Rant incoming:
This was spurred by having just read https://www.androidpolice.com/google-tv-streamer-questions-answered/ , particularly this bit:
When I asked directly, a Google representative told me they couldn't confirm which chipset powers the Google TV Streamer — essentially, Google declined to answer.
I've been noticing an increasing trend by device makers to not disclose the SoC their devices run on. I've been seeing it with e-readers, network routers, media streamers, etc.
It's incredibly frustrating to have devices actively exclude important information from their spec sheet and even dodge direct questions from tech news reporters. Reporters shouldn't have to theorize about what chip is in a released device. It's nuts.
If you're wondering why this infomation is important, it can be for several reasons. SoC vendor can have significant impact on the real world performance and security of a device. It also carries major implications for how open a device is as SoC vendors can have dramatically different open source support and firmware practices.
I've had to resort to inspecting the circuit board photos of FCC filings way too much lately to identify the processors being used in devices. And that's not a great workaroud in the first place as those photos are generally kept confidential by the FCC until months after the device releases (case in point the Google Streamer).
I wonder if this gives them the rights to all of Infowars' library of footage. Maybe they could "keep" Jones as a host by cutting up old clips kinda how South Park did with Isaac Hayes for Chef's last episode.