraries from Vista/7
[03:51] <imnichol> If you've ever used them
[03:51] <tgm4883> I've not
[03:51] <imnichol> Ok
[03:52] <imnichol> Huh, I"m gonna have to go look at lenses now
[03:52] <imnichol> See if they might not solve a lot of our problems
[03:52] <tgm4883> so there is one thing i'm worried about in this project
[03:52] <tgm4883> well, two things
[03:53] <tgm4883> 1) unity
[03:53] <imnichol> I think we're familiar with each other's views on that ;)
[03:53] <tgm4883> 2) as an extension of unity, wanting to be too different from other media centers
[03:53] <tgm4883> eg...
[03:53] <tgm4883> lenses show a bunch of files, and nobody likes file browsers for a media center
[03:54] <imnichol> Do you know if it's possible to run XBMC in a vm?
[03:54] <tgm4883> imnichol, I don't see why not
[03:54] <tgm4883> you might run into issues with video playback performance
[03:54] <imnichol> I just want to see the UI
[03:55] <tgm4883> imnichol, regarding the file listings of lenses, I'll take this over it any time  http://xbmc.org/wp-content/gallery/aeon/aeon_multiplextv.jpg
[03:55] <tgm4883> imnichol, http://xbmc.org/skins/
[03:55] <tgm4883> look though Aeon and Backrow skins
[03:55] <tgm4883> those are two of the fancier ones I link
[03:55] <tgm4883> like*
[03:56] <imnichol> While lenses could be a useful way to do things like netflix(I'm using it as an example because Ian S did), I think that just making an app for it is probably the more likely way to do it
[03:57] <tgm4883> so the one thing I'd like to see from that is making the app globally searchable
[03:58] <imnichol> So you go to the main dash and then type in a movie name and it finds it in netflix?
[03:58] <tgm4883> so if I'm on the main screen and search for "star wars" it returns netflix, my hard drive, amazon VOD, and upcoming HBO listings
[03:58] <tgm4883> yea
[03:58]  * tgm4883 is a slow typer on his netbook :/
[03:58] <imnichol> I doubt it would be too hard to do
[03:59] <imnichol> But who knows
[03:59] <tgm4883> right, I'm just not sure netflix would build that into their app if it wasn't a requirement
[04:00] <imnichol> Might be possible for the app to cache the list of available movies on the HDD or something
[04:00] <imnichol> But yeah, that's something they'll be doing
[04:01] <imnichol> We just have to give them a fertile field to sow their seeds
[04:02] <tgm4883> Well I think if there is a way to purchase things, that is incentive to build it in
[04:02] <tgm4883> not so much for netflix, but for Amazon VOD it would be
[04:02] <tgm4883> imnichol, have you used netflix on other devices (xbox/ps3/tv)?
[04:03] <imnichol> Used it about 5 seconds ago on a Blue-Ray player
[04:03] <tgm4883> imnichol, ok, so you know how that gets set up then
[04:03] <tgm4883> how you don't have to login
[04:03] <imnichol> Yeah
[04:03] <tgm4883> I think that is the way we need to connect a TV to U1
[04:04] <tgm4883> rather than having a login screen
[04:04] <imnichol> Can you elaborate?  I think I understand but I want to make sure
[04:04] <tgm4883> so the TV generates a code, then you go to ubuntuone.com/activate and insert the code from the TV
[04:04] <tgm4883> it then attaches it to your account
[04:05] <imnichol> Wouldn't that require buy-in from the TV manufacturers?
[04:05] <tgm4883> that way you don't  have to deal with an on screen keyboard
[04:05] <tgm4883> imnichol, no, it would be a feature of UbuntuTV (software)
[04:05] <imnichol> Ohhhh ok, the UTV, not the actual tv itself?
[04:05] <tgm4883> exactly
[04:06] <imnichol> Hm I think I'm with you
[04:06] <imnichol> Ok
[04:06] <imnichol> My housemate just explained it to me
[04:06] <tgm4883> I could see doing that with multiple U1 accounts as well for family's that share content
[04:07] <imnichol> That reminds me: I have an issue with accounts where I don't necessarily want my housemate to see what kind of movies I watch
[04:07] <tgm4883> hmm
[04:08] <imnichol> Or a better example: what if I have personal data on U1 that I don't want my housemates to see, how do we prevent that from getting accessed while still making U1 useful?
[04:08] <tgm4883> That does bring up an interesting point, how to "hide" content
[04:08] <tgm4883> imnichol, that sounds like a job for ACLs :/
[04:09] <imnichol> I'm wondering about using NFC/bluetooth to pair a UPhone/UTablet to a UTV that would allow my U1 content to be accessed, and then allow me to revoke that permission when I walk away from the TV
[04:10] <imnichol> But then that kind of creates a problem with U1 syncing files to the tv, does it just not sync until I try to access a file?
[04:10] <tgm4883> While in theory that would work, that is what LinuxMCE tried to do and after discussing it with them it didn't work too well
[04:10] <imnichol> Am I making sense?
[04:10] <tgm4883> even though bluetooth has a short range, it is still too far for that
[04:10] <imnichol> yeah
[04:11] <tgm4883> there are two sides to that
[04:11] <tgm4883> 1) sync always, which means your content is there when you aren't at the system/logged in
[04:11] <tgm4883> 2) sync when item selected, which means you are waiting for it to download a bit before you can watch
[04:12] <imnichol> Exactly
[04:12] <tgm4883> #1 is already in U1
[04:12] <tgm4883> #2 is how netflix does it
[04:12] <imnichol> #1 is less secure, unless we allow people to encrypt the fs
[04:13] <tgm4883> imnichol, true
[04:13] <imnichol> Since my housemates could just pull the hdd from the UTV, mount it, and then steal all the videos of me lip-synching Britney Spears ;)
[04:13] <tgm4883> imnichol, The issue is we can't complicate it too much.
[04:13] <imnichol> We're really ending up dealing with two different issues here:
[04:14] <imnichol> A.) Authentication
[04:14] <imnichol> B.) Security
[04:14] <tgm4883> Would a PIN suffice?
[04:14] <tgm4883> or do you want full authentication?
[04:14] <imnichol> It really depends
[04:15] <tgm4883> actually, that doesn't matter. This would work either way
[04:15] <tgm4883> what about this
[04:15] <tgm4883> In U1, you have ACL's for a folder and can set it as requiring a PIN/PASS for a specific UbuntuTV
[04:16] <tgm4883> that way, you could access it without a PIN in the TV in your room, but the TV in the family room requires a PIN for those folders
[04:19] <tgm4883> it's more setup, but only if you want to do that. There should be a default value you can set
[04:20] <dmj726> I like a lot of the mockup's style
[04:20] <dmj726> not convinced on the lack of multitasking
[04:20] <tgm4883> dmj726, is there a need for true multitasking?
[04:21] <tgm4883> dmj726, I'm assuming by multitasking, you are talking split screen stuff?
[04:21] <dmj726> In my experience, actually making multitasking integrate nicely makes things simpler.
[04:22] <tgm4883> I guess define multitasking, as it's still a computer and would have the ability to multitask
[04:22] <dmj726> tgm4883: Split screen might be nice later, but I think quick, switching and not having to restart an app all the time is a good thing
[04:23] <tgm4883> dmj726, well that goes into how much of a computer this is and how external apps are supported
[04:24] <tgm4883> at that extent, I've not heard many arguments either way
[04:24] <imnichol> FWIW, I use Unity in much the same way that I imagine people would us the UTV
[04:24] <imnichol> I have one application maximized at a time, and then use the launcher to switch between running apps
[04:24] <dmj726> I think it should have the full capabilities of a computer, though it should present them in a streamlined way
[04:25] <imnichol> So when you say "not having to restart an app", that's not really what happens anyway
[04:25] <tgm4883> I agree with imnichol, I don't see why we would be killing an app if we switch screens
[04:26] <tgm4883> that said, these are low powered systems, so we have to do something
[04:27] <dmj726> tgm4883: My thought, make it easy to see what applications are open, and quickly stop ones you don't need anymore
[04:27] <tgm4883> dmj726, yes, but what if I don't close any apps ever?
[04:27] <dmj726> also have a nice way for apps to know if they have focus, so developers can play nice
[04:28] <imnichol> Although, the raspberry pi costs like $35 and I guess it can do desktop unity at 1080p, so we could probably use more ram/a bigger cpu and get rid of a lot of the issues with apps being open
[04:28] <dmj726> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2fEATD7tHM
[04:29] <dmj726> Well, n900 can handle quite a lot and it's running a 2 year old single core chip
[04:29] <dmj726> Usually I like to keep it to 16 application windows or less to avoid clutter
[04:30] <imnichol> Maybe if the system runs out of memory it just closes the oldest app?
[04:30] <tgm4883> dmj726, it is truly multitasking? or is it pausing apps when not in focus
[04:30] <dmj726> truly multitasking
[04:30] <dmj726> some apps choose to pause out of consideration
[04:30] <mhall119> tgm4883: imnichol: regarding a Netflix lens, it would make more sense to add a Netflix scope to the Videos lens
[04:30] <tgm4883> so now we're again dealing with needing apps to be made for UbuntuTV?
[04:31] <mhall119> so that when you search for a video, it'll check your local files, Netflix, Hulu, YouTube, etc
[04:32] <tgm4883> mhall119, I'm guessing that is just another area it can search/
[04:32] <tgm4883> ?
[04:32] <tgm4883> ok
[04:32] <mhall119> yes
[04:32] <tgm4883> so we had the idea, just not the terminology
[04:32] <mhall119> but it would be better to have the lenses per-content type, not per-source
[04:32] <tgm4883> right, which is what we want
[04:32] <dmj726> tgm4883: Well we need to provide well-integrated applications for basic functions regardless of how we do it.  Making it easy for third-party applications to be run as well can only help us.
[04:32] <mhall119> the mockups you guys were talking about had it per-source
[04:33] <dmj726> Yeah, per content type makes sense
[04:33] <dmj726> though we should be able to filter it per source
[04:33] <imnichol> mhall119, I was talking per-source because that's the paradigm that Ian S was using, I'm in favor of whatever works best
[04:33] <mhall119> likewise NPR would feed the Music/Audio lense
[04:33] <tgm4883> mhall119, right, but we discussed searching for a video, and getting returns from multiple sources (and that is how my mockup is :) )
[04:33] <mhall119> tgm4883: ok, just wanted to clarify, thanks
[04:33] <tgm4883> mhall119, yep, we're on the same page
[04:41] <imnichol> I think that Netflix is going to have to be an application just because of the DRM issue
[04:42] <tgm4883> imnichol, I agree, but just because it's an app doesn't mean it can't show results in a lense right?
[04:44] <imnichol> Yeah but I was just reading that Netflix only shows results that correspond to the geographic location of the user
[04:45] <imnichol> So I think that it would require some "search time" for the UTV to contact the netflix servers and get back the data
[04:45] <imnichol> But that's not the end of the world
[04:46] <tgm4883> imnichol, yea I don't think there is an issue with search time. It could probably list results while still returning some
[08:49] <AlanBell> http://rewiredstate.org/events/social-tv-education
[15:15] <mhall119> repete: would you mind introducing yourself, so everybody knows you?
[15:15] <ogra_> there are people that dont know him ?
[15:15] <ogra_> :P
[15:17] <mhall119> well I didn't until recently, so probably
[15:20]  * ogra_ wasnt serious :)
[15:39] <daker> ogra_, i don't know him ツ
[15:39] <daker> or here
[16:11] <tgm4883> I think it's obvious. repete is the younger of the two brothers from the old show "The Adventures of Pete & Pete" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adventures_of_Pete_%26_Pete
[16:12] <repete> tgm4883, indeed :-)
[16:13] <repete> In addition, I'm a product manager in Canonical's Product Strategy group looking at (among other things) Ubuntu on the TV
[16:13] <repete> The level of interest in this channel is fantastic :-)
[16:14] <repete> An I'm excited to work on this particular category because it is something I looked at a few years ago
[16:14]  * tgm4883 marks down the known canoncial employees as 3
[16:15] <tgm4883> Actually I haven't seen WillCooke in awhile
[16:15] <repete> Please forgive me if I lurk.  I'm currently working toward a deadline (unrelated)
[16:15] <tgm4883> no worries
[16:52] <tgm4883> popey, can we get another etherpad?
[16:54] <popey> sure, just go to http://pad.ubuntu-uk.org/SomeName  where 'SomeName' is the page name, it will create one
[16:54] <popey> ^ tgm4883
[16:54] <tgm4883> sweet, thanks
[16:55] <popey> tgm4883: if you want a who's who, k aleo, kenvandine, m hall119, o gra_, myself, r epete, s laden work for canonical (split names to avoid highligting)
[16:56] <popey> sorry kenvandine ☺
[16:56] <kenvandine> popey, :)
[16:58] <tgm4883> So this is a few things (non-UI related) we've been discussing and my ideas. I think we should probably keep a list of issues and possible ways to fix them  http://pad.ubuntu-uk.org/UbuntuTV-Issues
[16:58] <tgm4883> feel free to add/edit that list
[16:58] <tgm4883> which is why it's on etherpad ;)
[16:58] <tgm4883> imnichol, I know we were discussing a bunch of that the other night ^
[16:59] <imnichol> Oh hey.  Yeah, we did discuss a lot of that
[17:00] <tgm4883> imnichol, yea, I figure we probably should be writing some of that down :)
[17:00] <imnichol> Yeah, much better than reading the logs every time I forget something
[17:00] <imnichol> Good call
[20:25] <mhall119> http://entertainment.slashdot.org/story/11/12/05/1912214/tv-isnt-broken-so-why-fix-it?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Slashdot%2Fslashdot+%28Slashdot%29
[20:27] <MrChrisDruif> I'm......not even gonna respond to that =P
[20:29] <AlanBell> sounds about right to me
[20:30] <AlanBell> the main thing driving TV features is the need to sell people new TVs
[20:34] <mhall119> I think the game-changer will be when we stop thinking in terms of channels and timeslots
[20:34] <mhall119> which my kids already have
[20:35] <mhall119> on our last vacation, they thought the hotels new flatscreen TV was old because it didn't have a pause and rewind option
[20:36] <mhall119> and they have no concept of their desired show being "not on right now'
[20:38] <MrChrisDruif> =)
[20:38] <MrChrisDruif> Great, kids these days. Same with digital camera's
[20:39] <MrChrisDruif> They don't get it when you come with an old analog camera...they want to see the results on the screen, but are greatly surprised when there isn't one
[20:45] <tgm4883> AlanBell, +1
[20:52] <AlanBell> MrChrisDruif: yeah, it is funny when they go running over to look at the picture on the back of the camera and it isn't there!
[20:52] <MrChrisDruif> ='P
[20:52] <mhall119> my first digital didn't have an LCD either
[20:53] <AlanBell> I remember in an airport in America we had to phone grandad to tell him what time we were landing, I gave my daughter the payphone handset and she started talking then decided to run over to mummy with it. She was astonished and furious that some idiot had tied the phone to the wall!
[20:54] <mhall119> lol
[20:54] <AlanBell> she had never seen a phone with a wire on it before
[20:54] <mhall119> pretty soon they won't know what to do with a non-touch UI either
[20:55] <MrChrisDruif> Haha
[20:55] <MrChrisDruif> Ring-dialer anyone? =D
[21:26] <dmj726> Well, I suspect that TV will feel very broken in retrospect if major improvements are made
[21:28] <dmj726> MrChrisDruif: I think some people have made ring dialer apps for touchscreen phones
[21:28] <mhall119> dmj726: exactly, if there's one thing that Apple proved, it's that the mp3 players and smartphones people didn't think were broken, actually were
[21:28] <dmj726> Yeah
[21:29] <MrChrisDruif> Haha, but their Apple TV didn't really catch on ;-)
[21:29] <dmj726> Hehe, means we have a chance
[21:32] <mhall119> their first Apple TV was just an set-top iTunes store
[21:34] <MrChrisDruif> Haha, but indeed
[21:37] <mhall119> IMO, if you're going to spend hundreds of dollars on a new set-top box, the content better be free
[21:38] <mhall119> or at least flat-rate like Netflix
[21:38] <mhall119> I don't mind the occasional pay-per-view or on-demand purchase, but the majority of the content should be free
[21:38] <mhall119> stuff like hulu and youtube
[21:39] <mhall119> if the box came with a year's subscription to Netflix, that would rock
[21:54] <tgm4883> I don't think it's coming with a year sub to netflix
[22:04] <mhall119> I guess it depends on whether we're targeting a consumer device, or something that'll be on the boxes given out by the network operators
[22:05] <mhall119> in other words, are we going to distribute this through BestBuy, Comcast, or Cisco?
[22:05] <mhall119> repete: ^^ your thoughts on that?
[22:06] <repete> mhall119, where does this discussion begin? :-)
[22:07] <mhall119> repete: wanting to know how content could be delivered through Ubuntu TV
[22:07] <repete> nm... reading the back chat
[22:08] <repete> well the question seems to be whether it would be free content or paid/subscription
[22:09] <repete> tbh, I'm not sure I know enough yet to say definitively but this is a complex market and the current players are threatened by anyone providing free content
[22:09] <dmj726> my suggestion: yes
[22:09] <AlanBell> repete: what do you want to do with Ubuntu on the TV?
[22:10] <repete> also, I think the fact that people are willing to either buy a DVD of a show or purchase a season pass on iTunes proves people don't mind paying for broadcast shows if they don't have to sit through adverts.
[22:11] <AlanBell> is this something the OEM team will be taking to TV manufacturers, or set top boxes, or is it a DIY thing that people will put on a homebrew media centre?
[22:12] <repete> AlanBell, it is too early to tell.  There is certainly a vibrant homebrew community as proven by Boxee and MythTV
[22:12] <repete> AlanBell, I would guess it will be a combination of both.  I don't see why not.
[22:12] <AlanBell> sure, but what is your product strategy for monetising this?
[22:13] <repete> AlanBell, we only announced this initiative a month ago and this isn't my only product. ;-)
[22:14] <repete> Don't mean to be rude guys, but I'm still scrambling to finish a presentation for a 9 am meeting tomorrow morning.
[22:15] <imnichol> Personally I'm not sure that UTV will survive if it's not sold in stores
[22:15] <imnichol> Who's going to write an app for a target market of a few thousand?
[22:16] <dmj726> I would suggest that this be installed by OEMs but where someone could easily install it if they wanted
[22:16] <repete> Parting question:  How can we provide a platform to easily consume web content (i.e. videos on Vimeo) without resorting to opening a web browser and without alienating the content owner who pays for that content through display ads?
[22:16] <repete> Free content isn't really free.  It has to be paid for somehow.
[22:16] <imnichol> Personally, if I buy a device, I expect it to be ad-free
[22:17] <imnichol> I pay money for the ability to not have ads
[22:17] <mhall119> repete: if we are targetting Cisco, then we don't need to worry about providing content, just a platform
[22:17] <mhall119> but finish your presentation first
[22:18] <AlanBell> if the content includes ads then the ads get played
[22:19] <AlanBell> the interesting things happen when someone wants to take action on an ad
[22:19] <mhall119> imnichol: I see UTV being like Android, in that it's the foundation for OEMs to build devices that are sold through network providers
[22:19] <dmj726> Hmm...honestly, this should be up to whoever is providing the content.
[22:19] <AlanBell> or if you want user-aware advertising
[22:19] <imnichol> mhall119, The problem with android is that IOS is killing them
[22:20] <mhall119> imnichol: no it's not
[22:20] <AlanBell> this video is being played by Alan, he bought new shoes last week, lets play him a sock advert
[22:20] <dmj726> So we can obviously provide some content avenues ourselves, with the ability for OEMs or the user to add additional outlets
[22:20] <imnichol> Because OEM manufacturers make Android suck
[22:20] <AlanBell> oh look some new socks, they would go well with my new shoes, <click>
[22:21] <AlanBell> socks arrive next day, content starts playing
[22:21] <imnichol> If UTV is going to not be the bottom-shelf option, Canonical is going to have to flex their muscle enough that OEMs leave it as stock
[22:22] <dmj726> We probably will need to impose some requirements on OEMs to brand something as an Ubuntu TV
[22:22] <AlanBell> so that kind of scenario matters a *lot* how the thing is distributed, whether it is an OEM platform or whether canonical wants a cut of advertising revenue
[22:22] <mhall119> dmj726: or at least make the branding so un-imposing and the sytling to nice that they want to leave it alone
[22:22] <imnichol> Personally I think that Canonical should just sell them directly in stores
[22:23] <mhall119> AlanBell: IMO, Canonical trying to get a cut of advertising is a bad idea
[22:23] <mhall119> Verizon dumped a lot of money to get a piece of that pie, and when I was working there I heard that they weren't projecting to break even for 20 years
[22:23] <dmj726> So an OEM could use the code base with big changes and do all new branding unrelated to Ubuntu or keep certain key aspects stock and brand it as UTV
[22:23] <AlanBell> mhall119: I think so too
[22:24] <imnichol> dmj726, That seems like the best option
[22:24] <mhall119> dmj726: even with all the rebranding done on Android devices, they still keep a consistent set of controls and visuals
[22:24] <dmj726> The most important component to keep stock is software center
[22:24] <dmj726> after that is Unity
[22:24] <mhall119> and since most of Unity's visual identity is based on functionality, I think a lot of that would stay
[22:25] <mhall119> right, software center will be big, but that's also what the networks will not want
[22:25] <dmj726> OEMs can add third party repositories and sources of content, but they a) can't remove any and b) can't restrict the user adding any
[22:25] <mhall119> I think it'll take an Apple tv product forcing them to accept a 3rd party app store
[22:26] <dmj726> mhall119: networks won't like it, but I don't see a point to Ubuntu devices if we lose that
[22:26] <mhall119> dmj726: agreed
[22:26] <AlanBell> so it makes a huge difference if this is an integrated TV thing, or a set top box in terms of who the "customer" is
[22:26] <dmj726> They can make a debranded device if they want to restrict repos
[22:26] <AlanBell> and as always the customer is not the person watching the TV
[22:26] <mhall119> I remember the run-up to the iPhone hearing about how hard it was for Apple to get AT&T to agree to not have total control over the app store
[22:27] <AlanBell> the customer is the OEM
[22:27] <mhall119> but with indicators and the launcher APIs, they won't be able to change much of the interface and still keep it a desirable target platform for developers
[22:27] <imnichol> Why won't networks like 3rd party repos?
[22:27] <mhall119> hulu
[22:28] <mhall119> netflix
[22:28] <mhall119> youtube
[22:28] <imnichol> Oh ok
[22:28] <imnichol> Content networks, not cable networks
[22:28] <mhall119> it's net neutrality all over again
[22:28] <AlanBell> it *could* be something disruptive like content providors bypassing the networks
[22:28] <mhall119> imnichol: cable networks get a share of advertising revenue from the content they deliver, not from Netflix, Youtube, etc
[22:28] <mhall119> AlanBell: when we get critical mass, that's what will happen
[22:29] <imnichol> So what are they going to do, not stream their channels?
[22:29] <AlanBell> mhall119: I mean it could be a set-top-box branded hulu/netflix/youtube
[22:29] <imnichol> Seems to me that our primary concern should be Netflix/Hulu creating their applications
[22:29] <dmj726> imnichol: not streaming will only lead to them becoming irrelevant
[22:29] <mhall119> the networks will become bandwidth providers only, not content providers
[22:30] <mhall119> content providers wouldn't make deals with network providers anymore
[22:30] <imnichol> mhall119, When you say "cable networks" do you mean Comcast/AT&T/etc?  Or NBC/ABC/CBS?
[22:30] <mhall119> which means the networks won't get add revenue, so expect your internet prices to go up
[22:30] <mhall119> imnichol: Comcast, AT&T, Brighthouse
[22:30] <imnichol> Oh ok
[22:30] <imnichol> ISPs
[22:30] <mhall119> yeah
[22:31] <mhall119> that's all they'll become too
[22:31] <imnichol> Thanks, that clarifies it
[22:31] <mhall119> which they don't want to happen
[22:31] <mhall119> they don't want to become a commodity service provider
[22:31] <dmj726> We won't be distributed as a "cable box" I don't think
[22:32] <mhall119> I think that's the easiest route, actually
[22:32] <AlanBell> hence my question
[22:32] <dmj726> We'll either be a set top box in stores or or integrated into TV sets
[22:32] <imnichol> Agreed
[22:32] <AlanBell> it *could* be something targetted at the old school networks to keep them in the game with competition from content providors
[22:33] <mhall119> AlanBell: it would, if we get enough content providers on board
[22:33] <mhall119> which brings us back to a year's subscription to Netflix if we're selling boxes in stores
[22:33] <mhall119> get Hulu pre-installed, stuff like that
[22:33] <dmj726> but those providers will want to lock it down, maybe make it *only* do cable tv
[22:33] <AlanBell> or it could be targetted at an OEM to help them sell more 50" TVs
[22:34] <dmj726> help sell 50" TVs
[22:34] <mhall119> dmj726: they'll want to, but like cell carriers, I think they will be forced to give that up
[22:35] <dmj726> Also, there are a significant number of people without cable or satellite subscriptions who don't want one
[22:35] <mhall119> dmj726: what would they have for broadband internet?
[22:35] <dmj726> they have internet, but not a TV subscription
[22:36] <imnichol> I'm one of them
[22:36] <mhall119> where do they get internet?
[22:36] <dmj726> same here
[22:36] <dmj726> usually a DSL provider
[22:36] <mhall119> are there any major DSL providers that aren't selling tv service now too?
[22:36] <dmj726> TV is either internet or over the air based
[22:36] <AlanBell> mhall119: there are here
[22:37] <imnichol> There are plenty of cable companies that just sell internet access
[22:37] <dmj726> well, ATT doesn't provide TV everywhere they provide internet
[22:37] <mhall119> yeah, I'm not sure how tv business works in the UK, since so much of yours is publically funded
[22:37] <dmj726> and I'd be loathe to tie UTV to a specific TV subscription offering
[22:38] <AlanBell> mhall119: the BBC just do a few channels, I have a sky dish and get loads of non-bbc channels with adverts as well as the BBC channels via sky
[22:38] <dmj726> now being able to get TV signals is one thing
[22:38] <AlanBell> I have fibre to the cabinet DSL broadband, but no TV through that
[22:38] <mhall119> I still think taking the Android route is a good idea, give OEM's a good platform with lots of developer buy-in, let them make cable boxes based on that, and sell them through the TV providers
[22:39] <AlanBell> some people have cable TV, but not masses here
[22:39] <mhall119> also we can have OEMs sell boxes directly to consumers
[22:39] <dmj726> I say, let TV providers be *one* source of UTV, but also get OEMs to put it inside TV sets and other set top boxes
[22:39] <AlanBell> can they be subsidised down to nothing by someone?
[22:39] <mhall119> maybe get to the point where AT&T is advertising that they offer Ubuntu TV boxes to their subscribers
[22:39] <imnichol> mhall119, what type of businesses do you mean when you say OEMs?
[22:39] <mhall119> AlanBell: could be
[22:40] <dmj726> personally, I would buy one direct
[22:40] <imnichol> Are we talking like HTC/Sanyo in the same way that they make cell phones?
[22:40] <mhall119> imnichol: I have Brighthouse for cable tv, they rent me a box made by Cisco
[22:40] <AlanBell> mhall119: so that is really my product strategy question, who do you want to pay for this so that the consumer doesn't think it is them
[22:41] <dmj726> So you might buy that new Samsung TV, which has UTV built in.
[22:41] <mhall119> AlanBell: I want the network operator to pay for it, and tack it on to the customer's bill
[22:41] <imnichol> mhall119, what country do you live in?
[22:41] <mhall119> USA
[22:41] <imnichol> Ok
[22:41] <AlanBell> ok, so like the "free" sky box I have
[22:42] <dmj726> I don't want that at all
[22:42] <mhall119> almost every Android phone here is subsidized by a 2 year contract with your network provider, Ubuntu TV boxes can be sold the same way
[22:42] <dmj726> "free" things never are
[22:42] <mhall119> nope
[22:42] <AlanBell> but on the plus side it can be Free
[22:42] <dmj726> that's why all the shit on android phones
[22:42] <imnichol> mhall119, the race to the bottom is never good
[22:43] <mhall119> but the cable operators might want to offer a line of different model boxes at different prices, like cell carriers do
[22:43] <imnichol> The problem with letting OEMs do whatever they want is you get the android effect: some no-name OEM makes their own special-snowflake GUI theme and then doesn't have the resources to correctly manage their changes...
[22:43] <dmj726> then people just get the cheap one with basic access and call UTV crap
[22:43] <imnichol> ...then you get cheap stuttery android phones
[22:44] <imnichol> I think dmj726 and I are arguing the same point
[22:44] <mhall119> imnichol: like I said, they'll have to leave the launcher and top-panel mostly as-is if they want application compatibility
[22:44] <imnichol> mhall119, Then what happens if the OEM decides to pull a CarrierIQ and throw a bunch of their own software on there?
[22:44] <imnichol> People see that, see the Ubuntu branding, and decide it's worthless and tacky
[22:44] <dmj726> Ubuntu should refuse use of their trademark unless specific conditions are met.
[22:45] <mhall119> imnichol: when I see people abandoning Android phones, then I'll worry about that
[22:45] <imnichol> Look at the overall marketshare of IOS/Android...
[22:45] <mhall119> some people are, sure, but not in mass
[22:46] <dmj726> Unity, Software Center, and complete control over application installation.
[22:46] <imnichol> I don't have a problem with OEMs using UTV as long as they aren't allowed to call it Ubuntu or anything
[22:46] <AlanBell> not really up to you though :)
[22:46] <dmj726> AlanBell: It's up to canonical
[22:46] <AlanBell> indeed
[22:46] <imnichol> I wish we had a Canonical employee here to answer that question
[22:47] <dmj726> yeah
[22:47] <dmj726> honestly, it's likely to be our biggest differentiator over the long run
[22:47] <mhall119> imnichol: I'm not sure Canonical has settled on an answer to that question yet
[22:47] <imnichol> Can you back it up or just a gut feeling?
[22:47] <mhall119> which is why this discussion is important, it'll help in the decision making
[22:48] <mhall119> imnichol: gut feeling, I'm not involved in that part of the company
[22:48] <imnichol> "back it up" = "are you in on some info"
[22:48] <imnichol> Ok
[22:48] <AlanBell> 22:13 < repete> AlanBell, we only announced this initiative a month ago and this isn't my only product. ;-)
[22:48] <mhall119> but from re-pete's responses so far, that's the impression I get
[22:48] <mhall119> AlanBell: and I went through all the trouble to avoid pinging him
[22:49] <mhall119> :P
[22:50] <mhall119> imnichol: you can probably think of us as the community side of the product stategy
[22:52] <mhall119> imnichol:  "Comscore says that as of August, 43.7 percent of U.S. smartphone subscribers had an Android device; 27.7 percent had an iPhone."
[22:53] <mhall119> http://news.cnet.com/8301-33200_3-57323943-290/ios-vs-android-lots-of-stats-little-clarity/
[22:54] <imnichol> The problem is that android is a commodity market with profit that's measured in pennies
[22:54] <mhall119> yup
[22:54] <imnichol> Whereas Apple doesn't have that problem with idevices
[22:54] <mhall119> less if you calculate patent blackmail
[22:55] <mhall119> but pennies per copy is still more than we're selling Ubuntu for
[22:55] <imnichol> And the fact that it's a commodity market is apprent to the people buying phones, not necessarily consciously, but unconsciously
[22:56] <imnichol> Sit a random consumer down and let them play with an iphone 4s and whatever the android devices of the moment is.  They'll tell you that the iphone is a better product
[22:57] <imnichol> And I think a lot of that has to do with OEMs who ship old versions of android
[23:00] <mhall119> possibly, and OEMs who make bad hardware too
[23:01] <mhall119> but the choice is get the most OEM buy-in, or try to muscle our way into the hardware market
[23:01] <imnichol> Reminder that a Raspberry Pi costs $35
[23:02] <mhall119> there's a lot more logistics behind being a hardware company than just the cost of components
[23:02] <imnichol> I see the hardware market as something that is going to be a lot easier to enter in the next year than it has been
[23:02] <imnichol> But I see what you're saying
[23:02] <imnichol> A good compromise between the two would be that Canonical allows OEMs to say it's a UTV if it meets minimum hardware/software requirements
[23:03] <mhall119> yeah, that might work
[23:03] <imnichol> It has to have a certain amount of ram/proc/hdd and run the latest versions of everything and blah blah blah technicalities
[23:04] <dmj726> if hardware is solid and it has Unity and software center unmodified it's good
[23:06] <MrChrisDruif> Are we still on the balance on set-top boxes or TV integration?
[23:06] <imnichol> We kind of drifted away from that but I feel like going back unless anyone else minds
[23:06] <mhall119> karate time, bbl
[23:07] <mhall119> MrChrisDruif: I'd say 90% set-top boxes
[23:07] <mhall119> they're easier to replace when a new model comes out
[23:07] <MrChrisDruif> New model? Of what? UTV?
[23:07] <mhall119> the box
[23:08] <mhall119> newer/faster processor, more ram, better graphics hardware
[23:08] <mhall119> upgrade the set-top box for $300-$500, or upgrade the 50" TV for $3000
[23:08] <MrChrisDruif> Haha, yeah..
[23:09] <dmj726> mhall119: I'd be fine either way
[23:09] <dmj726> To me it's more about the provider of the box than the shape of the box/TV combo
[23:10] <MrChrisDruif> In this consummation driven community around the world, people probably will want a new TV with new technologies
[23:12] <MrChrisDruif> Anyhow, that is all in HOW the TV will be designed
[23:12] <MrChrisDruif> If all the "working" bits are for instance in the bottom section, not hard to replace, then it can easily be integrated
[23:14] <MrChrisDruif> into the TV
[23:14] <dmj726> or if the TV can recieve firmware updates
[23:14] <MrChrisDruif> That can already happen ;-)
[23:14] <dmj726> so 3 year old TV can get new features by installing Ubuntu 17.10
[23:15] <MrChrisDruif> But I thought mhall119 was talking about new hardware to speed up etc...
[23:17] <dmj726> it could be both
[23:17] <dmj726> so your existing hardware is software upgradable
[23:17] <dmj726> but if you want say a TV set that can be made faster by a swappable box in the base, that's possible too
[23:20] <MrChrisDruif> I don't know if this is a good idea, but maybe a new standard, just like computer hardware, for upgrading purposes
[23:23] <dmj726> MrChrisDruif: yes, though I doubt we'll get this in the first iteration
[23:23] <MrChrisDruif> Yeah, one can dream, can't he? =)
[23:24] <MrChrisDruif> It's still in two years time, it's time to become the new Apple in a way
[23:26] <MrChrisDruif> "Nothing's on the telly" O_O
[23:31] <MrChrisDruif> I got excited by the idea thou O_O, standardized hardware for TV's