[rjharary]

This thread shows that there is interest in sling for bb devices, I really want this to happen. What it also shows is the need for blackberry to move on to hsdpa and umts.

[Galvatron]

Yeeah way past due for sreaming that I think is a big factor an selling point for handsets right now I se vorizen an sprint selling more unts via samsuan an motercrapa because ther handsets suport streaming media

[theyommer]

I can't wait for some start people to enable my Pearl to stream my Slingbox. That would truly be the bleeding edge for me.

[Galvatron]

Hmm I think the prblem is getting the codcs to run via java and widden the bottle neck on the stream and you need an Nvidia GPU behind the lcd

[dabull]

you dont need a slingbox to watch live tv on a windows mobile phone.

MyCast your digital media with Orb 2.0 remote pc access software

its free, it allows you to access ALL media on your pc, including streaming live tv straight from your tv card right to your phone. i just wish orb would hook up support for the pearl and other blackberry devices.

[Galvatron]

Cept black berrys don't run windows moble an it can be hacke to shred an infected did you know yoiu can cause a windows mobile device to crash via mms? You can even read about it on astalavista

[theyommer]

It's quiet here. That doesn' bode well for us waiting to sling on the pearl...
All you smart people out there ---- speak up and offer some words of wisdom.

[ARHYTHMATIK]

read this:

BlackBerryCool

we may be in luck!

[Hitek146]

You guys are missing the point... The fact that there is no support for the BB is a perfect example of the very WORST feature of the Slingbox: The fact that it's data stream is PROPRIETARY... This is a terrible thing, and for us Linux folks, it's downright disgusting. Had the Slingbox people used standard streaming codecs, we would have been able to watch a Slingbox(had it existed at the time) on a BB years ago. I haven't looked in a few years, but even then there were several J2ME streaming video client applications that would receive a *standard* video stream just fine, and I actually used a few on my old Samsung N400 cell phone...

In reality, if you were to use some other(standard) method to stream your video, such as Media Encoder for Windows or VideoLan for Linux(both free), you could probably watch live video on your BB right now if you select a good J2ME client. One could then use VNC or a browser to change channels, etc....

Just FYI...

[CarlGalgano]

Well maybe you are the one missing the point. Sling sells the WM5 player. I think it is about $20 a license. Using a "standard" would prevent their ability to sell the viewer to WM5 and other platforms. While I like free stuff as much as everyone else, sling is a business and in business to make a profit.

[Hitek146]

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but, as has been discussed by others in the past in the BB modem for Macintosh thread, why would anyone want to pursue a solution that requires licensing and costs money, when one could instead promote free and open-source solutions? You are correct, the intention of the Sling people is to make money, and, conversely, it should be the consumers intention to save money...

It's actually an age-old controversy. Example:

First company makes product "X", second company makes product "Y". Both companies products are made to work with a group of other products, called Widgets "A", "B", and "C".
(in this example, X and Y could be slingbox-type devices, and A, B, and C their potential clients)

First company makes product "X", and uses a proprietary format, and this format is licensed, and required for operation of the product. To use product "X" with Widgets "A", "B", or "C", you must pay for a license for that particular Widget. One or more licenses for use with one or more Widgets *may* be included in the cost of the initial hardware purchase.

Second company makes product "Y" and uses industry-standard formats. To use product "Y" with Widgets "A", "B", or "C", one could use any compatible standard solution, without requiring any license or additional expense. One or more solutions may be included with the initial hardware purchase.

First company includes a license for Widget "A", and allows a license for Widget "B" to be purchased at an additional expense, if desired. A license for Widget "C" is not available.

Second company already has many freely available solutions for all three Widgets. If one did not exist, anyone would be free to develop one free of charge.

First company sells many products to owners of Widget "A", and some units to owners of Widget "B", and no products to owners of Widget "C".

Second company sells many products to owners of all three Widgets.

First company made less profits on hardware, but compensated for this by the additional income generated from the sale of licenses to owners of Widget "B". Owners of Widget "C" are out of luck.

Second company made no money from licensing, but experienced increased profits from the sale of more hardware to the owners of all three Widgets.

At this point, profits for both companies probably average about evenly, but owners of Widget "C"(and D, E, F, etc...) are being taken care of by the second company, while product "X" is of absolutely no use to anyone other than the owners of Widgets "A" and "B".

If the first company goes out of business or discontinues their product, there may never be support for future Widgets "G", "H", and "I", even if people paid for the non-existing license for such Widgets. If the second company disappears, or it's product is discontinued, Widget support could still go on indefinitely, possibly for decades.

Both companies made their profit, one by selling more hardware, and the other by selling more software. Consumers, however, would much more greatly benefit themselves by owning product "Y" than they would owning product "X". The first company has made about as much money as the second company, but the first company has taken a great deal of flexibility away from the consumer, while the second company has given their consumers so much more...

Tactics such as these(putting factors into place that ensure that users cannot use any competitors products in the future) is what has landed Microsoft in court so many times. While many arguments can be made on both sides, no one can argue the fact that the first company has done nothing to help it's consumers, only themselves, while the second company has helped both themselves, and the consumer...

Which would you prefer???

</soapbox>

[CarlGalgano]

Companies have a responsibility to shareholders to maximize profits. Plain and simple. There are many business models that can be used to achieve that goal. I have no problem with Sling selling their technology and not giving it away. If the open source model is so good, why dont all software companies use it? You site microsoft, and its well publisized legal issues, however I am sure MS just considers this part of the cost of doing business. Their profits over the years prove that their business model must work. Do you think they could have made more money by doing it a different way? Trust me, I loath MS for the most part, but MS stock has been a good one to own over the years.

I am not trying to be argumentative either, this is a healthy discussion, that is not personal, and I am not taking it as such.

If the open source model is so good, where is the competition to sling?

[Hitek146]

I understand why a company might consider such a ploy. I don't understand, however, how the well educated consumer could fall for such a ploy. For a company to choose this business model is akin to an insult, to me. It's like the company is saying, "With enough marketing, the consumer will fall for our scheme, even though there really is a better way, from the consumer's point of view"....

There are quite a few competitors to the Slingbox, they are just not as widely known, due to their lack of marketing, in light of Slingbox's heavy marketing. It reminds me of the original Spiderman movie. Sold tons of tickets to tons of people that would have otherwise never seen the movie, simply because they marketed the hell out of it. The studios cared more about how much money they made, rather than whether their products was quality or not, so long as they made their profits. Many people left the theaters feeling disappointed, but, hey, the studios got their money. You are correct, profits are more important than a better performing product, and that is a shame. Even more of a shame, is the fact that people hear the ads, follow the hype, and "bite", without doing diligent research about competing products before buying. It is this sort of uneducated consumer behaviour that allows companies to sell more products based on marketing rather than performance/compatibility.

It actually speaks less of the consumer than it does of the company, but the result is the same: The company made their money, and whether or not they left behind a quality and "useful and flexible as possible" product as a legacy just doesn't matter. It's sad, really...

Would you buy a car that the manufacturer modified to absolutely prevent you from replacing the stereo with any other unit that you didn't buy from the manufacturer? Would you buy a home DVD recorder that would *only* let you view the created DVDs on players licensed by the manufacturer of your own DVD recorder? Would you buy a digital camera that only took pictures in an encrypted format that could only be viewed on a licensed viewer, which costs extra and is only available for one or two platforms? Of course not, you would buy a camera that takes JPEGs...

What would you say of a company that made digital cameras that took only proprietary photos? You would likely call them looney, as no one in their right mind would buy their product. Now assume that there are other cameras on the market that will take industry standard photos that can be viewed on any viewer, anywhere, but they are just not widely marketed and known about. The proprietary-format camera company could hype the hell out of their product, and probably sell many units, simply due to the fact that many uneducated consumers didn't know about the alternatives. In this example, one would expect the purchasers of the proprietary camera to be quite disappointed/upset when they discover there were better options for their purchase at the time, they were just duped into buying the less flexible product simply due to greater marketing. I, personally, don't like companies that profit from the ignorance of the consumer(although they all do, to some extent), so I always do my research, and avoid such companies at all costs, always seeking the choice with more freedom and flexibility instead of jumping at the first bait in the water. Choosing a proprietary product is akin to painting yourself into a corner. Sure, you got the floor painted, but now you've got almost no freedom to move. Careful planning could still have gotten the floor painted with more resulting freedom, but it required more thought and planning before hand, something that alot of people are unwilling to do.

There are several products that can, to some degree, become a better replacement to the Slingbox for streaming video, depending on your needs. Again, it would require research to get the best product for each individual, rather than a quick trip to the local store to pick up a Slingbox.

I watch my satellite over my network using my Dreambox, which allows me to view High Definition and all through a browser, while being able to remotely control every aspect of the receiver through the internet/network. I stream standard television/external video with a $30 TV card in one of my PCs, running free software in the background that does the same thing the Slingbox does, and anyone with a web browser on any type client can view the television with no special software(don't people understand by now, that installing *another* separate program for everything you want to do is bad?) needing to be installed. If one didn't need a built-in TV tuner, QUAD channel network DVRs can be purchased for about $200US that can stream *four* simultaneous video streams in MPEG4 over a network/internet to a standard browser. The Sony LocationFree TV box does exactly what the Slingbox does, but actually outputs industry-standard MPEG2 or MPEG4 streams. There are also several other nameless boxes that do what the Sony and Slingbox do, I just don't recall their names, off hand...

It just requires research, which, again, is something many people are unwilling to do. This, unfortunately, is partially what leads to the over marketing of such devices, in that every person that buys one of these, not knowing alternatives exist, takes it home and it works. Themselves not knowing that there actually was a better product, proceeds to log into your local forum, posting widely about their newly discovered product that could do something that nothing *they* had ever heard of could do before. Other people read their post, and the cycle then repeats, snowballing, to some effect. Hopefully, someone that knows better sees their thread, and steps in to inform, before the snowball gets too big...

To conclude, I ask again: Would you buy a digital camera or DVD recorder that couldn't be viewed freely anywhere without having to install special software? I think not....

Your turn!

[ARHYTHMATIK]

Business models aside, I haven't found a product that allows me to access my TiVo via my phone except Slingbox. Yes, there are other options to stream live TV, but none of them compare to utilizing your TiVo while on the go. If there is a product out there that can do this, I would be more than happy to investigate it and possibly give it a try.

(According to the research I did before purchasing a Slingbox, there isn't, but I could be wrong.)

[Hitek146]

Actually, all of the alternative methods I listed above should allow you to view your TiVo on you phone...

Edit: By phone, are you referring to a Blackberry?

[Roll Tide]

The only reason I have held off on buying a Slingbox is because it does not support BlackBerry. I'd buy one the day a BB client was released.

[Bashlor]

Originally Posted by Roll Tide

The only reason I have held off on buying a Slingbox is because it does not support BlackBerry. I'd buy one the day a BB client was released.

Agreed.

[Hitek146]

^^^^

Did you guys even read my post above? You would be better off buying a product that doesn't hold you at the mercy of the company's software developers, making you wait and *hope* that they decide to support the next gadget you buy...

[mas90guru]

I just upgraded my Sprint phone to a Moto Q and the Sling is great. If you have little kids, the ability to watch TV away from home and in the car is amazing. This weekend we were out at the movies 45 minutes early and all 4 kids were kept quiet watching Nikelodeon

[budasu17]

HUGE interest in Slingbox for pearl and all other blackberrys. There is no reason not to.

I already have slingbox and it is awesome. To add it to my pearl would be the cherry on top.