# Samsung & RVU



## itzme (Jan 17, 2008)

harsh said:


> DECA capability is not a requirement of the RVU specification.
> 
> Looking at the manual for the Samsung LED 6000 series (the models talked about at CES), there is no mention of DECA support. Only Ethernet is native and a USB adapter must be used to enable Wi-fi (models 6500 and up are to include Wi-fi).
> 
> If some model includes native DECA support, Samsung isn't talking about it.


Which 2011 Samsung models support RVU? I may be getting a D7000. Is there a chance I'd be able to take advantage of RVU sometime in the future?


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

itzme said:


> Which 2011 Samsung models support RVU? I may be getting a D7000. Is there a chance I'd be able to take advantage of RVU sometime in the future?


Doesn't look like the D7000 will have the support, see http://www.twice.com/article/462140-CES_2011_Samsung_DirecTV_Ditch_The_Set_Top_Box.php .

It would be nice if the could be a software upgrade on the D7000/D8000 series at some future date to add the capability (or for my old C8000 would be nice).


----------



## itzme (Jan 17, 2008)

RAD said:


> Doesn't look like the D7000 will have the support, see http://www.twice.com/article/462140-CES_2011_Samsung_DirecTV_Ditch_The_Set_Top_Box.php .
> 
> It would be nice if the could be a software upgrade on the D7000/D8000 series at some future date to add the capability (or for my old C8000 would be nice).


Do you think that the upgrade can be done solely with software? I wonder why just the 6000 one. I'm thinking those are low-to-mid range models. BTW, my pn58c8000 is failing, and there are no parts for repairs, so I'm working with Samsung's warranty support now on how to handle.

I was thinking of replacing it with D7000. Then I thought how cool it would be to use it to test RVU, but I guess not


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

itzme said:


> Do you think that the upgrade can be done solely with software? I wonder why just the 6000 one. I'm thinking those are low-to-mid range models. BTW, my pn58c8000 is failing, and there are no parts for repairs, so I'm working with Samsung's warranty support now on how to handle.
> 
> I was thinking of replacing it with D7000. Then I thought how cool it would be to use it to test RVU, but I guess not


Don't know the answer to your question, guess we'll just have to hope (but I doubt it).

I thought Samsung's replacement policy was to replace it with a 'like' model so wouldn't it be a PN59D8000 and not a D7000? I might be in the same boat as you, my PN50C8000 has the 'blink' problem, they've replaced the main board and the next day had a blink. Now waiting for another main board and power supply to see if that corrects it.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Regarding Samsung and RVU I have a couple of thoughts:
1) If you can hold off until Samsung has an actual product that is known to work with RVU, wait.
2) If not, the UNxxD6000's were reported at CES to work and are out. I have hopes they will work with RVU. They already support a large number of smart apps.
3) I expect the other models announced in the CES RVU announcement "should" also work and some are coming out soon.

What I don't know at all, is will all the SmartTV's from Samsung support RVU this year or will it be next.

Hopefully my next TV will be a Samsung projector with RVU, Smartapps, 240Hz, and serve ice cream... 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## grassfeeder (Jan 25, 2011)

Tom Robertson said:


> Regarding Samsung and RVU I have a couple of thoughts:
> 1) If you can hold off until Samsung has an actual product that is known to work with RVU, wait.
> 2) If not, the UNxxD6000's were reported at CES to work and are out. I have hopes they will work with RVU. They already support a large number of smart apps.
> 3) I expect the other models announced in the CES RVU announcement "should" also work and some are coming out soon.
> ...


It was my understanding that the 2011 line of Samsung panels that had SmartTV would handle RVU.....at least that's my hope as that's my plan. I figure once the 34 box comes out, we'll be pretty close to the 2011 models being marked down much more.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

itzme said:


> Which 2011 Samsung models support RVU?


From the joint press release:


RVU press release said:


> The RVU protocol will be supported on Samsung's LED D6000, LED D6400 and LED 6420 TV products that reflect the company's commitment to delivering consumers high-quality, visually enhanced and connected entertainment experiences in their home. A RUI technology based on industry standards such as DLNA and UPnP, RVU allows a set-top box server to provide a multi-room, complete viewing experience that includes DVR services, without the need for additional set-top boxes in homes that have more than one connected TV.


It remains to be seen if the third model is a D6420 (likely) or a 6420 as the press release indicates.

It seems likely that if Smart TV included RVU, they would have said so. To date, it isn't apparent that the released 2011 Smart TV models support RVU or connect without an adapter to the HR34.


----------



## itzme (Jan 17, 2008)

I'm still a little confused about how much of RVU is hardware and how much is software. It would seem that the TV's chip needs to be able to process RVU, which I assume involves decoding, and it also has to handle wireless. I'm thinking that all the 2011 6000, 7000, and 8000 series have the hardware needed. 

In fact even on the 2010 Samsungs, when you use any DLNA or content features all your HRs appear as devices, and you can poke around all the folders and see your recorded program files. You just can't play any, and I'm assuming that's because they're encoded/encrypted. But all the ingredients (sans encryption and maybe codecs) seem to be there already.

I'm wondering if DirecTV and Samsung have the option to provide RVU with a software update? If so, I wonder if they will.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

itzme said:


> I'm still a little confused about how much of RVU is hardware and how much is software. It would seem that the TV's chip needs to be able to process RVU, which I assume involves decoding, and it also has to handle wireless. I'm thinking that all the 2011 6000, 7000, and 8000 series have the hardware needed.
> 
> In fact even on the 2010 Samsungs, when you use any DLNA or content features all your HRs appear as devices, and you can poke around all the folders and see your recorded program files. You just can't play any, and I'm assuming that's because they're encoded/encrypted. But all the ingredients (sans encryption and maybe codecs) seem to be there already.
> 
> I'm wondering if DirecTV and Samsung have the option to provide RVU with a software update? If so, I wonder if they will.


RVU is 100% software. RVU is just the "protocol" used for the display of the server generated screens on the remote device and it is tightly integrated with the DLNA architecture.

Connectivity hardware such as MoCA, Wireless, Ethernet, etc. are not part of RVU, they are just options for how the devices physically connect to each other.

Odds are that ANY DLNA compatible TV COULD be RVU enabled with a simple code update, but as JeremyW stated in the other thread, that is not a very profitable, so probably, not a very likely scenario. A lot will likely depend on the progress that is made in the next year(s). I don't think they would want to risk breaking thousands of working sets by pushing an update that only a small fraction of users would be able to take advantage of.


----------



## itzme (Jan 17, 2008)

Great explanation, Thank!


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

One scenario I see is that at installation, RVU will be enabled in specific sets that DirecTV and Samsung have agreed on. (via an installer initiated flash). 

It could happen.


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

Laxguy said:


> One scenario I see is that at installation, RVU will be enabled in specific sets that DirecTV and Samsung have agreed on. (via an installer initiated flash).
> 
> It could happen.


Seems extremely unlikely.


----------



## kevinwmsn (Aug 19, 2006)

It would be nice if they would be software download for the dlna TVs to add RVU support. My Samsung 46 does a better job of streaming content from the pc than the ps3.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

The statement that RVU is "100% software" is somewhat misleading. The devices still need enough hardware to communicate (Ethernet of some form) and decode (CPU, RAM, GPU). 

While I suspect any TV that can support "additional" apps and things like Hulu, Netflix, and Vudu can also support RVU, I would be very careful purchasing any particular model TV that wasn't listed in the original press release.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## freerein100 (Dec 14, 2007)

Directv would then be responsible for any bricked tv's. Unlikely to happen but still possible


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

freerein100 said:


> Directv would then be responsible for any bricked tv's. Unlikely to happen but still possible


:scratchin

RVU would be in the TV .. Samsung would be responsible for the updates which could conceivably be delivered via Internet. The TV is just the "viewer" portal and RVU is the protocol of that "view."


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> :scratchin
> 
> RVU would be in the TV .. Samsung would be responsible for the updates which could conceivably be delivered via Internet. The TV is just the "viewer" portal and RVU is the protocol of that "view."


That was likely in response to this:



Laxguy said:


> One scenario I see is that at installation, RVU will be enabled in specific sets that DirecTV and Samsung have agreed on. (*via an installer initiated flash*).
> 
> It could happen.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Doug Brott said:


> :scratchin
> 
> RVU would be in the TV .. Samsung would be responsible for the updates which could conceivably be delivered via Internet. The TV is just the "viewer" portal and RVU is the protocol of that "view."


That's how they (Samsung) update their firmware currently. Easy.

And I agree: DirecTV would be no more responsible for the software for RVU than they are for Netflix, Hulu, BB, etc. or the updates thereto.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

One other thing to consider. RVU (hopefully) won't be just between DIRECTV and TVs, but also other devices including other Samsung devices. Each company will be responsible for their meeting the specs. And I also expect the companies will host interoperability trials at some point.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## itzme (Jan 17, 2008)

Good point. I'm already amazed about how my DLNA devices play together. Including the Motorola (so not just Samsung) Droid that we just got. Having been heavily involved in the months (year+?) of testing MRV, as you were too, I'm amazed at how _today_ everything is starting to work together.

Or maybe you're hinting that my Samsung dishwasher will soon be networked to my plasma as well? :lol:


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Tom Robertson said:


> The statement that RVU is "100% software" is somewhat misleading. The devices still need enough hardware to communicate (Ethernet of some form) and decode (CPU, RAM, GPU).


That part lies with the part of the TV that implements DLNA. I think it likely that the decryption part may be done at the HR34 end and the content delivered via DLNA DRM (as opposed to WHDS streaming with remote DIRECTV decryption).

ATSC standards now include AVC decoding so I would expect no extraordinary efforts required there.

The trick would seem to be in having a flexible enough character generator/overlay system to handle the GUI. It would be interesting to see if they implement PIP on the clients.


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

Laxguy said:


> That's how they (Samsung) update their firmware currently. Easy.
> 
> And I agree: DirecTV would be no more responsible for the software for RVU than they are for Netflix, Hulu, BB, etc. or the updates thereto.


But that's not what you said. You said it would be "an installer initiated flash". That sounds like DIRECTV would be responsible for installing the update, making them responsible for anything that goes wrong, making it extremely unlikely to happen that way, etc.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

hilmar2k said:


> But that's not what you said. You said it would be "an installer initiated flash". That sounds like DIRECTV would be responsible for installing the update, making them responsible for anything that goes wrong, making it extremely unlikely to happen that way, etc.


I said it *could* be installer initiated for sets that need flashing to begin with. For those folks not comfortable doing upgrades or updates. There wouldn't be many of these in any event. I can't stress "could" enough.......


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> The statement that RVU is "100% software" is somewhat misleading. The devices still need enough hardware to communicate (Ethernet of some form) and decode (CPU, RAM, GPU).
> 
> While I suspect any TV that can support "additional" apps and things like Hulu, Netflix, and Vudu can also support RVU, I would be very careful purchasing any particular model TV that wasn't listed in the original press release.
> 
> ...


"Confusing" maybe, if taken out of context, but certainly not mis-leading. In order for a device to run the RVU client application (software) it needs to meet the expected hardware configuration. That configuration is not unique or specific to RVU.

*"Class: The below link is required reading for this continuing discussion"*

http://www.rvualliance.org/files/static_page_files/RVU_White_Paper.pdf


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

harsh said:


> That part lies with the part of the TV that implements DLNA. I think it likely that the decryption part may be done at the HR34 end and the content delivered via DLNA DRM (as opposed to WHDS streaming with remote DIRECTV decryption).
> 
> ATSC standards now include AVC decoding so I would expect no extraordinary efforts required there.
> 
> The trick would seem to be in having a flexible enough character generator/overlay system to handle the GUI. It would be interesting to see if they implement PIP on the clients.


The client is not handling any of this. The overlay is done on the server and pushed as bitmaps to the client.

From the white paper linked above:

_A key benefit of RVU is its remote user interface (RUI) implementation. The objective of RVU is to keep the clients as process-light as possible. The RVU RUI design implements the majority of the UI functionality, such as trick play, on the server. Remote key presses are passed directly from each client to the server. The server interprets them, responds appropriately (e.g., changes channels), and blends UI graphics planes. It then delivers this UI bitmap data plus any streaming data (e.g., video and audio) back to the client for display. The result is a robust, consistent UI experience throughout the home via thin clients as opposed to implementations with an entire UI via client-side software._


----------



## Sixto (Nov 18, 2005)

Been seeing a bunch of this AllVid & RVU discussion lately:http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7021237431

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7021027692​


----------



## itzme (Jan 17, 2008)

That is all so confusing to me. I sense the issue could be simplified as: RVU could bring about access to services like Netflix (DTV foe and competition) to a Directv subscriber. Do you all think I'm close? If not, what's it all mean?


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

itzme said:


> That is all so confusing to me. I sense the issue could be simplified as: RVU could bring about access to services like Netflix (DTV foe and competition) to a Directv subscriber. Do you all think I'm close? If not, what's it all mean?


While you have the right general concept, I think RVU is really meant for communication between devices within the home network. Say a BD player and TV, or set top box and AV/Receiver, etc. I think the protocol is a bit heavy for communication to Netflix servers.

But here is a way RVU and Netflix could interact. Say you have a Netflix ready PS3 or BD player in your house. In another room, you could have a RVU client that talked to the NetFlix-ready device to display movies. (Though eventually I expect most RVU clients will also talk to Netflix directly. The SamSung TVs will have multiple apps including Vudu, NetFlix, and RVU.)

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Sixto said:


> Been seeing a bunch of this AllVid & RVU discussion lately:http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7021237431
> 
> http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7021027692​


Thanks Sixto. Interesting reading.

My fear is that DIRECTV is being too logical in its discussion. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## itzme (Jan 17, 2008)

I'm especially interested. Within weeks I'll be replacing a 2010 Samsung with a 2011 model, the 59D8000. While that model wasn't listed in the small list of RVU models released back in January, I'm confident it's capable of RVU if DTV and Samsung enable it, someday. If so, I'd love to test that.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

itzme said:


> I'm especially interested. Within weeks I'll be replacing a 2010 Samsung with a 2011 model, the 59D8000. While that model wasn't listed in the small list of RVU models released back in January, I'm confident it's capable of RVU if DTV and Samsung enable it, someday. If so, I'd love to test that.


While I "think" your model will be RVU, I definitely do not know. If the model lists as part of the SmartTv series, then I would feel better--but I still wouldn't know.

I hope RVU takes off in the Samsung line so all the newer SmartTvs will have it.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Tom Robertson said:


> I hope RVU takes off in the Samsung line so all the newer SmartTvs will have it.


RVU needs to be introduced into the marketplace before you can reasonably hope for expanding options.

If both sides don't come together soon and produce a commercially viable combination, RVU could end up being a design exercise.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Actually Samsung represents most of the "sides" in this equation. They make BD players, TVs, and AV equipment, all of which would use RVU. 

One very key hurdle for RVU is the FCC, based on the docs Sixto found. If the FCC declares RVU as meeting the AllVid requirements (or better yet, as THE AllVid technology), then RVU will take off.

If RVU is marginalized in some fashion by the FCC, then RVU might be replaced by whatever AllVid becomes.

The sad part is getting the FCC to move quickly...

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## itzme (Jan 17, 2008)

Tom Robertson said:


> While I "think" your model will be RVU, I definitely do not know. If the model lists as part of the SmartTv series, then I would feel better--but I still wouldn't know.
> 
> I hope RVU takes off in the Samsung line so all the newer SmartTvs will have it.
> 
> ...


The D8000 is the top of the line consumer plasma series with SmartTv. Though that line was not mentioned in the old press releases about RVU.



harsh said:


> RVU needs to be introduced into the marketplace before you can reasonably hope for expanding options.
> 
> If both sides don't come together soon and produce a commercially viable combination, RVU could end up being a design exercise.


I fear that also. I can understand DirecTV not wanting to offer access to Hulu or Netflix, but frankly, they may need to leave technology behind to stay exclusive with their treasured PPVs. Usually that strategy doesn't work out in the end (ie Blockbuster), as a good business decision. But in the short-term, I guess its a possible business decision.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Tom Robertson said:


> Actually Samsung represents most of the "sides" in this equation. They make BD players, TVs, and AV equipment, all of which would use RVU.


While all video sources _could_ use RVU, what would be the point?

You can't seriously expect that they're going to start building down-conversion and encoding hardware into Blu-ray players.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

harsh said:


> While all video sources _could_ use RVU, what would be the point?
> 
> You can't seriously expect that they're going to start building down-conversion and encoding hardware into Blu-ray players.


UI consistency and seamless transitioning between equipment. They already do this through their remotes and it's nice. If people get used to seeing the same thing all the time no matter the device they'll stick with that brand, if it's done correctly.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> Regarding Samsung and RVU I have a couple of thoughts:
> 1) If you can hold off until Samsung has an actual product that is known to work with RVU, wait.
> 2) If not, the UNxxD6000's were reported at CES to work and are out. I have hopes they will work with RVU. They already support a large number of smart apps.
> 3) I expect the other models announced in the CES RVU announcement "should" also work and some are coming out soon.
> ...


Uh, your in Salt Lake City right? Can't you just go to http://www.leatherbys.com/?


----------



## CockerKingdom (Jan 18, 2010)

Found this on the Samsung site. 5 paragraghs down in the article, smart tv's will have this option. then link to the smart TV section of the web site and read on! I plan on buying one of these led-smart tv's also. Just waiting for the up-coming holiday sales.
http://www.samsung.com/us/news/newsRead.do?news_seq=19794


----------



## Guest (May 15, 2011)

Will DTV charge $5 a month for using a HDTV with an RVU adapter or will it be free?


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

"CraigerCSM" said:


> Will DTV charge $5 a month for using a HDTV with an RVU adapter or will it be free?


They haven't announced any pricing yet.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

CraigerCSM said:


> Will DTV charge $5 a month for using a HDTV with an RVU adapter or will it be free?


How would they know?


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

"Drucifer" said:


> How would they know?


I'd guess the server would know what clients are connected to it and require authorization to use.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

CraigerCSM said:


> Will DTV charge $5 a month for using a HDTV with an RVU adapter or will it be free?


That may be based on how allvid works out and what the cable co bills.


----------



## Guest (May 16, 2011)

JoeTheDragon said:


> That may be based on how allvid works out and what the cable co bills.


With Allvid you still have to have a setback box right? If RVU is the same thing why not just have HD DVR's and HD Receivers but make both the size of the H25. Unless the Allvid and RVU adaptors will be built into the HDTV's that will support Allvid and RVU?


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

CraigerCSM said:


> With Allvid you still have to have a setback box right? If RVU is the same thing why not just have HD DVR's and HD Receivers but make both the size of the H25. Unless the Allvid and RVU adaptors will be built into the HDTV's that will support Allvid and RVU?


Allvid is Cablecard version 3.0. So that devices don't need dedicated set top boxes. For some features, Allvid might need a "gateway" device (think cable and satellite.) For other roles, Allvid can talk directly to blu-ray players, gaming systems, AV equipment, etc.

Unfortunately, Allvid is still a bit loose as a protocol definition (apparently) so DIRECTV is suggesting RVU as a suitable technology to meet the FCC requirements.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## TBlazer07 (Feb 5, 2009)

CraigerCSM said:


> Will DTV charge $5 a month for using a HDTV with an RVU adapter or will it be free?


 Since when has "free" been in DirecTV's vocabulary? :lol: Besides, how could anyone possibly know!


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

CockerKingdom said:


> Found this on the Samsung site. 5 paragraghs down in the article, smart tv's will have this option.


The article that you linked to represents the only reference to RVU on the searchable portion of the Samsung website. Of the models named, the D6000 is out in the wild and neither its feature list nor manual make mention of RVU. There is no mention of MoCA, DECA or DIRECTV. You'll also find no mention of slip-in modules or adapters save the "Samsung Wireless LAN adapter".

I think you've stretched too far to assume that the article indicated that RVU would be an option on all Smart LED models. The article was likely referring explicitly to the mentioned models.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> Allvid is Cablecard version 3.0. So that devices don't need dedicated set top boxes. For some features, Allvid might need a "gateway" device (think cable and satellite.) For other roles, Allvid can talk directly to blu-ray players, gaming systems, AV equipment, etc.
> 
> Unfortunately, Allvid is still a bit loose as a protocol definition (apparently) so DIRECTV is suggesting RVU as a suitable technology to meet the FCC requirements.
> 
> ...


Hopefully the FCC will say NO to that request and continue forward with the provider transparent AllVid concept. RVU really does nothing but shift the location of the proprietary STB, it doesn't remove the requirement for one.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

BattleScott said:


> Hopefully the FCC will say NO to that request and continue forward with the provider transparent AllVid concept. RVU really does nothing but shift the location of the proprietary STB, it doesn't remove the requirement for one.


Allvid already requires the gateway STB for satellite/cable systems. RVU doesn't change that. The big advantage for RVU is it is farther along as a real protocol... (I think. I could be wrong.) 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Guest (May 16, 2011)

Is the RVU adapter built into the HDTV?


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

CraigerCSM said:


> Is the RVU adapter built into the HDTV?


Yupper, that is the point. RVU is mostly software with enough CPU and networking as the only hardware requirements.

In the case of Samsung's smartTVs, I'm pretty sure RVU will appear as another smarthub module you can add to the TV, just like Hulu, vudu, facebook, etc.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> Allvid already requires the gateway STB for satellite/cable systems. RVU doesn't change that. The big advantage for RVU is it is farther along as a real protocol... (I think. I could be wrong.)
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


The primary requirement of the gateway device (which is most certainly NOT a STB) is that it must provide the raw channel programming in an open standard delivery format available to any AllVid capable device. It would be up to the individual consumer to choose, on the open market, what devices they want to use to access that programming.

RVU certainly changes that, it keeps the user locked into a proprietary server (remote STB is what it really is) that is specific to the providers. This is one of the main reasons for it's existence and the driving force behind DirecTV's desire to get the FCC to approve it as a suitable alternative.

If AllVid is "CableCard 3.0", then RVU is the attempted "SatCo dodge of CableCard 3.0".


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

"Tom Robertson" said:


> In the case of Samsung's smartTVs, I'm pretty sure RVU will appear as another smarthub module you can add to the TV, just like Hulu, vudu, facebook, etc.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


Hope so, since I have a new PN51D8000, it would be nice to have that option available.


----------



## dettxw (Nov 21, 2007)

RAD said:


> Hope so, since I have a new PN51D8000, it would be nice to have that option available.


Same for my new Samsung Smart TV.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

BattleScott said:


> The primary requirement of the gateway device (which is most certainly NOT a STB) is that it must provide the raw channel programming in an open standard delivery format available to any AllVid capable device. It would be up to the individual consumer to choose, on the open market, what devices they want to use to access that programming.
> 
> RVU certainly changes that, it keeps the user locked into a proprietary server (remote STB is what it really is) that is specific to the providers. This is one of the main reasons for it's existence and the driving force behind DirecTV's desire to get the FCC to approve it as a suitable alternative.
> 
> If AllVid is "CableCard 3.0", then RVU is the attempted "SatCo dodge of CableCard 3.0".


I don't read the FCC documents the same way you do, apparently.

RVU is also standards based, many of which are proposed in AllVid: IP, DTC-IP, ethernet (and potentially MOCA), gateway generated UI screens for feature purchasing, etc.

The gateway device is the video provider's "box" to provide standardized video streams via IP. (At least 6 streams, so AT&T gots some workin' to do.) In other words, it looks like a big stb, from a capability standpoint.

RVU can be used not only from gateway device to TVs, DVRs, etc. but it can be used between any devices as appropriate. A dumb TV might be an RVU client, but not likely an RVU server. A smarter TV might serve RVU by serving USB data to another client.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

BattleScott said:


> The primary requirement of the gateway device (which is most certainly NOT a STB) is that it must provide the raw channel programming in an open standard delivery format available to any AllVid capable device. It would be up to the individual consumer to choose, on the open market, what devices they want to use to access that programming.
> 
> RVU certainly changes that, it keeps the user locked into a proprietary server (remote STB is what it really is) that is specific to the providers. This is one of the main reasons for it's existence and the driving force behind DirecTV's desire to get the FCC to approve it as a suitable alternative.
> 
> If AllVid is "CableCard 3.0", then RVU is the attempted "SatCo dodge of CableCard 3.0".


I suspect that regardless of competition, the problem with AllVid is that the "goods" (so to speak) are still in the remote viewing station rather than the central viewing station (ala the HMC). It is very unlikely that the Allvid solution will be able to provide a cheaper alternative simply because of the component requirements to drive it at the remote location rather than the central location.

From a consumer point of view, it would be hard to argue that Allvid is going to provide a significant advantage to RVU while RVU will most certainly provide means to reduce overall power consumption (no STB @ remote TV) while providing potentially seamless connectivity across multiple providers (Cable, Sat, etc.). The Allvid solution is great for folks like TiVo or Google that may want to create a home media center solution that takes advantage of availability of a "channel" from the provider.

I think what will happen, though is that RVU is going to win out and here is why:

(1) RVU is really already ahead at this point .. First to the party generally gets an advantage, but it's not absolute of course.

(2) Security - The MSOs and beyond that the content providers are guarding their IP more today than ever before. Alvid sure looks like a pipe of your choosing directly to an "any" solution .. part of that "any" could be direct broadcast via the Internet or other means. Yeah, you'd need an account for the gateway device (or devices), but that's the "one" .. the "to many" is on the broadcast side. Since the HMC solution could be anything that people dream up, that solution could forgo all of the Copyright laws (illegally of course) and distribute away.

Sure, RVU could potentially be used for this as well but the grip on connectivity is a bit tighter. Certainly the decision is not made at this point and there will be a period in which it will likely either be RVU or AllVid to ultimately win out. It's possible (I suppose) that both could win, but in the end it will likely be one or the other.


----------



## Guest (May 16, 2011)

Tom Robertson said:


> Yupper, that is the point. RVU is mostly software with enough CPU and networking as the only hardware requirements.
> 
> In the case of Samsung's smartTVs, I'm pretty sure RVU will appear as another smarthub module you can add to the TV, just like Hulu, vudu, facebook, etc.
> 
> ...


I hope the main RVU box wont be huge. Also would lines go out from the RVU box to the HDTV's built in RVU adapter? Or would the lines go from the multiswitch to HDTV's built in RVU adapter?


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

CraigerCSM said:


> I hope the main RVU box wont be huge. Also would lines go out from the RVU box to the HDTV's built in RVU adapter? Or would the lines go from the multiswitch to HDTV's built in RVU adapter?


There are two options here .. it's pretty simple ..

An external RVU client which would probably look a lot like a regular set top box. It still requires power, cpu, some sort of network input, etc. The smallest STB we've seen so far is the H25, so perhaps something like that or something different from that .. Power Supplies in general are where a lot of the space needs are.

An internal RVU client would be just that .. Inside the TV. It would just be some sort of line in to the TV just like you have Cable, Composite, HDMI, Antenna inputs now. Only this line would be for RVU. Heck, if it's over IP (which RVU is), it could potentially even be a built-in wireless-N device which requires zero cabling, but I'm not sure whether or not that is even possible.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

CraigerCSM said:


> I hope the main RVU box wont be huge. Also would lines go out from the RVU box to the HDTV's built in RVU adapter? Or would the lines go from the multiswitch to HDTV's built in RVU adapter?


Sticking to RVU and Allvid are the same topology, I'll answer this way: the RVU "mainserver" or Allvid gateway won't have to be much bigger than a couple or three small H25 receivers stacked to get 6 video streams out via IP. The cooling requirements might be tricky for awhile until tuners and CPUs get even smaller and more efficient. Until then the box might have to be a bit larger just to let airflow keep things cool. (By the way, all this really applies equally to cable and satellite. Both need to supply 6 video streams from the gateway "device".)

At the TV/DVR end, if the TV or DVR support RVU/Allvid, there is no external RVU or Allvid unit.

Those TV and DVRs that need an external box will see a tiny client eventually. Just big enough for a few cable connectors and power.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

So HDTVs with built in RVU will go back to getting directly connected to Sat/Cbl by coaxial cable?


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Drucifer said:


> So HDTVs with built in RVU will go back to getting directly connected to Sat/Cbl by coaxial cable?


Either coax or ethernet. (OK, wireless if someone wants--yuck.)


----------



## ndole (Aug 26, 2009)

Wireless!!!


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> I don't read the FCC documents the same way you do, apparently.
> 
> RVU is also standards based, many of which are proposed in AllVid: IP, DTC-IP, ethernet (and potentially MOCA), gateway generated UI screens for feature purchasing, etc.
> 
> ...


Here is the original introduction from the *FCC's notice of inquiry*. 


> I. INTRODUCTION
> 1. In this Notice of Inquiry, the Commission seeks comment on specific steps we can take to unleash competition in the retail market for smart, set-top video devices ("smart video devices") that are compatible with all multichannel video programming distributor ("MVPD") services. Our goal in this proceeding is to better effectuate the intent of Congress as set forth in Section 629 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. *In particular, we wish to explore the potential for allowing any electronics manufacturer to offer smart video devices at retail that can be used with the services of any MVPD and without the need to coordinate or negotiate with MVPDs. We believe that this could foster a competitive retail market in smart video devices to spur investment and innovation, increase consumer choice, allow unfettered innovation in MVPD delivery platforms, and encourage wider broadband use and adoption.*
> 2. More specifically, we introduce the concept of an adapter that could act either as a small "setback" device for connection to a single smart video device or as a gateway allowing all consumer electronics devices in the home to access multichannel video programming services. Unlike the existing cable-centric CableCARD technology, this adapter could make possible the development and marketing of smart video devices that attach to any MVPD service anywhere in the United States, which could greatly enhance the incentives for manufacturers to enter the retail market. *As conceived, the adapter would communicate with the MVPD service, performing the tuning and security decryption functions that may be specific to a particular MVPD; the smart video device would perform navigation functions, including presentation of programming guides and search functionality. *The Commission seeks comment on this concept. We also invite any alternative proposals that would achieve the same objective of eliminating barriers to entry in the retail market for smart video devices that are compatible with all MVPD services.
> 3. The Commission envisions that the proposal adopted in this proceeding would be a successor technology to CableCARD. We predict that smart video devices built to new standards that would be adopted through this proceeding would eventually replace CableCARD devices on retail shelves.
> Accordingly, in this Notice of Inquiry the Commission also seeks comment on the future of the CableCARD regime. We are separately releasing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to address a number of CableCARD implementation issues pending the completion of a successor regime.


If all MVPDs created an RVU server then RVU could possibly satisfy a small portion of the intent of #2, but overall RVU does nothing to address the primary objectives laid out. In fact, it simply guarantees status quo, which as far as DirecTV and the CableCos are concerned would be just fine.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

BattleScott said:


> Here is the original introduction from the *FCC's notice of inquiry*.
> 
> If all MVPDs created an RVU server then RVU could possibly satisfy a small portion of the intent of #2, but overall RVU does nothing to address the primary objectives laid out. In fact, it simply guarantees status quo, which as far as DirecTV and the CableCos are concerned would be just fine.


Ok, so maybe we read the original docs about the same. 

But conclude differently how RVU could work as AllVid, it seems.

I want to back up one bit. An excerpt from Section 29 of the inquiry:


> We envision that the AllVid adapter would perform video rendering for the purpose of verifying a subscriber's purchase of MVPD content such as Video on Demand ("VOD") or a subscription service.


This sounds like RVU to me. Or could be.

I suppose the only weakness in my thinking is will RVU also permit a generic DVR to contact the gateway to request a video stream without the requirement of using the GUI?

Assuming that the FCC won't use RVU as AllVid if the full requirement set of AllVid isn't met, I further presume RVU can already permit a stream request outside of GUI or can do so relatively easily.

So I see RVU's "server" as the same as AllVid's gateway. Yet RVU already is designed around "any device can serve", as well as the "gateway RVU servers" to the MVPDs.

The key becomes how quickly will MVPDs accept what happened in the telco industry 37 years ago? The separation of dial service from dial equipment in the home. In this case, the separation of video service from consumer video equipment.

The telcos suddenly created value in their service, not in their equipment. The equipment makers created new value in their equipment. Some very wise companies managed to do both: sell services and equipment. (At least for a time...) 

DIRECTV has some very ingenious features in their video services. And a few in their equipment. They might be well positioned to sell both after the December 31, 2012 deadline. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> So I see RVU's "server" as the same as AllVid's gateway. Yet RVU already is designed around "any device can serve", as well as the "gateway RVU servers" to the MVPDs.


This is the point at which our thinking seperates drastically. As I see it, under RVU, only one very specific and wholely owned and controlled device can be the server. That device will continue to be proprietary to, and leased from the provider. This architecture would simply continue to stifle competition in the consumer device market and since that change is THE primary objective of AllVid, I don't see RVU as even remotely close to satisfying the requirements of AllVid.



Tom Robertson said:


> The key becomes how quickly will MVPDs accept what happened in the telco industry 37 years ago? The separation of dial service from dial equipment in the home. In this case, the separation of video service from consumer video equipment.
> 
> The telcos suddenly created value in their service, not in their equipment. The equipment makers created new value in their equipment. Some very wise companies managed to do both: sell services and equipment. (At least for a time...)


Your Telco example is a perfect parallel. In the original model, you rented the handset from the telco and paid for it along with the line service fees and that was that.

If you apply the RVU concept to that model, you would still rent the handset from the telco, but you would be able to "access" that handest at remote locations in the house. However, you are still limited to only the devices the telco offers.

If you apply AllVid concept to the model, you get what we have today. You choose whatever handset offering you want from the open consumer device market, connect it to the telco jack and get on with it.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

BattleScott said:


> This is the point at which our thinking seperates drastically. As I see it, under RVU, only one very specific and wholely owned and controlled device can be the server. That device will continue to be proprietary to, and leased from the provider. This architecture would simply continue to stifle competition in the consumer device market and since that change is THE primary objective of AllVid, I don't see RVU as even remotely close to satisfying the requirements of AllVid.
> 
> Your Telco example is a perfect parallel. In the original model, you rented the handset from the telco and paid for it along with the line service fees and that was that.
> 
> ...


but a ALLVID home gateway seems to be like a RVU main box and who's to say that ALLVID or RVU will give you all 6 feeds as part of the base fees?

who to say they will not jack you for 4-5 mirroring / outlet fees?

jack you a DRV fee to get more then 3-6 days of guide data?

HD fees?

3D fess?


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

JoeTheDragon said:


> but a ALLVID home gateway seems to be like a RVU main box and who's to say that ALLVID or RVU will give you all 6 feeds as part of the base fees?


Absolutely .. While Allvid is a different name, it's still a proprietary box per provider. It's not going to magically be able to decrypt/decode signals from every single provider .. I mean, if it could, then what exactly is the point of having and "extra" box .. just send the cable into each room just like now and let the individual boxes do the work.

Allvid is providing a way to convert from proprietary to standard inside the home. RVU does this now .. well, we assume so as we await the arrival of the DIRECTV HMC. The RVU "server" provides a link to a client which could be built by anyone. In RVU case, though the GUI is only rendered on the remote box. The actual work is being done on the server side.

Allvid seems to want to have the client side do all of the work and instead of access to the GUI .. the client has access to a stream in some kind of standard/unencrypted format.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

BattleScott said:


> This is the point at which our thinking seperates drastically. As I see it, under RVU, only one very specific and wholely owned and controlled device can be the server. That device will continue to be proprietary to, and leased from the provider. This architecture would simply continue to stifle competition in the consumer device market and since that change is THE primary objective of AllVid, I don't see RVU as even remotely close to satisfying the requirements of AllVid.
> 
> Your Telco example is a perfect parallel. In the original model, you rented the handset from the telco and paid for it along with the line service fees and that was that.
> 
> ...


But, but but...
RVU is built around any device can serve. My TV can be a server. A BD player can serve. What you see as "tied to a proprietary device", I don't. (Especially since I see the FCC forcing all the requirements they have in mind.) I see a house with multiple RVU servers: DIRECTV, BD player from OPPO, TV from Samsung, 5 PCs (in my house that is) , Playstation 3, etc.

I could netflix via the OPPO to one TV that is connected to a playstation 3 as the client. (Extreme example, but possible.) The DIRECTV gateway could serve 3 TVs and 3 DVR tuners by Samsung, LG, and JVC. Then when the DVRs didn't need the tuners, the grandkids could watch the recordings on other clients.

I suspect you see RVU as much more proprietary than I. Samsung is already hinting at their Allshare as any device to any device, and that is what I think RVU "can" do for FCC's AllVid.

Again, I am presuming the FCC will force RVU to allow generic DVRs to request streams from the RVU gateways with minimal GUI interaction. Once that is done, RVU, being already implemented by some big players in the market, can be the FCC's AllVid in no time.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

JoeTheDragon said:


> but a ALLVID home gateway seems to be like a RVU main box and who's to say that ALLVID or RVU will give you all 6 feeds as part of the base fees?
> 
> who to say they will not jack you for 4-5 mirroring / outlet fees?
> 
> ...


They are not similar at all. The AllVid gateway (as currently defined) would be completely transparent to the user. An RVU server is completely the opposite, it controls everything about the user experience.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> Again, I am presuming the FCC will force RVU to allow generic DVRs to request streams from the RVU gateways with minimal GUI interaction. Once that is done, RVU, being already implemented by some big players in the market, can be the FCC's AllVid in no time.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


That "stream request" function in and of itself would cause it to cease to be "RVU". What you are describing is a "dual mode" server able to serve RVU to RVU clients and AllVid to AllVid clients.


----------



## AV_Guy (Sep 5, 2007)

How would the remote operate the client with no receiver? RF back to the RVU?


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

AV_Guy said:


> How would the remote operate the client with no receiver? RF back to the RVU?


The TV remote tells the TV to tell the server what key was pressed. The server adjusts the GUI and sends the new updated screen to the TV. (Or tells the TV how to adjust the screen--less data to send back.)

All done via ethernet, wireless, or MoCA networking.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Yup remote talks to TV .. TV talks to Server ..


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

Tom Robertson said:


> Either coax or ethernet. (OK, wireless if someone wants--yuck.)


HDMI 1.4a has ethernet in it.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Shades228 said:


> HDMI 1.4a has ethernet in it.


Thanks for the reminder. I knew there was an HDMI ethernet flavor, but didn't know it was 1.4a. Very cool.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

I wonder if/when we'll hear something from LG if they're going to offer RVU support on their TV's? They're listed as a 'Promoter' on the RVU website.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Doug Brott said:


> Yup remote talks to TV .. TV talks to Server ..


Imagine how the third party remote people are going to deal with this.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

I suspect that once Directv launches its RVU server, you will see a LOT of devices from tv manufactures have RVU in them.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

RAD said:


> I wonder if/when we'll hear something from LG if they're going to offer RVU support on their TV's? They're listed as a 'Promoter' on the RVU website.





LG RVU site search said:


> We are sorry, your search did not return any results on our site.


LG, like the rest of the RVU Alliance TV manufacturers, makes no mention of RVU on the searchable portions of their website.

LG has been uncharacteristically off the RADAR this year.


----------



## smolenski (Oct 25, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> Yupper, that is the point. RVU is mostly software with enough CPU and networking as the only hardware requirements.
> 
> In the case of Samsung's smartTVs, I'm pretty sure RVU will appear as another smarthub module you can add to the TV, just like Hulu, vudu, facebook, etc.
> 
> ...


I somewhat agree that this should not be a difficult add-on to the newer sets, including non-Samsung models.

Fromthe RVU Alliance: "Any product with a network interface (e.g. MoCA, Ethernet, WiFi or otherwise) can become an RVU-connected device by installing RVU compatible software."

Seems that this should not be too difficult. Even a external interface could be developed to work with the networked sets.


----------



## itzme (Jan 17, 2008)

smolenski said:


> I somewhat agree that this should not be a difficult add-on to the newer sets, including non-Samsung models.
> 
> Fromthe RVU Alliance: "Any product with a network interface (e.g. MoCA, Ethernet, WiFi or otherwise) can become an RVU-connected device by installing RVU compatible software."
> 
> Seems that this should not be too difficult. Even a external interface could be developed to work with the networked sets.


So it also shouldn't matter whether you have a legacy setup, BBCs, SWM, DECA or whatever, right?


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

There has to be some sort of network connectivity, so I guess it depends on what you actually mean.


----------



## smolenski (Oct 25, 2006)

I can't see the RVU Alliance creating this technology and expecting everyone to buy completely new hardware. I think that would spell defeat or certainly hinder the adoption of this technology. I certainly wouldn't buy a new display just to have this, especially after just buying one last week.


----------



## itzme (Jan 17, 2008)

Doug Brott said:


> There has to be some sort of network connectivity, so I guess it depends on what you actually mean.


True. I meant the type of connectivity and satellite setup won't matter.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

smolenski said:


> I can't see the RVU Alliance creating this technology and expecting everyone to buy completely new hardware. I think that would spell defeat or certainly hinder the adoption of this technology. I certainly wouldn't buy a new display just to have this, especially after just buying one last week.


You are absolutely right. They are making small (presumably inexpensive) set top boxes for most TVs.

If RVU succeeds, over the longer term more TVs will be "RVU Ready". 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## code4code5 (Aug 29, 2006)

I just Bought a Samsung UN55D6420, with one of the deciding factors being the integrated RVU chip. I intend to have this TV for many years, so I'm looking forward to the capability but wanted to know if there was any insight as to when the HR34 might become available.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

code4code5 said:


> I just Bought a Samsung UN55D6420, with one of the deciding factors being the integrated RVU chip. I intend to have this TV for many years, so I'm looking forward to the capability but wanted to know if there was any insight as to when the HR34 might become available.


All we know is "October" according to DIRECTV.

I haven't seen any RVU app from Samsung yet either. We'll definitely keep our eyes open for them both. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## itzme (Jan 17, 2008)

Tom Robertson said:


> All we know is "October" according to DIRECTV.
> 
> I haven't seen any RVU app from Samsung yet either. We'll definitely keep our eyes open for them both.
> 
> ...


My eyes haven't blinked yet. Waiting for both! Loving my Samsung D8000 and I'm not even sure if it has the chip. I would think they're in all/most of the 2011 models.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

itzme said:


> My eyes haven't blinked yet. Waiting for both! Loving my Samsung D8000 and I'm not even sure if it has the chip. I would think they're in all/most of the 2011 models.


By the way, RVU isn't so much a chip as a software application on a fast enough CPU/GPU. I suspect any of Samsung's 2011 SmartTVs will work, though I do not know that.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

I was _PLANNING_ on getting a Samsung 3DTV (with RVU) this year, but we got my Sony HDTV working again, so as much as I'd like a 3DTV, I _REALLY_ don't need to spend the money... 

~Alan


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

Tom Robertson said:


> By the way, RVU isn't so much a chip as a software application on a fast enough CPU/GPU. I suspect any of Samsung's 2011 SmartTVs will work, though I do not know that.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


So what should we expect for the construction of C30 RVU Thinnet clients? Assuming an external power brick AC adapter for the power supply, mostly empty cabinet space with maybe a small PC board in the center? 

Sort of like the AM21's insides ...


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

HoTat2 said:


> So what should we expect for the construction of C30 RVU Thinnet clients? Assuming an external power brick AC adapter for the power supply, mostly empty cabinet space with maybe a small PC board in the center?
> 
> Sort of like the AM21's insides ...


The AM21 is built to match the HR2x case style and shape. The C30, and its subsequent children, are meant to be small, in theory small enough to hid behind wall mounted TVs. So instead of a bigger, empty case, I'm thinking x25 or even smaller form.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

The CES 2011 demo clients bore a striking resemblance to the H25 judging from the JetHead YouTube video.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Screenshot from the clip posted by harsh

Here's the client next to a remote control









If someone has an H25 with a remote control next to it, we'd be able to get a better idea of the size of the client.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> Screenshot from the clip posted by harsh
> 
> If someone has an H25 with a remote control next to it, we'd be able to get a better idea of the size of the client.


Here you go.


----------



## code4code5 (Aug 29, 2006)

"Tom Robertson" said:


> All we know is "October" according to DIRECTV.
> 
> I haven't seen any RVU app from Samsung yet either. We'll definitely keep our eyes open for them both.
> 
> ...


Thanks, Tom! I'm excited to see what's in store, and I've been checking the app store every couple if days to see if it shows up.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Tom Robertson said:


> Hopefully my next TV will be a Samsung projector with RVU, Smartapps, 240Hz, and serve ice cream...
> Cheers,
> Tom


But will it Serve Up Chocolate Ice Cream??? 

If so I will buy it!!! :lol:


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

richierich said:


> But will it Serve Up Chocolate Ice Cream???
> 
> If so I will buy it!!! :lol:


While I don't think Samsung will have an app for that, it will connect, via RVU, to the Chocolate Ice Cream server they will be happy to sell you... 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

I'm glad to see this thread coming back to life. You all will laugh at me, but I actually bought a Samsung UN46D6420 completely forgetting about the RVU part. It was just the best TV for the money. Now it will be interesting to see how RVU works, once, you know, there's a server for it.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Stuart Sweet said:


> I'm glad to see this thread coming back to life. You all will laugh at me, but I actually bought a Samsung UN46D6420 *completely forgetting about the RVU part*. It was just the best TV for the money. Now it will be interesting to see how RVU works, once, you know, there's a server for it.


!rolling

Luck favors the prepared.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Stuart Sweet said:


> I'm glad to see this thread coming back to life. You all will laugh at me, but I actually bought a Samsung UN46D6420 completely forgetting about the RVU part. It was just the best TV for the money. Now it will be interesting to see how RVU works, once, you know, there's a server for it.





Tom Robertson said:


> !rolling
> 
> Luck favors the prepared.


Prior to my TV getting fixed, the 6420 was one of the TVs I was looking at.

I liked the PQ of some Samsung models released AFTER the 6420 better, but I really liked the idea of RVU (future proofing, you know!).

The thing is, those newer models might have RVU as well, because even though RVU is not listed in the specs, neither are they in the 6420's (or the other two models mentioned in the press release). Hopefully, once the HR34 is released, Samsung will actually start promoting RVU in their RVU-capable sets.

~Alan


----------



## itzme (Jan 17, 2008)

"Stuart Sweet" said:


> I'm glad to see this thread coming back to life. You all will laugh at me, but I actually bought a Samsung UN46D6420 completely forgetting about the RVU part. It was just the best TV for the money. Now it will be interesting to see how RVU works, once, you know, there's a server for it.


I'm not laughing at all. I had a similar experience myself when I bought my 59D8000, which I'm loving! I can't wait until a few companies reveal the magic behind their curtains.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Yeah, the 6420 is really excellent. The opaque portion of the bezel is 5/8" thick, compared to about 5" on my previous TV. There is a 3/8" clear part beyond that. The picture quality is really excellent for an $1100 TV and honestly I don't miss local dimming, not with the ambient light in the living room being what it is. 

The only downside is that now I see what some of you boys were complaining about, picture-quality wise :lol:


----------



## code4code5 (Aug 29, 2006)

"Stuart Sweet" said:


> I'm glad to see this thread coming back to life. You all will laugh at me, but I actually bought a Samsung UN46D6420 completely forgetting about the RVU part. It was just the best TV for the money. Now it will be interesting to see how RVU works, once, you know, there's a server for it.


I sprung for the 55" version, but it absolutely seemed to be a great value. MSRP is $2,300, but it is on permanent sale for $600 less Sam's club had their version, the 6450, for about $100 cheaper but I was willing to pay a bit of a premium for the guaranteed RVU capabilities.

I certainly don't have any complaints about the image quality, and I kind of dig on the "soap opera effect." the motion is what makes these televisions ultra realistic.


----------



## zimm0who0net (Aug 27, 2002)

Where are people getting the idea that the 6420 shipping today will have RVU? The only reference I can find on this is the press release back in January, but I wouldn't take that as Gospel. There's nothing on the Samsung web site about RVU under the specs.

I've had very bad luck with Samsung in the past with respect to "future" upgrades. I bought their top of the line LED TV two years ago. Press releases said it would eventually get Netflix support. Never happened. Lots of discussion on the boards, and talk of "class action lawsuits", but nothing ever came of it. Pretty standard operating procedure with Samsung. They'd rather force you to buy their new model rather than upgrade old models.

Furthermore, until you actually see how the RVU is integrated it's not particularly safe. For instance, my TV does actually have YouTube support, but navigating to the app screen, launching the YouTube app, trying to navigate to a video, and then actually viewing it is so incredibly cumbersome and slow that it's completely worthless. I would imagine that if Samsung were to "upgrade" their already sold TVs, it's likely that any RVU support would be similarly clunky and cumbersome.

Long story short, don't buy something until you've actually *seen* it and can play around with it.


----------



## itzme (Jan 17, 2008)

The good news is that I didn't buy my 59D8000 based on in having RVU, in fact that wasn't even one of the models in all the gossipy press releases. But it is the model I wanted and I have no remorse. Some of us got our hopes raised when others said that the hardware or chipset in any/all 2011 SmartTV models would likely support RVU.

But you very well could be right with regard to your theory and Samsung's history. I haven't gotten my RVU hopes up much higher than wishful optimism, that I might have the sleeping dragon (or just a frog) inside my machine.


----------



## grassfeeder (Jan 25, 2011)

just one of the many reasons why I'm not buying a set for other rooms until I see RVU in action and know how it's going to play out, both hardware/software and current Samsung models....


----------



## code4code5 (Aug 29, 2006)

"zimm0who0net" said:


> Where are people getting the idea that the 6420 shipping today will have RVU? The only reference I can find on this is the press release back in January, but I wouldn't take that as Gospel. There's nothing on the Samsung web site about RVU under the specs.
> 
> I've had very bad luck with Samsung in the past with respect to "future" upgrades. I bought their top of the line LED TV two years ago. Press releases said it would eventually get Netflix support. Never happened. Lots of discussion on the boards, and talk of "class action lawsuits", but nothing ever came of it. Pretty standard operating procedure with Samsung. They'd rather force you to buy their new model rather than upgrade old models.
> 
> ...


I certainly can appreciate the logic of not getting your hopes up, but I don't think most people buy televisions that often. I don't have a lot if money, so when it cones time to splurge on a new piece of equipment I shop the ever-loving crap out of the options available. When considering a feature set, I would like the best opportunity to "future proof" I can.

Back in 2001, I bought an AV Receiver with 7.1 analog inputs even though 7.1 surround in the home wasn't under consideration yet. I didn't make use of them until I got a blu-ray in 2009, but I didn't need a new receiver to make the best of my new equipment. I bought the TV with the hope that it will extend my directv experience in the future, but I won't swear off the brand if that doesn't happen.

My philosophy is that you can never expect anything more out of any machine than it had when it left the factory floor. Everything else is gravy.  To be on the bleeding edge of hardware, one has to respect Moore's Law and expect their equipment to be out of date within one year.

I'm sorry that you were disappointed with your unit's software. Samsung's clients for DLNA networking in these units are clean, fast, and smooth. If that's any indication as to how the tv will handle directv, I'll be very happy.


----------



## code4code5 (Aug 29, 2006)

Samsung has released a new firmware for the UN**D6*** series units with these firmware notes:

1. Title 
Firmware for LED TV D60** / D64** / D6500 series (ver. 1025.0)
2. Applicable Model 
D6000SF / D6050TF / D6400UF / D6420UF / D6450UF / D6500VF
3. Carrier or Corporate Customer 
all customers
4. Description 
- Including RVU feature and available Amazon app.
- Enhance firmware security
- This firmware will decrease flickering problem on 3D mode. (only 3D model)
- Change the way to get out of Store Demo Mode 
- Change the type of information of Info banner
- Prevent escaping issue when pressing volume button on video apps(Netflix, Vudu, etc) 
- Support Remote Service
- For netflix 3.1 service.

Game on!


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

We're discussing it here: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=199660


----------



## Paradox-sj (Dec 15, 2004)

Has Samsung put out a list of their 2012 models with RVU support?


----------



## dielray (Aug 5, 2009)

"Paradox-sj" said:


> Has Samsung put out a list of their 2012 models with RVU support?


RVU certified devices can be found here:
http://www.rvualliance.org/products


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Paradox-sj said:


> Has Samsung put out a list of their 2012 models with RVU support?


Samsung has been strangely mum on the topic and what they do offer is outdated (unless the current release is preliminary).

http://support-us.samsung.com/cyber...9&modelname=&modelcode=&session_id=&from_osc=


----------



## Rickt1962 (Jul 17, 2012)

Has anyone checked out the ES6100 ? 40" It says its only 120mhz was wondering if it had the screen door effect ?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Rickt1962 said:


> Has anyone checked out the ES6100 ? 40" It says its only 120mhz was wondering if it had the screen door effect ?


Samsung's propaganda page says the ES6100 employs a 240 CMR display. Of course this doesn't mean much in a world of misleading advertising statistics. Please not that the rate is in Hertz, not Megahertz.

If it is an LCD, it probably has SDE. Whether or not you would notice it depends on where you're sitting in relation to the screen.


----------



## harperhometheater (Aug 31, 2012)

Yes, screen door effect (SDE) is in relation to resolution/pixel count, not refresh rate. The 120, 240 Hz "features" reduce what is known as "judder".


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Guys, this is a pretty old thread. Let's start a new one for new discussion. And to answer the question, all Samsung "ES" series TVs are supposed to have RVU support now. I can't confirm that with a list but that's what I'm told.


----------

