<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Do you really want the internet on your TV?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://gonedigital.net/2011/01/13/do-you-really-want-the-internet-on-your-tv/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://gonedigital.net/2011/01/13/do-you-really-want-the-internet-on-your-tv/</link>
	<description>Nigel Whitfield’s digital TV &#38; technology blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 May 2012 16:23:54 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nigel</title>
		<link>http://gonedigital.net/2011/01/13/do-you-really-want-the-internet-on-your-tv/comment-page-1/#comment-3288</link>
		<dc:creator>Nigel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Jan 2011 16:09:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gonedigital.net/?p=893#comment-3288</guid>
		<description>I&#039;ve played with a couple of TVs that had full web browsing, and it was a pretty dispiriting experience, with things like CSS-based site menus not working properly, and embedded multimedia not available; it&#039;s just the sort of thing that I think will make people give up and feel disappointed, just like WAP and other early attempts at the internet on the phone did.
Technology on the web tends to advance quite quickly in some areas, and even a browser that works with all the main sites now probably wouldn&#039;t in just a couple of years, not to mention that full rendering of complex pages means beefing up the processing power in TVs beyond what&#039;s really needed for everything else.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve played with a couple of TVs that had full web browsing, and it was a pretty dispiriting experience, with things like CSS-based site menus not working properly, and embedded multimedia not available; it&#8217;s just the sort of thing that I think will make people give up and feel disappointed, just like WAP and other early attempts at the internet on the phone did.<br />
Technology on the web tends to advance quite quickly in some areas, and even a browser that works with all the main sites now probably wouldn&#8217;t in just a couple of years, not to mention that full rendering of complex pages means beefing up the processing power in TVs beyond what&#8217;s really needed for everything else.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bob_</title>
		<link>http://gonedigital.net/2011/01/13/do-you-really-want-the-internet-on-your-tv/comment-page-1/#comment-3287</link>
		<dc:creator>Bob_</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Jan 2011 16:04:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gonedigital.net/?p=893#comment-3287</guid>
		<description>I think that you can bring the benefits of a connected device to as many people as possible but you certainly don&#039;t want to be browsing the web on TV. Manufacturers can take advantage of connectivity to bring more content and choice into the home but you don&#039;t need to make it complicated.

In my fortunate position I have been using a product with experimental portal for some weeks now and it is a great little addition but I certainly wouldn&#039;t say that it has revolutionised my watching of TV. I use the home networking/DLNA more than the portal web services for certain. None of these features requires a great leap of technological understanding (beyond perhaps the sometimes challenging first connection) and I am confident that most homes could figure out how to connect their TV device to their home broadband. 

But I think you have to keep the offering simple and despite what some of the minority plead for no manufacturer should offer open web browsing without first seriously considering the consequences for support and confusion.

Regards,

Bob @ Humax</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think that you can bring the benefits of a connected device to as many people as possible but you certainly don&#8217;t want to be browsing the web on TV. Manufacturers can take advantage of connectivity to bring more content and choice into the home but you don&#8217;t need to make it complicated.</p>
<p>In my fortunate position I have been using a product with experimental portal for some weeks now and it is a great little addition but I certainly wouldn&#8217;t say that it has revolutionised my watching of TV. I use the home networking/DLNA more than the portal web services for certain. None of these features requires a great leap of technological understanding (beyond perhaps the sometimes challenging first connection) and I am confident that most homes could figure out how to connect their TV device to their home broadband. </p>
<p>But I think you have to keep the offering simple and despite what some of the minority plead for no manufacturer should offer open web browsing without first seriously considering the consequences for support and confusion.</p>
<p>Regards,</p>
<p>Bob @ Humax</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bill</title>
		<link>http://gonedigital.net/2011/01/13/do-you-really-want-the-internet-on-your-tv/comment-page-1/#comment-3281</link>
		<dc:creator>Bill</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Jan 2011 18:57:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gonedigital.net/?p=893#comment-3281</guid>
		<description>This is the classic  high tech marketing mistake. Product marketeers want to talk about the great features they have built. Customers are only interested in the benefits the features bring.
As you say, the new TVs come with the ability to watch those programmes we missed and to rent movies without the trek to Blockbuster. All without a separate box and satellite or cable subscription. It just needs plugging into your broadband.
Internet TV? nah. Good job it didn&#039;t happen a few years ago or it would have been called e-telly.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is the classic  high tech marketing mistake. Product marketeers want to talk about the great features they have built. Customers are only interested in the benefits the features bring.<br />
As you say, the new TVs come with the ability to watch those programmes we missed and to rent movies without the trek to Blockbuster. All without a separate box and satellite or cable subscription. It just needs plugging into your broadband.<br />
Internet TV? nah. Good job it didn&#8217;t happen a few years ago or it would have been called e-telly.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: D Palk</title>
		<link>http://gonedigital.net/2011/01/13/do-you-really-want-the-internet-on-your-tv/comment-page-1/#comment-3279</link>
		<dc:creator>D Palk</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Jan 2011 17:41:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gonedigital.net/?p=893#comment-3279</guid>
		<description>You are so right, Nigel.  
There may be something I&#039;d use the Internet-TV connection for, but it won&#039;t make me go out and buy a new TV.  As a long-time cabled household, I have a Virgin broadband and TV package, but mostly I prefer to use my Toppy for catch-up TV rather than the Virgin offer.  Possibly because I&#039;m in charge, possibly because it will still be there if I don&#039;t get round to it quickly, but mostly, I think,  because it just feels right that way.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You are so right, Nigel.<br />
There may be something I&#8217;d use the Internet-TV connection for, but it won&#8217;t make me go out and buy a new TV.  As a long-time cabled household, I have a Virgin broadband and TV package, but mostly I prefer to use my Toppy for catch-up TV rather than the Virgin offer.  Possibly because I&#8217;m in charge, possibly because it will still be there if I don&#8217;t get round to it quickly, but mostly, I think,  because it just feels right that way.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

