While the electronics giant apparently mulled over shipping a new unit without a drive -- the PS3 comes with a built-in Blu-ray player -- it chose to keep the legacy component because Internet connection speeds vary so much around the world. As a result, it may be difficult for many potential players to download games to the console's hard drive. The Journal says the next Xbox console with also ship with an optical drive for similar reasons.

Long-time gaming partners like GameStop, just starting to transition to the online downloading world, will be happy to hear the news, as such retailers could use all the help they can get as physical sales continue to erode. For instance, new smash Diablo III had presales of 2 million copies, but many of those were download purchases. Not surprisingly, GameStop had a bad first quarter, with revenues dropping 12.3 percent.

While it's clear that the long-term trend for video games is away from physical media, it looks like gamers will have to purchase one more generation of consoles that come with optical drives. Will you still use it, or download most of your content?

While MVPDs to date have been limited to companies like Comcast, DirecTV and Verizon, the commission is mulling whether online companies like Hulu or Netflix could fall under that definition. The importance of being an MVPD is that such firms have the right to be able to distribute certain programming that they would otherwise have to negotiate separate contracts for. The result could be potentially disruptive for the pay TV industry, which is why they are naturally cautioning the FCC to move slowly on its decision.

The ultimate ruling could play a huge factor in what Apple could deliver in addition to a new television set, which is already rumored to be in pilot production. Rather than going to each channel and attempting to negotiate -- or, according to some, bully -- it into a deal for programming, Apple could just offer a slew of channels like any cable provider. It could help spur the growing movement for "cord cutting" -- people using online video services to replace their pay TV subscription.

While those pay TV providers would still be the dominant way consumers get Internet access to access online MVPDs, allowing more competitors could further erode subscribers' willingness to bundle Internet connectivity with TV packages. Needless to say, there will be a lot of lobbying by parties on both sides of the issue before the public comment period ends. The result could make it far easier for Apple to become a major player in the TV industry without even needing to dole out huge amounts of the cash on which the company is sitting.

The HDTV industry has been ailing of late, whether it's TV manufacturers dealing with slowing sales or bricks-and-mortar retailers coping with buyers making more purchases online (often after testing sets in their stores). Samsung and Sony have decided to use one weapon in their limited arsenal to cope with the difficult conditions.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the two electronics giants are limiting retailers' ability to discount their televisions, which should help the Best Buys of the world who often can't match the sale prices of online retailers. And given the general trend of falling prices for sets, the move could help prop up profit margins for the companies.

In theory, if there are no sale prices for Sony or Samsung sets, you could just buy a new TV while you're at Best Buy instead of checking prices online on your smartphone as you're in the aisles and then buying from the cheapest Internet store. That increasingly common phenomenon known as "showrooming" has been a major reason that Best Buy has struggled recently, despite decent first quarter numbers.

While legal rulings have determined that manufacturers are in their rights to limit discounting of their products, there is one potential drawback to the strategy: What if people buy fewer Samsung and Sony sets because they're priced too high? LG, for example, told the WSJ that it's okay with such discounting, presumably because it could help its market share. Target has also told TV manufacturers that another way to fight showrooming is to make differentiated products for physical retailers that the Amazons of the online world can't offer.

Do you agree with Samsung and Sony's gambit that limiting sales on their TVs will help Best Buy and other bricks-and-mortar stores (and their own bottom lines)? Let us know your thoughts in the Comments section below.

The prototype interface Comcast once dubbed Xcalibur has become the real interface Comcast now calls X1. It's a major upgrade to your current DVR, including a new remote control app, that is launching in the Boston market in a few weeks and other markets shortly thereafter.

As the screen above shows, this is a far more user-friendly, tablet-like interface than what most Comcast customers are used to. In addition to the usual channel guide, DVR, and video on demand features, the X1 platform delivers apps for sports, weather, traffic, and music as well as social media features. The more personalized experience is made possible by the new set-top box's tru2way and IP capabilities.

Accompanying the new DVR is an updated remote control app that provides motion and gesture controls to users, letting you swipe through pages of the program guide, and even lets you pause an on-demand recording by shaking your device. According to Engadget, the app will be available for the iPhone first.

The best news for customers is that the new X1 platform -- including set-top box and the new features -- will not cost you an extra penny if you are already an Xfinity Triple Play HD/DVR subscriber. Take it from one of those Xfinity users who isn't even eligible for a DVR that will let me watch live TV on my iPad -- the X1 can't reach my area fast enough.

If you follow start-up culture, you know that the ability to "pivot" -- to change your business model on a dime -- can be the difference between failure and major success. But sometimes established companies -- even those often derided as dinosaurs -- can reap the benefits of pivoting as well.

That appears to be the case with Microsoft and its Xbox 360. Designed to compete with the PlayStation 3 and Nintendo Wii for gamers' hearts and minds, it's become something much more valuable -- the most popular conduit to the Internet in the living room. According to a new report from market research firm Forrester, the Xbox is the leader in the "connected TV" platform wars, bigger than Apple, Google, and any manufacturer's "smart TV" offerings.

About half of the 70 million Xboxes in use are connected to the Internet, and that install base has led companies from Comcast and HBO to Hulu and Netflix to offer streaming apps for their video services. Sensing that it has laid a golden egg with its Xbox Live subscription service, Microsoft has recently rolled out a wrinkle in its pricing strategy, selling a package (as a pilot program) that includes an Xbox 360 (with Kinect) for $99 with a two-year subscription to Xbox Live for $14.99 per month. The lower console price will get more units into homes as the company works on its follow-up Xbox.

While Microsoft has managed to establish pole position in the race to connect TVs to the Internet, its lead is by no means safe. It's been lucky that Apple has thus far treated its Apple TV device as a "hobby" and that Google TV has been a dud. But an Apple television -- when and if it arrives -- could alter that equation, especially since it could unleash the iTunes App Store in a way that Apple TV hasn't to date.

Speaking of app stores, Forrester analyst James McQuivey tells the New York Times that Microsoft could be leaving itself vulnerable to competitors by not opening up its app store further. It may be paying off developers to build apps for its Windows Phones, but it shouldn't have to be so desperate with 30+ million Xbox users who are connected to the Internet.

Do you think Microsoft will be able to hold on to its lead in the living room? If not, who will emerge as the winner? Let us know your thoughts in the Comments section below.

A few weeks ago, Ikea surprised the world by announcing it was going to sell a TV embedded into a furniture piece, hiding all of the usual cables within its stand. Dubbed Uppleva, the built-in HDTV is expected to cost $960 and be available in the U.S. starting next year.

We now know a little more about Uppleva, thanks to GigaOM, which reports that the set will come with approximately 20 apps that make use of its "Wi-Fi ready" capabilities. These include YouTube, Vimeo, Dailymotion, and TuneIn, and the TV will supposedly also include the Opera for TV Web browser. It will additionally come with a wireless subwoofer, adding to the sense that you're buying a complete home theater package with Uppleva.

But here's where it gets interesting -- and possibly disappointing. It turns out that there will be a few different screen sizes for Uppleva, starting at the tiny (for American tastes, at least) 24 inches. (They'll go up as high as 46 inches.) So the question buyers will want to know is: What size screen will the $960 Uppleva ship with? With consumers now looking for bigger and bigger HDTVs, it's hard to imagine anyone thinking this would be as good a deal if the base-price set was sized to be more suitable for a kitchen than a living room.

Are you interested in the Uppleva concept? If so, what would be the smallest screen size you would want to buy it with? Let us know in the Comments section below.

It seemed almost like an immutable law of nature: HDTV prices will start high and continue falling, quarter after quarter, year after year. But even though the economic recovery is barely sputtering along, a funny thing has happened recently to TV prices: They're going up -- and mostly have been for the last year.

According to a new report from market research firm IHS iSuppli, HDTV prices have shot up 11.4 percent since the 2011 holiday season. What gives? You can thank all those fancy new bells and whistles on new sets for the cost increase.

LED backlighting, larger screen sizes, and Internet connectivity, in particular, are helping manufacturers from slashing prices on their TVs. For instance, iSuppli says that an LED-backlit LCD set with a screen size of 40 to 42 inches costs 21 percent more than one using traditional CCFL backlighting. Even 3D sets, which haven't been the boon that the industry had hoped, are seeing modest price increases -- 3 percent in April.

Of course, LED sets generally deliver superior performance to CCFL-based ones, so one can't avoid recommending them if you're looking for the better image quality. But buyers may be wise to consider how much extra a "smart" TV costs over a non-networked one -- and see if they can save money by just buying a Roku, Apple TV, or networked Blu-ray player instead for their streaming services.

Considering how damaging past price wars have been to the bottom lines of both manufacturers and retailers, don't expect prices to plummet anytime soon. Instead, you're going to be even smarter about your buying decisions if you want to get the best deal. Have you noticed TV prices going up? If so, has it impacted your buying decisions? Let us know in Comments section below.

"If at first you don't succeed, try, try again" could be the motto for Google TV, the search giant's snake-bitten attempt to enter your living room. The latest foray, after unsuccessful first-generation products from Logitech and Sony, comes courtesy of LG, which announced that it will be releasing sets based on the second-generation Google TV platform starting in two weeks.

While Reuters reports that "LG gave no shipment target or details of prices or screen sizes," there are two LG sets with Google TV currently listed on Amazon -- the 47-inch 47G2 for $1,599 and the 55-inch 55G2 for $2,099.99, both 3D models that come with six pairs of 3D glasses and will ship in "2 to 4 weeks". Our sister site CNET recently reviewed the 47G2, and found it to be "a disappointing attempt at Google TV" with "a frustrating user experience."

And therein lies the crux of the problem with Google TV, which has been plagued with interface woes since its debut. The second iteration did address those problems, but it still remains to be seen if that was sufficient enough to win over consumers. Despite already having its own "smart TV" platform, LG is clearly hoping the Google TV technology will be a way to stand out from its peers.

Would you be interested in purchasing an HDTV equipped with Google TV? Why or why not? Let us know your thoughts in the Comments section below.

The reasoning behind what would be a seismic shift in Hulu's strategy is obvious: The broadcasters make a lot more money from traditional TV viewership than people watching episodes online, where ads are fewer and cost less. Requiring a cable or satellite subscription would make sure people aren't using Hulu in order to "cut the cord" from pay TV.

While the Post says it could takes years for Hulu to be able to implement the authorization plan, the effects of the strategic pivot have already started to be felt, as Hulu partner Providence Equity Partners cashed out of its stake after the new model was hatched. And though ad revenues are climbing for Hulu, they could collapse if the number of users is sliced by the authorization plan.

Ultimately, that might be fine with the remaining partners, along with other pay TV providers, which would rather have you use their new and forthcoming streaming options (as part of your monthly subscription) than receive lower advertising fees from Hulu.

Would requiring authorization strangle Hulu? Would you still use the service (or even be able to use the service) if it required authorization? Let us know your thoughts in the Comments section below.

[Via Gizmodo]

The company won't be the direct provider of programming, instead letting you choose a package from a group of providers. It will be the conduit for your subscription to reach you on mobile devices, your computer, or your TV. That intermediary role is crucial, as it not only keeps NimbleTV from having to directly negotiate with dozens of broadcast channels to produce its own service, but also allows it to offer its streaming services to providers as the way to give their subscribers "TV anywhere" options.

That doesn't mean NimbleTV won't get itself into trouble with those potential partners. According to the New York Times, the company won't disclose who its provider partners are, and says that it can provide its services without the permission of providers. It compares itself to an "agent" of the user, buying the service from a provider and then reselling it to the user with a yet-undisclosed monthly fee tacked on.

Despite the steps it's taken to avoid lawsuits, it seems likely that NimbleTV will suffer the same fate as Aereo, another start-up that's attempting to appeal to "cord cutters" and quickly was sued by a number of broadcasters. The best-case scenario for the company is probably to convince a TV provider to purchase it and its streaming technology for its own subscribers.

In the meantime, NimbleTV is running a beta test of the service for New York city residents, offering 26 channels that it will pay for on its own. It plans to roll out fully with a satellite TV provider over the summer. By then, it may also be in court.

Two stores -- one in Kansas City, Missouri and the other in Scottsdale, Arizona -- are already closed, and five Minnesota stores and one in San Antonio have already been informed that they are shutting down. Of the remaining 42 locations, seven are in California, six are in Illinois, and three are in Virginia. Major cities like Boston, Cleveland, Tampa, and Vancouver are each losing one location.

You can find the full list of stores closing here. Do you frequent one of the stores on this list? Will you miss having a Best Buy nearby? Will fewer Best Buy locations ultimately help the company turn itself around? Share your thoughts in the Comments section below.

[Via Engadget]

According to developers, Microsoft has shipped versions of the new Xbox hardware, due at the end of 2013, to programmers to start coding games for the system. What they've apparently seen is a console with a 16-core IBM PowerPC CPU, a massive jump from the three-core CPU in the current Xbox, as well as an AMD Radeon HD 7000-series GPU. It also comes with a built-in Blu-ray player. The next version of Kinect supposedly requires four of those 16 CPU cores, so we know one reason why Microsoft has gone core-happy.

The PlayStation 4 is rumored to have both an AMD CPU and Radeon graphics, and may ship before the Xbox Durango. The Wii U will launch first, supposedly with a $300 price tag. That pricing may be tough for gamers to swallow for hardware that's equivalent to the current Xbox and PS 3, especially if tablet gaming steps up its streaming capabilities to HDTVs. Of course, it will be interesting to see how much a 16-core Xbox will cost -- and if consumers will be willing to pay for the advanced hardware.

[Via VentureBeat]

Developers have expressed disappointment with the Wii U's hardware, saying it can't even match the graphics firepower of the Xbox 360 and PS3. Given that those consoles are a bit long in the tooth, too, the fact that Nintendo couldn't surpass them is a bit puzzling, to say the least. As Hot Hardware points out, the IBM Power CPU and the Radeon 4000-based graphics rumored to be in the Wii U should be able to match the existing systems' performance.

To add insult to injury, it appears that the Wii U's biggest potential selling point -- a touchscreen controller -- has its own limitations. Supposedly the new console can only handle input from a solitary touchscreen controller, so you can't have multiple players using multiple touchscreens.

The Wii U's best advantage might be timing. It could launch just in time for the holiday shopping season, and the novelty of a next-generation console could power sales until Microsoft or Sony gets its act together and releases its own new hardware. In the case of Microsoft, it's looking more likely that the Xbox "Durango" won't reach store shelves until the end of 2013.

Nintendo has emphasized game play and simplicity over high-def graphics in the past, and it seems like it will need to roll out that reasoning again with the Wii U. Are you interested in the new Nintendo console, given its potentially less-than-exciting hardware gains? Let us know in the comments below.

But there's another wrinkle to the Apple-Foxconn-Sharp synergy that could potentially shake up the TV market. Technology is becoming available that could allow manufacturers to produce Retina Display panels for larger devices than the iPhone and iPad, including HDTVs.

Technology Review reports that Applied Materials has created machinery that makes it easier to produce pixel-dense displays using indium gallium zinc oxide (IGZO) at larger screen sizes. It just so happens that Sharp is working on IGZO technology, and could soon be producing IGZO panels for the new Retina Display iPad.

IGZO allows for faster refresh rates for TVs than amorphous silicon, and could usher in 4K-resolution screens to the living room. A 60-inch 4K Apple television would certainly throw down the gauntlet for the next generation of HDTVs, but there are a number of issues that could keep such an offering purely in the speculative realm. Price would obviously be a factor, as IGZO panels would probably be initially more costly to produce, and a 4K or Retina Display screen could have its limitations -- notably sufficient viewing distance to let viewers actually perceive the resolution difference compared 1080p. That's not to mention the content problem -- i.e., very little 4K content and no bandwidth-efficient way to stream that content online. (I can't imagine Apple would be keen on just relying on upgraded Blu-ray technology to handle 4K video.)

Of course, Apple could always release a conventional HD television first and then bump up to a Retina Display with a subsequent generation -- just as it's done with the iPad -- as it perfects the IGZO process and momentum grows towards a 4K world.

Applied Materials says it's already placed its new machines with (unnamed) manufacturers, so Sharp could already be working with them on IGZO panels. What that will eventually mean for an Apple television is still unknown, but merely building a better "smart" TV doesn't seem like the type of end result Steve Jobs would have imagined for his "revolutionary" reinventing of the television.

Details have emerged about LG's forthcoming launch of the 55-inch OLED HDTV it introduced at CES in January. It appears that the set will be rolled out during the Cannes Film Festival in May, with a price tag that equals the glitz of that event.

LG is apparently pricing the 55EM9600 at 9 million Korean Won, or around $8,000. While that is far more than the average buyer would pay for a new set, it wouldn't have surprised people if the LG was priced at $10,000 at launch. It's also a better "deal" (if you can call it that) than the first consumer OLED TV, an 11-inch model that Sony sold for $2,500.

The launch will set off a small arms war with Samsung, which is also rolling out its own Super OLED TV later this year. LG says it will determine in July whether it will invest more resources in OLED TV production, presumably based on initial consumer demand for the 55EM9600.

Do you have any interest in buying the 55-inch OLED when (and if) it makes it to the U.S. at its launch price?

[OLED-Info.com via The Verge]

The Atom CE5300 Media Processor, code-named Berryville, is the first 32nm CPU Intel has offered for set-top boxes and "smart" TVs. It includes two cores, updated graphics capabilities, and an H.264 B-picture encoder.

Intel says that it is steering the CE5300 toward pay TV providers for use in its set-top boxes, rather than trying to market it toward consumer manufacturers. (Previous Intel chips have powered Logitech's Revue Google TV box and Sony's Internet-enabled TVs.) The new chip is going to be featured in a gateway from hardware manufacturer Amino, which describes itself as an IPTV provider, though it may generally have a harder time making inroads against more established set-top chip makers.

Ironically, this is the same industry that Intel is rumored to be taking on if it pursues its own Internet TV service. Could the CE5300 be the centerpiece of Intel's own set-top box foray? Intel isn't saying, but I wouldn't be surprised if this winds up being the brains behind any device the company eventually releases.

[Via Intel]

Why would Intel want to involve itself in something infinitely more difficult than selling its chip to third parties? A cynic could argue that the limited success of its Viiv platform and related efforts has left it with plenty of excess silicon that it needs to somehow make use of. But the Wall Street Journal points out that CEO Paul Otellini is looking to move Intel in directions other than the computer industry, and this initiative, which may or may not ultimately use Intel's name, certainly would accomplish that.

An IPTV service could be the Holy Grail for viewers who are tired of paying for cable or satellite TV packages, and would prefer to purchase channels a la carte, one reason Apple seems to be pursuing the idea. Unfortunately, there are a number of massive obstacles to getting such services to market.

The primary one, of course, is getting TV networks to go along for the ride. That requires not only lucrative deals for each one, but also interest from the networks in actually striking a deal. Apple is supposedly having difficulty brokering such deals, so why would it be any easier for a company with limited content experience like Intel to make agreements? (Though it couldn't be any less flexible than Apple in terms of negotiating tactics.)

Another major issue is that such service still require Internet access, and guess who provides that to most consumers? The same pay TV providers that Intel would presumably be competing with for viewers. As the Journal suggests, those providers could raise rates on Internet access if more people start using huge amounts of bandwidth watching Internet TV.

Intel may ultimately scrap this idea if such issues get too complicated, but it has apparently solicited "rate cards" from networks to determine the costs of making programming deals, and has hired a BBC exec to lead a secretive Intel Media group. It's a tough nut to crack, but given its cash and ambition, Intel can't be counted out just yet.

The bigger question may ultimately be: Would you be interested in an Intel Internet TV service? Let us know your thoughts below.

Todd Beauchamp, who worked in Apple's audio realm -- helping develop the iPod's white earbuds -- has broken away to develop Unity, a TV stand with a twist. With built-in speakers and Internet streaming capabilities, Unity hopes to offer one-stop shopping for accessories once you purchase your new HDTV.

Beauchamp tells Fortune.com that Unity stems from his disappointment with ever-shrinking sound bars, which he claims offer correspondingly smaller sound. He believes he's corrected that flaw, offering an integrated device complete with full 5.1 surround sound and the ability to stream Netflix and Hulu and play Blu-ray discs (no built-in Wi-Fi, however).

Unity was first shown off at this year's CES, and our sister site CNET came away generally impressed with the audio output.

I wouldn't exactly call Unity's design "elegant" (Beauchap's term), as the subwoofer essentially does double duty, also serving as the connection between the unit's base and its top, which can hold up to a 60-inch set. (Clever may be a more fitting word.) At $999, the price tag also keeps the market for Unity somewhat limited, though it certainly is priced competitively when you consider the cost of its components (stand, speaker system, Internet-enabled Blu-ray player) purchased separately.

Unity is slated to be released sometime in the middle of the year. What do you think of the design? Will you consider it if you're buying a new TV or to replace your current stand and home theater system? Let us know in the Comments section below.

As you might guess, it's not Netflix that's keeping that information out of the "social graph." Instead, it's a 1988 law that protects your video renting history from being shared without a criminal warrant. A recent Bloomberg Businessweek article details how Netflix is working to update that law to allow it to share your viewing history on Facebook.

Netflix has already struck a deal with Facebook to let it automatically share each time you watch a video through its service -- once new legislation is enacted. Any and all videos. While that makes sense for Netflix's purposes, it's something many subscribers would object to, not wanting their viewing choices broadcast to all their contacts. (Your Facebook friends may not be interested in knowing your kids are constantly watching Barney videos, and you may not be thrilled to share your adult viewing habits with the world.)

As Netflix battles in Congress, it's not surprisingly run into resistance over its all-or-nothing sharing approach. Comedian-turned-Senator Al Franken, for example, pointed out the extremely obvious solution of letting the subscriber decide which title he or she would want to share on Facebook, taking the matter out of Netflix's hands. He summed up the issue nicely:

“It’s a really good thing that people can easily tell their video company, ‘Sure, go ahead and tell people I watched The Godfather, but no, don’t tell them I watched Yoga for Health: Depression & Gastro-Intestinal Disorders.’?”

It's unclear why Netflix supports an amendment to the Video Privacy Protection Act that doesn't provide this level of consumer choice baked in. Given the PR disaster it suffered last year over its pricing changes, the company should probably think twice about such a strategy, especially if it really wants users to share their viewing habits with any sense of enthusiasm. I know I would have no interest in adding a Netflix app to my Facebook account if I couldn't choose which videos I could share. Would you?

At issue is a streaming TV service that Apple is supposedly trying to develop, presumably to work with a rumored Apple television set (though it could also be a possibility for its Apple TV boxes and even the iPad). While an Apple television would be highly anticipated and probably very popular, it's hardly the same landscape that music labels faced when the iTunes Store was first presented to them. Then, free downloading was rampant and the iPod was quickly establishing itself as the MP3 player. In other words, Apple had huge leverage and used it to the hilt.

Though the video landscape is in a state of flux, with streaming services like Netflix and Hulu battling traditional cable and satellite companies for the viewing minutes of consumers, broadcasters aren't in the same state of utter panic over their immediate future. Not surprisingly, then, media execs aren't exactly caving in to Apple's offers, which one describes as "They want everything for nothing."

Apple apparently is also trying to get pay TV providers to abandon their set-top boxes and work with Apple's UI and devices instead. As with broadcasters, cable companies -- shockingly -- aren't that interested.

You can't fault Apple for trying to upend the industry in the way it's done before, but you do have to wonder if this is an example of the late Steve Jobs' "reality distortion field" in action. It's hard to negotiate that "we decide the price, we decide what content" -- as one source told the Post -- when there's already a huge existing base of TV owners, legacy set-top boxes, established streaming services, and mobile apps from TV providers and networks alike.

It's clear that offer streaming TV apps with the roll out of an "iTV" is part of the Apple strategy to appeal to cord cutters as well as fanboys. But as long as networks perceive that their content is more valuable to Apple than Apple's devices are to them, those apps may be limited in number.

Do you think Apple will eventually be able to persuade broadcasters to offer their programming for a streaming TV service? Let us know your thoughts in the Comments section below.