Google introduces Android-powered Apple TV competitor - Page 7

Google Search is exceptionally good.
So is Google Maps.
Google Earth.
Google Voice.
Goog411.
YouTube.

Need I go on?

If past performance is any indicator of future results, both companies will continue to do very well for the foreseeable future.

But nobody can know the future in any detail.

You present these ideas very well.

Great points. I've never considered how many pioneering products M$ has introduced, but let languish.

Yes. They could be doing a whole lot better. I've never had much respect for M$.

Agree.

This would mean that Apple might at last be allowed to un-hobby Apple TV.

I actually like the Google TV concept.

Hopefully the massive downloads required for this to work will encourage Australian ISP's to offer decent, cost effective, unlimited internet plans like they have in Europe and the US.

It seems there are lots of people posting to this forum who do not have a clue what is currently available in this market, and some of the great things that the open source community are doing to make some of these Apple products actually usable!

I had an ATV for a while and ran XBMC on it but have binned it, it was too much time and effort to keep updated as Apple kept pulling the plug. I now have a Mac Mini running PLEX, which is essentially a fork of XBMC and much the same thing..

People asked about making the iPhone into a remote for the AppleTV...

http://www.collect3.com.au/xbmc-remote/

As well as being the best media center available XBMC and PLEX now support apps which includes the ability to stream TV from any available source on the Internet. This is all open source so anyone can write an app. I have on my system an app that will stream Hulu, Fox news, South Park, Daily Show etc.. The BBC iPlayer works inside XBMC and countless others. And it will play all your iTunes content, even purchases, as well as every video, audio format you like.

By the way, Open source = free.


But a stunning development is what Dlink are doing with Boxee, Boxee is another fork of XBMC that has been developed as an online TV system, much more like what Google are talking about. Dlink announced a while ago that they would be releasing a hardware solution that runs Boxee and it looks pretty cool.

Check out the coolest remote! Apple take note, you're supposed to be the smart ones....

http://ces.cnet.com/8301-31045_1-10429585-269.html


My point is that GoogleTV is not a rip off of the AppleTV (as some have strangely said) it does not even play in the same park as AppleTV. It is doing things that others have already done for ages.

AppleTV always was dead in the water, it promised so much and yet failed to deliver, There are some very clever people working in this market and none of them it seems work for Apple, most of them I would say are still in basements, helping to make open source apps like XBMC.

Trust me, spend 5mins with XBMC or PLEX and you will never turn on your AppleTV again.

http://www.plexapp.com/

Even google maps is not that good. Mapquest give you the best directions. Google maps gives enough directions to get to the vicinity of your destination and but mapquest gives the best directions for all the small streets that actually take you to the address.

Why would you possibly want to do that? This is called a "distributed cost", you're driving up the cost for all users to please the needs of a minority of them.

DVR's are going the way of the dodo. Certainly there are people that still want them now, but they won't in a year. Doubling the price of the ATV to please that minority is stupid. In an optional box, it's an optional box.

Maury

Don't hate me because I'm beautifat.

Let's face it, Apple TV went to market too soon. It is a placeholder, an incomplete solution to an ill-defined problem.

Then Apple should be worried. Froyo is superior to iPhone OS, and Android is ahead in sales in the US and not far behind worldwide.

If Apple are relying on mobile they need to step up their game. Open up the app store, offer a wider choice of handsets - if they can do it with the iPod, why not the iPhone? Why no iPhone Mini and some sort of premium high end model?

Maybe so. It's hard to argue against that sentiment, since most people who like the AppleTV are the people who have hacked it. Certainly a lot of of people would like an all-in-one media+dvr solution but its a real minefield and perhaps Apple knew that and decided it wasn't going to worth the effort to support all the permutations of closed cable environments to make that happen.

So Google is willing to take this on, but I didn't notice Comcast or Cox or any of the other cable companies on stage. And since encrypted QAM isn't exactly open itself (ask anyone with an EyeTV), it seems like Google going to try to pass channel changing and recording information through the IR port on the cable box with some ugly dongle-type receiver that communicates with the Google/Logitech/whoever's unit. CableCARD tried to crack this same nut and is, by all accounts, a dismal failure because it's in the cable companies' best interests to have that solution not work -- it would kill their cable box and DVR rental streams. If all they are doing is sending menu navigation commands to a cable box, Comcast can break that with every firmware release.

So maybe it'll be a good media device or maybe not, but I doubt Comcast or Hulu is going to play ball (and Hulu may wind up blocking additional devices or browsers that GoogleTV may mimic -- cf. Boxee).

Anyway, I think we'll see less and less free content and more subscriptions as these devices get more popular. Content owners are going to want to be paid for their investment in developing and producing the entertainment people seem to want to consume. We'll just have to see how that plays out.

It's fine that Google makes a big media splash with this announcement, it's their dog-and-pony show. But I'll be interested to see how kludgey the final shipping product turns out to be. My guess is that getting DVR functionality in there will turn the device into something Rube Goldberg would have been proud of. And the internet content is going to be less and less free. Maybe GoogleTV can just get torrent searching and do it that way?

Good post!

I JailBroke an early AppleTV (a while back) and was able to play video from all over the web-- there are thousands of free movies out there.

With the advent of the iPhone, I kinda' lost interest in JB AppleTV solutions.

I looked at the sites you referenced and will Install XBMC or Plex late tonight (when the AppleTV is free)

Do either of these provide any kind of general web surfing capability?

.

I have, been thinking about GTV quite a bit.

I reviewed the announcement, and watched the videos (those that are available)*

* I had to laugh! In one demo they made a big deal about playing a video on your Android smart phone and passing that video from the phone to the GTV, in just a few seconds. Wow! All right... they passed the URL of a YouTube video to the GTV, which, then played it! They're just sooo clever!

For all practical purposes, GTV is offering an Aggregator that includes:
-- a STB that runs Android OS and overlays the TV signal
-- a, yet unseen, remote (kb, pointer?)
-- an IR Blaster to control the other STBs

They say that the capability will be built-in on the next Sony TV. But, very few people will buy a New Sony TV just to get GTV... that leaves the GTV STB (and friends).

So, by adding the GTV STB as the last connection between cable box, DVR, whatever, GTV can overlay web and Android capability on top of all the other STBs' outputs.

And, the IR Blaster can be used to schedule/select/control/play content from the other STBs, as well as the TV (I suspect that AppleTV could be just another STB to GTV).

By doing it this way, GTV, takes control of all components of your Home Theater, as opposed to being just another STB, among many, connected to a separate video source on the TV.

That's a pretty good solution:
-- everything connects to the GTV STB
-- the GTV STB connects to the TV
-- GTV controls them all

We have a Sony Bravia with the following sources (STBs, etc.)
-- OTA TV
-- TiVo
-- Wii
-- VideoCam
-- DVD/VCR *
-- Cable Box (just switched from Comcast to ATT U-verse)
-- AppleTV (streamed from a Mac Mini media library with 2 2TB external HDDs)
-- iPhone/iPad
-- Mac Mini (web, EyeTV)

* Yes, occasionally, we need to watch a VCR tape (those things just won't die).


I don't know if the GTV STB / IR Blaster can control all of that but it does add a kinda' integrated web experience.

A few questions:
-- how much will it cost?
-- purchase or subscription?
-- how many sources can be plugged into the STB?
-- how varied can the sources be?
-- what happens if i need other sources not supported by the GTV STB and IR Blaster?

An aggregator begins to lose appeal if it can't aggregate everything.


This is a key point!

If an Aggregator can't aggregate everything, the things it can't aggregate remain as separate sources plugged into the TV. The only way to access these, is for the Aggregator to switch the TV to another source, thus GTV gives up control.

Then:
-- likely, you will need other remotes for these other sources
-- there is no control or communication between GTV and these non-aggregated devices: GTV doesn't know what's on EyeTV, or how to schedule it.
-- it becomes kludgey to go back and forth between Aggregator and non-aggregated devices.

I guess we'll still need a coffee table full of remotes (or issue a tool belt to each family member

The whole experience begins to tarnish, to degrade into what we have today... Except now, we have another [specialty] STB and another remote control.


My AppleTV or Mac Mini (or any other STB) could be upgraded to add an IR Blaster and remote. That STB, then would become the "First among Equals" source plugged into the TV. Conceivably, this could deliver a better UX than an Aggregator that doesn't really aggregate everything.


And then there's the remote... yes the remote! From what I saw in the GTV videos, they had several people running remotes (sometimes concurrently), and I believe they were using an iPad as a story-board for the demo.

I saw a BT keyboard and several Android smart phones being used as remotes.

An iPod Touch or a iPad would be a better solution than what they showed.

But, consider this: just as few will buy a new Sony TV to get GTV, few will buy an expensive remote to control GTV... Sure, they'll use an Android smart phone if they have one, and it's handy.

The GTV system needs to include an inexpensive, intuitive, comfortable, hand-held (one hand) combination kb pointer device.

What's that going to look like?


The more I think about GTV, the less appeal it has to me... It seems like a half-baked solution, not ready for prime time!

.

Do you think Panasonic is going to play nice with Sony on this? Or do you have to replace everything with Sony gear?

Have you ever used the current or prior generation of IR blasters?

Do you think Comcast or Cox is going to readily turn over their interface to a Google device? That they will suddenly stop encrypting the QAM digital TV streams? For Sony or Google or anyone else? Do you know anyone who's gotten CableCARD to even begin to deliver on that promise?

As I said earlier, this is going to be a minefield with lots of players defending lots of competing interests. Including privacy advocates who haven't been heard from yet, but will be in spades when this turns into a shipping product. Sure, the tech blogs are falling over themselves to suck up to Google on this. But let's wait and see what actually gets delivered before we anoint Eric Schmidt as king of the STB.

Another thought I had just now.

If Google is indexing all the torrents on Teh Intarwebz, and they start making money off a GoogleTV STB or Google licensed STB where they have a defined profit motive...

How long before the content owners go directly after Google?

Today they can claim to just to have an ISP-type relationship and try to hide behind the YouTube "licenses". Does Google really think that will shield them from big lawsuits from Universal, et al?

Your points in this and your prior post are spot on!

I'll add just one more!

Are you willing to delegate to Google the ability to search for/prioritize/select which content to view?

Wouldn't Google, likely, give preference to content that is directly beneficial to Google (ads, adsense, adwords, etc.)?


I suspect what they actually deliver will be a partial solution of what "could be". But, it will be a poor UX of limited use that will be abandoned within a year... or it will evolve into a Google game box competitor to the PS3, Wii, XBox.

King of the STB... I like the sound of that!


.

All this talk about rivalry among Apple, Google, Adobe, content owners, cable providers, TV providers, TV Mfgrs- Sony, Panasonic et al... all jostling for position, cutting deals, seeking advantage/power over the others.

It reminds me of a Paul Harveyism:


"We cannot all stand around in a circle with our hands in each others pockets and get rich thereby!"

... it's kinda' fun though!!

... er, ah: a little to the left!

.

Actually, I spent about 1/2 hour with each system. While the UI for using the system is nice, the setup is rather primitive.

I have my media library on a Mac Mini running Snow Leopard, iTunes and iPhoto on 2 2TB external drives.

Why can't either XMBC or PLEX use Bonjour to recognize these shared libraries. And the configuration options to access these (add source) don't work.

Further, PLEX doesn't run properly under screen sharing (my media library has neither screen or keyboard attached). And on the local Mac you cannot use the mouse (even during configuration/setup)-- you must use an Apple remote... real sucky!


Free, open source !~= good UX!

.

My guess is that Apple is very worried about Android. Steve made silly hyperbolic remarks about Google's intentions with Android. ISTM that he is worried, or at least, wants his minions to feel worried.

Apple might rely on mobile, but keep up their current strategy. They have had great success being a niche supplier to rabid fans, and more recently, with making simple consumer electronics devices which were market leaders. That market is now dying, given the recent integration of music players with phones.

It will be interesting to see which direction Apple will go with their future strategy - to make a niche product, or to make a mass-market product.

I see them taking the latter tack.

I think that there will be final products, and not just one product. IIRC, Google will allow others to incorporate the technology into their own devices.

Some of those devices will likely run other software too. In such a case, if they have a web browser, then torrent files will be available to download, and some third-party software will likely be available to accomplish the task.

I look forward to having better integration between TV and internet and a home server and a DVR. IMO, the current situation is the kludge.

I hook up my laptop to the TV to watch movies. I can't get stuff off of the DVR and onto the computer for remote viewing. The high capacity external drive is a seperate piece, and so if I want to watch an archived movie, I transfer it onto the laptop first, and then hook up the laptop to the TV.

All very Rube Goldberg currently. I could set things up differently, and I used to use a HTC. That too was Rube Goldberg.

If my TV had an internet connection and a big hard drive, along with PVR software and the ability to install extra codecs and misc software, I'd like that a lot.

They will have about as much success as Apple did. These things are just not compelling products.

The thing that gives Google TV a leg up, in my opinion, is that they've gone after big name partners for both hardware and content, instead of trying to go at it all by themselves.

Well Apple doesn't need hardware help and Apple does have great content. Google needs to ship not talk. We will see.

Apple never tried to go at it all by themselves, either. Sure, they wanted to make the HW and SW, but that is Apple, that's what they do and they have a track record showing this to be financially viable direction.

When it comes to content providers, you have to remember how the TV was brought to the public. The first thing steve did back at the iPod/iTunes Special Event September 12, 2006 was show us a "sneak peak" the then codenamed iTV.

What's unique about this announcement is that it wouldn't be read to ship until March 21, 2007 and they still didn't have a name in place. I think the entire announcement and demo so far in advance was to help sway content providers in three ways:[list=1][*]Give them peace of mind by showing Apple had a secure method for delivering their content via the internet and across home PCs.[*]Scare them by showing them that Disney was on board.[*]Show them public interest in such a device further pushing their hand.

Remember that Apple sold Pixar to Disney earlier that year, becoming the largest single shareholder (by a large margin) and getting a seat on their board. I don't think Jobs gives a shit about Disney for Disney's sake, I think his interest with them falls squarely on how their position can help Apple grow.

Of course, as we all know, none of them worked out right. The content didn't come as they planned and hoped, thus keeping the TV in the hobbled hobby state that we know it. Even back in 2007 Jobs was calling the TV a hobby. I think that that by the time it launched with only Disney for content they knew this was not going to be the revolutionary device they once tried to have. In the real world business is all about "location, location, location!"; on the internet it's all about "content, content, content".

By the time the content did come it was too late, the content providers had found other avenues, digital streaming picked up in other areas and media extender appliances had taken those couple years to copy the TV's winning features, even if mostly ignoring the UX.

Now it's mid-2010, the HW has long sense shown its age. With ARM performance increases besting the Pentium M used in the current TV and easily allowing for requisite 1080p, the once nascent media extender market going from a directionless mess to being fairly structured system that people want, iPhone OS' being ideal for a small dedicated device, Apple now having every major content owner in the iTunes Store, and having 4 years to review their mistakes (including doing a demo right before the famed iPhone demo at MW2007) I think that the time is ripe for Apple to finally release a great media extender appliance.

...Possibly, they already have...

.

And then Google I/O happened and Google got up on the stage and ranted about Apple and the iPhone like they were the armies of Hitler sent from Satan to enslave us all, with only Google standing athwart the apocalypse. If anything, Jobs underplayed the situation.


Yeah, it'll be interesting to see if Apple decides to take its "simple consumer devices" like the iPhone and iPad and go "mass market."

... for your HDTV.

Job's remarks were spot on. Have you been reading what Google reps have been saying?

Remember that it isn't Apple that's going after Google, it's Google that's been going after Apple. And Google hasn't been honest about it either.

Think about it. Yes, I have an Apple device that I can connect to an HDTV, and play content from ABC, NetFlix, and several others-- I like BFM TV, even though I don't speak French.

Also, I can stream all my content: home movies; ripped DVDs; pictures; slideshows; music, etc. To the same device/HDTV.

Sure, the picture is not the best, and the UEX is a little kludgey (but it is better than what Google demoed!)

The important thing is that 3rd parties are voluntarily, eagerly adding their content to an Apple box!

As you hinted, Apple could make another version of the device, add a few things (HDMI, 1080P), leave a few things out (cell radio, multitouch screen)... Throw in a really good, inexpensive remote...

That would really be something-- Nes pa?

.

IIRC, it was Steve Jobs (and associates) who sold Pixar to Disney. Not Apple.

Steve Jobs gives a shit about Disney because the bulk of his wealth comes from his shares in Disney. He has 5+ million shares of AAPL and 138 million shares of DIS. If his Apple shares were worthless tomorrow, he still has immense wealth. That's the funny thing about the guy, he cares about Apple because he cares about Apple's success, not because the money is that important.

As huge as Google is, they can't go at all by themselves. They have no experience building consumer hardware. Zilch, zip, nada.

Yes, I meant Jobs.

And 98% of the people just want to watch tv.

Yes, that is what everyone seems to forget (including, unfortunately, the cable TV providers).

We had Comcast combined Internet and cable TV. Everything was fine until the digital changeover-- while all our TVs and STBs were digital, Comcast moved all the channels, so they were inaccessible without an additional box ($3 per month) for each TV after the main TV. This irked me and I refused to pay for the additional boxes.

We changed to ATT u-verse! They provide faster Internet, more cable TV channels and free boxes and remotes for all the TVs for about the same price. And, the remotes, themselves, are better.

What is not better, however, is the software inside the boxes that helps (?) you find and watch content:

-- There are a bazillion channels, so scrolling through the chaff takes too long
-- "San Jose Sharks" doesn't work as a search term, neither does "NHL". You need to know to search for "Stanley Cup Playoffs"... Well, the Sharks are gone, so maybe, next year
-- Same for the "Lakers".
-- Searching, is a drill-down process, usually through 3-4 levels, to find what you want. Unfortunately, there is no back (or drill-up) button. You must start over-- every search is a "Genesis" operation

Oddly, I have a free iPad, app that sets up easily (enter zip code, select provider) and searches content, great... It just can't control the cable box

.

Exactly. Which is why Google's solution makes a lot of sense to me.

Three years ago DVRs were all the rage. Everybody watched shows on DVR. Now, the DVR is passe. They're reaching saturation point; almost 40% of households have one. However, market research shows that people use on-demand services in their cable set top boxes more often than DVRs. Why? People just want to watch TV. They don't care about searching for it, recording it, hoping it doesn't get deleted by dad recording a 4 hour football game…they just want to watch TV.

GoogleTV combines your live TV, recorded shows on DVR with on-demand offerings from Hulu, Netflix and YouTube, and puts them all in one interface. I want to watch the latest "30 Rock". Is it on now? Then it'll tell me it's on TV right now. Otherwise it'll stream it from Hulu.

With Apple TV I need to flip input sources and try to find the 30 Rock shows on iTunes--where I then have to buy them, instead of watching them for free. Then wait for the downloads (it's not streaming, so it has to download the entire file from iTunes before it starts), all at a quality that is not even true HD (it's 720p but with more compression; I want 1080p if I have a 1080p TV).

I for one am looking forward to this. Getting Sony on board is a huge step; if it's successful you can bet other TV manufacturers will follow suit. If Google shares ad revenue, there's no reason the cablecos won't get involed; NBC will soon be a cable company/content producer combination, and they may not mind relegating all content distribution to Google in exchange for a tidy cut (right now Comcast gets no cuts of advertising from OnDemand content).

But, GTV does not, really, combine your live TV. The only way they can do this is at the "pleasure" of the cable companies. There were no cable providers included in the announcement. As others have posted, the cable companies are unlikely to cede control of their content to Google, Apple or anyone else.

To circumvent this problem, GTV includes a STB and an IR Blaster. Assumably, it works like this:

1) you plug the cable box into the GTV STB
2) you plug GTV STB into the TV
3) the GTV STB accesses your cable schedule from the web, e.g. TitanTV
4) you interface the GTV STB with a GTV STB remote (pointer and kb)
5) The GTV STB controls the cable STB (and any other STBs it understands) with the IR Blaster

The cable companies can make it technically, or legally difficult/impossible to manipulate their content.

For example, we just changed to ATT u-verse. It does not "support" STBs like: TiVo; DVD/VCR; EyeTV. You plug your cable box int your TV, period. Now, you could probably hack it to support these things, but that defeats the purpose. Then, the cable company could just reprogram their box.

The whole IR Blaster thing is a disaster waiting to happen.



A few posts back, I wrote a long post about why the GTV Aggregator would need to aggregate all the STBs or it would lose its appeal. If you have other sources (STBs) that GTV doesn't understand, it can't aggregate them. To use these STBs they are connect to a different source on your TV (just like the AppleTV).

I have A Sony Bravia with 10 input sources-- I currently use 9. GTV could only aggregate 1 of these, the cable box, if the cable company allows them to!

Likely, GTV will be just another STB source to your TV that allows general web access, and web content playback.

Apple or TiVo could add the same capability to their existing STBs... What's the big deal?



You be sure and post here when that all gets worked out. Of course, the Government could step in and make it worse!

Seriously, I suspect that Apple has been trying for years to cut deals with the cable companies. Do you believe they will be more receptive to a deal with Google, a provider of competitive content?

.

Sounds like the new WebTV than an AppleTV killer

deleted, duplicate