On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 12:34 PM, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com> wrote: > On 2/28/2012 11:27 AM, Glenn Adams wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>wrote: > >> The issue has been with JS implementations, not hardware. >> > > I beg to differ. In the case of TVs (as oposed to STBs or HPs), the > amount of RAM and CPU capacities available for JS implementations are > significantly less (sometimes orders of magnitude). The traditional focus > on absolute minimization of BoM (bill of materials) cost continues to > produce a performance barrier for most TVs. Sure, more capacity could be > added until it becomes merely a JS/VM implementation issue, but that has > not happened in general in this device class. > > Give me some numbers, and I'll do what I can to benchmark. > I will inquire, but this information may not be disclosable. If it's a "smart TV" with a JS engine on it, then it ought to have enough > power to grab an ArrayBuffer via XHR and push it into the media element, > otherwise, it just doesn't have enough juice to run what the web considers > HTML5. > No SmartTV that I'm aware of is close to full HTML5 support; however, support for A/V playback via <object/> plus browser supplied (builtin) plugins or via <video/>/<audio/> (support for which is being added gradually). I'm not sure what is meant by "what the web considers HTML5" but in general, (current generation) SmartTVs do not try to support browsing the web at large. Rather, they support specific walled garden content that has been specifically tested against the device. > If this is about making the Nintendo Wii+opera the baseline of > performance, we can do that. I need something tangible to work with. > Current SmartTVs are much less capable than Nintendo Wii in hardware terms (RAM, CPU, GPU).
Received on Tuesday, 28 February 2012 19:46:55 UTC