Ubuntu TV unveiled
pcpro.co.uk
pcpro.co.uk
Ubuntu's goal is the very oposite of that from the begining.
Any coder and keyboard-user can easily pick between an array of distros that will target just them, while Ubuntu set out to be "Linux for human beings" and this is just the approach they chose.
For instance, if you want to get to the calculator, I type calc. The first option is LibreOffice Calc. I have to either use the arrow keys or mouse to navigate to the calculator which is the second option. I know that If I type ca or cal, calculator is first, but I tend to type calc and it doesn't learn.
I also use VirtualBox. In gnome-do, I can start typing the name of my VM and I can launch it immediately. Using Super in Unity, I need to open VirtualBox first. Then start the VM through VirtualBox.
This is super annoying when you know what windows are open in which virtual desktop. I used to be able to switch to a virtual desktop and Alt+Tab quickly. Now, I need to cycle through all open applications and I'm screwed if there's more than one window open of that application. Lot's of wait time. Using the mouse isn't much better.
I've used Ubuntu since 7.10 and have loved it and recommended it up until Unity. Now I'm seriously thinking of switching. I've been hearing a lot about Linux Mint.
Opportunity cost. Canonical is a small company with limited resources. If they can achieve the holy grail of a common interface that works on the new emerging platforms, they can carve out a profitable market share.
After all, the Year of Linux on the Desktop is a ship that has sailed.
Unity isn't perfect, but the fact that Canonical are thinking long term and have an ambitious strategy should be commended.
Canonical can and should try to monetize Ubuntu the best it can. Tablets, TVs, and other 'thinner' clients seem to be the market trend, and I think that Canonical could stand to make some money here. Even a little is good.
It's possible to pursue a different form factor and still make a compelling desktop OS. If Canonical is able to grow, they can afford to spend more on building an across the board experience for all types of devices. Maybe they're slightly distracted from their original mission statement, and maybe this results in a slightly lessened desktop experience, but someone has to pay the bills. Maybe they'll even turn a profit. I'd certainly love to see them grow and flourish as a company. How awesome would it be to have Ubuntu-powered devices that run on optimized hardware and can sync, share, etc?
[1] http://installubuntu.net/linux-mint-diverts-banshee-revenue/
edit: Why the downvotes? I'd appreciate it if you let me know what I said wrong so that I can analyze and possibly correct.
Where I disagree here is that I don't see what Canonical's business model will be on consumer devices.
On the server/enterprise level it is easy, just charge for support services. If they provide a free open source solution for tablets for example , unless they are going to manufacture their own tablets they will not be getting any licensing money off the tablet manufacturers per tablet sold unless they distribute some of their software under a non-open license.
They might be able to make some money through Ubuntu one and selling file syncing and sharing through that but if the system is open enough then there is nothing stopping a tablet manufacturer building a tablet that comes with their own syncing solution rather than Canonical's.
They are unlikely to be able to strike good deals with major content providers without having to install DRM in their software and have signed software/hardware which would basically turn them into yet another proprietary vendor.
OT: how can you tell how many downvotes he has?
Having said that from these screen shots it doesn't look like a terrible interface.
Will this be a distribution you install on a PC then plug into your computer or will it come on a dedicated boxed device?
If it's the former than how is this much different from the hundreds of other Linux media distributions?
If they are going in this direction it really looks like they are moving away from being a Linux distribution company and towards being a more general consumer electronics company in the vein of Sony of Philips.
This release is fully inline with that type of strategy. Canonical gives manufacturers the software that's completely modifiable, with sensible defaults, and free. Then provides training and support at a cost to anyone that needs it.
I don't know, I guess I feel that most of the comparisons between the companies are based on a very superficial user interface standpoint. They are quite different, with quite different goals, quite different values and quite different products. But they do both have windows with rounded corners.
Who are they going to sell training and support to? I don't really think many people are going to be wanting to go a training course to operate their TV or smartphone.
How do they intend to make their money using this? The only way I can think is by making their own hardware or taking a cut from someone elses hardware.
Either that or doing movie purchase / rental which will probably mean DRM.
It doesn't have the same potential as the server market where there are 1000s of various size companies using Linux servers with different configurations.
If I was developing some software to be integrated into hardware devices I'd want either a license fee payed per month/year to use the software or I'd want a cut from each box sold.
The only way they could achieve this is by making their TV software proprietary.
In most of the cases to date the CE manufacturers have dictated the DRM (and video codecs) supported since it will usually be baked into the hardware video decoder in the SOC. Ubuntu will just support whatever the CE manufacturer decides to support.
* For pay-TV companies like Comcast and DirectTV, Ubuntu TV is the only next-generation set-top-box solution that is truly neutral from a competitive standpoint (it's not controlled by the likes of Google, Apple, Amazon, etc., and it's easily white-labeled and put completely under the control of the pay-TV company) -- and it's inexpensive and available today.
* Ubuntu TV is a vast improvement over existing pay-TV set-top-box software in use. Compare Ubuntu TV's UI at http://www.ubuntu.com/tv with, say, the UI currently offered by Comcast, the US's largest pay-TV company, at http://por-chr.cimcontent.net/ui/images/landing/tours/meetyo... . (Speaking from experience as a Comcast subscriber, the screenshots understate how much worse Comcast's existing software is -- it's awfully slow and often unresponsive.)
* Set-top-box manufacturers have no choice but to do whatever pay-TV companies want, because pay-TV companies control the last-mile connection to consumers. If a pay-TV company like Comcast wants wants Ubuntu TV with XFinity logos and blue colors, that's what the set-top-box manufacturers will install on Comcast boxes.
* Ubuntu TV is compatible with a wide range of commodity hardware, including many legacy set-top boxes.
Namely this youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=j...
We’re very pleased to collaborate with members of both communities.
Myth TV and XBMC are popular open-source TV projects, particularly in the Ubuntu community. We’re very pleased to collaborate with members of both communities, enhancing the quality of back-end code that is shared between projects.
Our focus is to bring a Unity front end to the TV, suitably adapted to the entertainment, lean-back experience of the living room, but there are plenty of areas where our needs intersect perfectly with those of other communities.
Any improvements or changes we make to either project are contributed back. And we welcome contributions from both communities." not really a comparison, but more will be know when code will be pushed to launchpad
> And we welcome contributions from both communities.
This is a dick move. Ubuntu are saying "we developed this new thing from scratch, and now it's up to everyone else to collaborate with us (although we didn't collaborate with them)"
I'll go back to debian. I like their philosophy, and it also helps ubuntu to help debian. So long, and thanks for the fish. And very franly, thank you Canonical for the 7 to 10 releases that helped us so much in a non profit to make people discover linux.
I just switched to Debian a month or so ago after I saw how their software center was pushing a bunch of proprietary software and earlier versions tricked me into installing the flash plugin. The fact that they're pushing DRMed content is just further confirmation of this trend. It's not a community I want to be part of anymore.
The flash player is installed by default because to many people a desktop system with no flash player will feel crippled.
At install time it asked me if I wanted to include some other packages that are "restricted", such as the mp3 codecs. Using the mp3 codecs as an example tricked me into thinking they were restricted for patent issues, not because of a restrictive license.
It's easy enough to remove flash player later anyway but it seems a sensible assumption that if you want MP3 and video codecs you probably want flash.
You (and Ubuntu) are conflating software licensing with patent licensing; they are very different things. Patent licensing is only an issue in certain countries with insane laws; software licensing is a problem regardless of jurisdiction.
• Lack of content (Apple and Amazon are in the process of fixing this, but Ubuntu won't have the weight to get Big Content on board)
• Linux hardware is a pain to hook up to HDTVs
• Unity interface is poorly suited for 10-ft interaction
• Existing players (Apple TV, XBox 360, Boxee, etc. -- even Google TV!) are more mature and have had time to strike content deals
In short, too little, too late. IMHO, they should concentrate in stopping the user bleed from their desktop distro.
What? Why? I've not seen a problem.
I would think this is oriented at device manufacturers. You would be surprised how many of them already use Linux in DVRs and media centers (e.g. our home DVR uses Linux, although it's not visible in any way).
- You don't think you can just run VLC and/or FFMpeg? Also this is for embedded systems on TV's most of them run hardware video decoders for the most popular codecs anyway.
Lack of content (Apple and Amazon are in the process of fixing this, but Ubuntu won't have the weight to get Big Content on board)
- Amazon could be a provider on this system. I doubt Ubuntu really wants to be doing content deals. Instead they want to be more of a Roku or boxee model and let content come to them.
Linux hardware is a pain to hook up to HDTVs
- Read the article again this is Ubuntu embedded into TVs no hookup necessary.
Unity interface is poorly suited for 10-ft interaction
- They seem to be addressing this.
Existing players (Apple TV, XBox 360, Boxee, etc. -- even Google TV!) are more mature and have had time to strike content deals
- This is really the only decent argument you've got.
So I see a need for something that's easy as pie to use with abundant features. But why not improve and contribute to existing projects?
You mention that the Unity interface is poorly suited for 10ft interaction - you couldn't be more right. Am I the only one left in the world without a cinema display? Just watch the interface demo over at Ubuntu to see how much it sucks. It helps to be able to read type on the screen for tux sake. It's so amateurish.
That's not to say that your list isn't surmountable, and that there isn't a better interface out there yet to be untapped.