We're looking for new hardware for the LINK, and I thought the results might be As we benchmark hardware for the v1.3 of the LINK, I thought some of you would be interested in the process. We have no special deal supporting any of the hardware shown, sponsorship or anything of the like. Of course, we'll get a discount from retail on any of the below, but there's no sweetener that skews the results beyond normal pricing considerations.

Mashable recently posted an article With Google TV Looming, Can the Boxee Box Prevail? It was almost rhetorical because Mashable clearly can't see how it will. I tend to agree with them, but I'll take it one step further. Why would we want dedicated hardware of any kind at this stage? Lets assume that Google TV will run on a PC as we've speculated. Let's further guess that the Google TV hardware will cost $200.

@browndamon : And the Nobel Prize in Futility Goes to... Makers of New Web-TV Boxes http://bit.ly/99NBra #bnet #webtv #litl #vudu #boxee #appletv #neuros

It's only natural that the above would be said, and there's no doubt that Google's entry into this space could, and hopefully will, change everything. This space, as we have often discussed, is in desperate need of a shakeup. Of course, Google's entry is no surprise and we posted on it first over two years ago. The question now is how well did we anticipate and position ourselves, and what should we change? Lets start with our current assessment:

It's a stopgap measure we've talked about previously but it does work today. While we wait for an agreement with Netflix, PlayOn can get you watching Netflix streaming today. Now its on sale for $20. From a recent newsletter from MediaMall:

Buy a lifetime PlayOn license now for only $19.99.

The subscription plan, launching on May 20th, will be $39.99 for the first year and $19.99 a year thereafter.

We've just released a practically silent Neuros LINK (codenamed "Phantom") and figured some of you would be interested in the process.

Of course, there are easier ways to create a silent computer, the easiest being a net-top solution, with an Atom processor or the like. We've decided not to go that route with the LINK simply because we didn't want to make the sacrifice on CPU horsepower. Sadly, as we all know, there are still plenty of web apps and inefficient video streams that require CPU cycles. Instead, we architected a full power PC to be silent (or silent to an excellent approximation anyway) Click more to see what it took, or if you just want to buy, go here: we're good with that too. BTW, geardiary posted a review and some pictures

It's been rumored for years but now it does appear closer at least as discussed in the NY Times. What does Google's presumed entry into this space mean for consumers? For the LINK? For the OSD3? Will Google be able to open the TV? How open will it be? Post your thoughts on what it means.

If you haven't seen the new Boxee bookmarking feature, check it out. Its a very simple, elegant feature. You see a video at work, it gets forwarded to you, whatever, you bookmark it and it appears on your queue at home (on your TV if you use the LINK with Boxee). I'm really struggling with how to add text to this blog post since the thing is so damn simple, but it just looks funny to have a two sentence blog post. Maybe I should have just tweeted this, but I'm curious about the trackback feature so I wanted to post it here.

Fernando sent the below message to the Neuros list, and its just another reason why an x86 (with a powerful CPU) continues to make sense for the LINK.  Until the world becomes more standards based, as a manufacturer, we'll continue to need to be flexible to keep our customers from having to deal with these headaches.  That means x86 and having enough space CPU cycles to be able to deal with some inefficiencies in the system.

The FCC is in the process of developing a National Broadband Plan Please check out the site and make your voice heard. Here are some of my thoughts off the bat:

1. I would give a kidney to testify at the upcoming field event the FCC is having on the new National Broadband Plan. Our business is in making innovative, open set-top boxes. We are arguably the only open set-top box maker in the US. If my testimony is not of interest to them given their consideration home gateways and open set-top boxes, well, then its something of a farce. I'll be there on Monday if any of you know anyone involved with this, please pass them along to me.

2. The open gateway they talk about is really a no brainer to me. There is a direct parallel to the 1968 Carterfone decision which allowed the direct connection of 3rd party devices to the AT&T network. It looks comical in retrospect to think it was ever controversial, because it gave rise to fax machines, and most importantly modems, leading in a pretty obvious way to the modern consumer adoption of the Internet. It's very clear to me that something very similar can happen with net connected TVs (but only if its done in an open way that allows the next wave of small innovators to participate).

3. CableCard is a farce and probably unfixable. No small company (or innovator of any kind) can get approved for cablecard, and even if they could, the devices are hamstrung and made needlessly handicapped by the MSOs who won't allow pay per view and other "special content" to be available. The goal of protecting content is probably best served by a compromise like a individual watermark rather than DRM.

Neuros has long spoken about digital rights and their important roll in innovation. They are rights that have long been under siege from big media. Google, however, has long been a company that we, as Internet users, have invested a great deal of trust in. It's very disappointing, and even more scary to me, to see them, through YouTube, come down on the side of a more proprietary, restricted Internet. Recently they started excluding certain device manufacturers from displaying videos add this to the recent move to give partners more ways to block viewing. These actions are almost certain to stymie innovation and freedom of communication in variety of ways. We can imagine many of those ways, but the saddest of all are the ways we can't imagine which will never be realized because they were blocked from ever seeing the light of day.

Open standards are a practical necessity for innovation. If Google, or anyone else, is picking the winners and losers up front, we can be certain that precious clever ideas will be lost before they ever get a chance to grow, morph and become the next big thing. No one should know this better than the folks at Google and YouTube who once took some of the most unlikely ideas and made them central to our lives. Imagine if Microsoft, IBM or any other entity had been able to act as gatekeeper at the inception of Google and YouTube. I think just about anyone can imagine those services would never have gotten to market. There's nothing whatsoever wrong with Google profiting from YouTube, and we welcome their experimentation in a variety of means to do that, but they need to do so in an open, non discriminatory way that allows small and big entities alike to experiment and innovate.

It goes without saying that I want to see our own Neuros products get a chance at the market, but as an interested citizen I also want to see Boxee, Miro, Moovida and a host of other innovative services, applications and devices make it to market. I want to see a world where we go from being passive consumers of content to active participants in adding our voices to the news of the day. Google needs to quickly decide if they are to be a force that helps accelerate that or impedes it.