Breaking News
News & Analysis

Collateral damage from Intel’s DTV decision

10/13/2011 07:39 PM EDT
13 comments
NO RATINGS
More Related Links
View Comments: Oldest First | Newest First | Threaded View
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
Bert22306
User Rank
CEO
re: Collateral damage from Intel’s DTV decision
Bert22306   10/13/2011 8:25:31 PM
NO RATINGS
I'm as baffled by this news as I was about the hoopla surrounding GoogleTV. None of it makes any sense to me. Everyone knows, by now, that a machine with an IP stack and web browser can be used to watch and listen to streaming content from the Internet. There is no need to pretend that a special or different box is needed for this to work on a TV set or to watch content meant for TV. It's simply not true. At best, maybe some slightly tweaked search engines can help, but even that is far from being mandatory. The other aspect of this is, and it ain't just me saying so, go ask those who rely on their TV content from sources OTHER THAN satellite or cable. Like me, for instance. What you will no doubt discover is that the Internet, terrestrial DTV, and DVDs, are the most common sources these folk use. Combined, that is. So to dismiss the importance of the terrestrial tuner, as part of that equation, is simply foolish. The Intel part I use for my setup is the CPU of the PC. Intel has been makiung those for a very long time. I doubt they want to get out of that business. So honestly, I don't know what the rukus is about.

Bert22306
User Rank
CEO
re: Collateral damage from Intel’s DTV decision
Bert22306   10/13/2011 9:47:18 PM
NO RATINGS
And another thing. The "connected TVs" I have seen so far, not to mention "connected" BluRay players, are very compromised. It should not come as a surprise that the feature isn't popular, or sometimes never even used. If the TV-oriented SoC solutions did not provide, at least, a thin client function, but instead some abbreviated Internet access, then I suggest this would turn off a huge portion of Internet-savvy consumers. As far as I'm concerned, TV manufacturers can do what I did, but more integrated, all contained in the TV, and at much lower cost than having a separate PC. For that, any deliberately crippled TV SoC solution is probably not the answer anyway.

old account Frank Eory
User Rank
Rookie
re: Collateral damage from Intel’s DTV decision
old account Frank Eory   10/13/2011 10:05:15 PM
NO RATINGS
I'm not surprised at all by this. DTV SoCs are very price-sensitive, and the integrated PHY becomes problematic. Do you make an SoC with a 8VSB/QAM PHY for the U.S. TV market? Do you make one with a DVB-T/DVB-C PHY for the European market? What about China and their unique cable & terrestrial PHYs? And satellite PHYs are an altogether different animal. I don't think Intel or anyone else could afford to include a "universal PHY" in any of these SoCs -- the added cost would take too much away from what are already thin margins. But they have all this IP in media processors, decoders for every flavor of digital audio & video, so why not make an SoC based on that? Replace all those unique market-specific PHYs with a gigabit Ethernet interface and go sell it to the IP set-top box and IP gateway guys. This is not a new idea or strategy, except maybe at Intel. I just wonder what will happen to the Libit engineers who were bought by TI and then by Intel. Once upon a time, they had some cable modem business, before Broadcom cornered the market on that piece of silicon. That's some great digital comms engineering talent that is going to get re-purposed.

junko.yoshida
User Rank
Blogger
re: Collateral damage from Intel’s DTV decision
junko.yoshida   10/13/2011 10:10:25 PM
NO RATINGS
Good point. Actually that was exactly the reason why I asked Intel what happens to the cable modem technology Intel acquired from TI. Intel says that it belongs to this gateway business category, and “will be part of the expanded charter of the Netbook and Tablet Group under Doug Davis."

old account Frank Eory
User Rank
Rookie
re: Collateral damage from Intel’s DTV decision
old account Frank Eory   10/13/2011 10:17:46 PM
NO RATINGS
Well at least they didn't say "we don't know yet," even though that might be a more truthful answer :)

top-shoppingmall
User Rank
Rookie
re: Collateral damage from Intel’s DTV decision
top-shoppingmall   10/14/2011 1:29:03 AM
NO RATINGS
Nice post! I just wonder what will happen to the Libit engineers who were bought by TI and then by Intel. Once upon a time, they had some cable modem business, before Broadcom cornered the market on that piece of silicon. more info at: http://news.top-shoppingmall.com/

agk
User Rank
Rookie
re: Collateral damage from Intel’s DTV decision
agk   10/14/2011 5:07:22 AM
NO RATINGS
All these days i heard news of Intel buying and expanding. It is hard to see that they are closing a division.But sooner or later when the DTV market picks up due to some new king of invention with a great deamnd which will be more than the demand for CPU's what Intel will do? I feel that they could have kept this division and fine tune it with minimum expenditure.

US Made
User Rank
Rookie
re: Collateral damage from Intel’s DTV decision
US Made   10/14/2011 5:30:20 PM
NO RATINGS
Better luck next time on consumer electronics. Level One Infenion Digital TV Cable Modem .. Look at the IDF presentation, all about laptop, transistor, security, and power. Consumer electronics is not even in the radar....Wait till TVs start browsing web pages. ARM will expand all its dominace

goafrit
User Rank
Manager
re: Collateral damage from Intel’s DTV decision
goafrit   10/14/2011 6:12:28 PM
NO RATINGS
Good point. Intel seems not to think long term. There seems to be no internal innovation process. They are buying all the world and they are also want to sell. If they do not have a coherent plan, they will miss opportunities. They need to have a real plan, not buy and sale hack strategy, hoping one will work.

Bert22306
User Rank
CEO
re: Collateral damage from Intel’s DTV decision
Bert22306   10/14/2011 7:36:29 PM
NO RATINGS
Agreed! That's what the CE industry should have been doing all along, when they started to introduce Internet connected BluRay players and TVs. Whether built into TVs, or provided via a STB like a BluRay player, for some reason, the CE types preferred to give users a very limited experience. For instance, only a handful of web sites are accessible. But it's too late for that. Consumers have become too Internet savvy to be blown away by such limited options, is my contention.

Page 1 / 2   >   >>
Flash Poll
Radio
LATEST ARCHIVED BROADCAST
Join our online Radio Show on Friday 11th July starting at 2:00pm Eastern, when EETimes editor of all things fun and interesting, Max Maxfield, and embedded systems expert, Jack Ganssle, will debate as to just what is, and is not, and embedded system.
Like Us on Facebook

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed
Top Comments of the Week