or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Google TV facing resistance from studios
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Google TV facing resistance from studios

post #1 of 43
Thread Starter 
Google's effort to launch Android-based set top boxes by the end of the year is running into reluctance from content owners skeptical of the company's business model.

According to a report published by the Wall Street Journal, Google's efforts to extend Android into the TV business is running into TV networks that are "reluctant to partner with a service they believe encroaches on their turf."

Google hopes to bring the value it adds on the web to TV content, providing a mix of data about an selected episode together with web-related content, with search features thrown in. "Content owners, though, are skeptical that Google can provide a business model that would compensate for potentially cannibalizing TV owners' existing broadcast businesses," the report stated.

Google's software "aims to play any video that runs anywhere on the web, from clips on YouTube to full-length TV episodes that media companies distribute on their own sites. That open pipe has some media companies worried that their content will get lost amid a range of Web content, including pirated clips, according to people familiar with the matter," the report stated noting that "Google's push could backfire: Some media companies are discussing whether they should take steps to block their Web video from playing on certain devices, which is technically possible."

Unlike Apple, Google does not have an equivalent media store to iTunes, where commercial movies and TV episodes can be purchased or rented. "Google executives haven't yet figured out a business model around the listings feature, according to people familiar with the matter, who say they are waiting to generate usage first," the report states.

Google hopes to get a piece of the $70 billion US TV ad market, but to do that it needs to muscle into the ad revenues earned by national networks and their local affiliates. Web-centric TV ventures, like the networks' own Hulu, are contractually prevented from displaying their content on TV to prevent cannibalization of cable TV revenues.

The company has already faced the ire of online newspapers and book publishers, who see Google's liberal use of their content as both infringing upon their rights but also valuable in generating traffic.

Apple is already in the TV business, albeit as a "hobby" level, with Apple TV, which enables users to view content from iTunes, as well as syncing photos and other content from desktop computers. Apple is also rumored to be optimizing its TV product with a new iOS-based device that would function like a TV-connected iPod touch, wirelessly streaming iTunes content to a user's TV while also opening up the potential for custom apps.

The TV set top box market has found few successes, with the well-liked TiVo failing to make money while Microsoft's DVR-centric Media Center PCs finding insufficient traction to maintain the interest of computer makers. If Apple can successfully launch its new TV appliance at a low price point, it could give the company a strong third product launch following iPhone 4 and the iPad, which similarly entered a moribund market and stoked major new interest from consumers and developers.
post #2 of 43
Don't be evil

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_be_evil\
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #3 of 43
I wondered about this the other day and I also wondered how Chrome OS was coming along. Two projects both announced to great fan fare a while back and any news on them seems to have been lost amongst the Android juggernaut.
post #4 of 43
Although Google and Apple are approaching this at different angles, both are fighting the same fight in trying to get TV to the web where it belongs. It's time for the content owners to realize that they won't be losing money and the only ones who are left out in the cold is the cable companies who are an unnecessary middle man.
post #5 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by columbus View Post

I wondered about this the other day and I also wondered how Chrome OS was coming along. Two projects both announced to great fan fare a while back and any news on them seems to have been lost amongst the Android juggernaut.

Chrome will have to replace Android sooner than later.
Google is already clearly shifting attention to Chrome.

Android is probably going to be killed by Google if they loose to Oracle's lawsuits.
post #6 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4phun View Post

Chrome will have to replace Android sooner than later.
Google is already clearly shifting attention to Chrome.

Android is probably going to be killed by Google if they loose to Oracle's lawsuits.

If Google loses the lawsuit to Oracle or settles out of court (either of which I doubt), you are talking a VERY BIG dollar penalty for paying to develop then give away a FREE mobile OS all to generate ad revenue. Will it all have been worth it?
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools."
Reply
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools."
Reply
post #7 of 43
Well, seems like Google can't use their "anything goes" approach here. They'll have to accommodate the content providers, and in the end people will criticize Google for being so closed, controlling of content, charging too much for a show, etc. Oh, sorry, was thinking about Apple.

Sorry. Couldn't resist. It's just that Apple has been playing with the big boys for a while now. Google's turn to be tamed.
post #8 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by hzc View Post

Well, seems like Google can't use their "anything goes" approach here. They'll have to accommodate the content providers, and in the end people will criticize Google for being so closed, controlling of content, charging too much for a show, etc. Oh, sorry, was thinking about Apple.

Sorry. Couldn't resist. It's just that Apple has been playing with the big boys for a while now. Google's turn to be tamed.

It would have been cool if you knew what you were talking about before making that comment.
Apple has a contract to sell media content on iTunes. so what is the matter? The movie studios and the tv networks are making bank allowing Apple to sell their intellectual property.

And what did you mean about being tamed? that was out of context!
Anywaaaaaaaaay!!!!!
the tv folks use the neilson rating system to guage who is watching their shows and that data in compiled using the bell curve and eventually a number is obtain and related to MONEY.
What else. Google stands to disrupt that formula, shift the viewer eyeballs some place else and in a nutshell f*** everything up!
post #9 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post

Don't be evil

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_be_evil\

I believe this is what you're looking for...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_no_evil
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
post #10 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4phun View Post

Chrome will have to replace Android sooner than later.
Google is already clearly shifting attention to Chrome.

I'm not convinced that Chrome is going anywhere. It's just another thin client technology, and people (and, by "people" I don't mean tech geeks) just don't like thin clients, they want apps, that they control, and that don't always depend on a network connection to be useful. Chrome is just the latest attempt to return us to the green screen model of computing, the model that personal computers represented a rebellion against, and it's no more appealing that previous offerings from Oracle, IBM, Sun, et al. Maybe someday (or maybe not) but I don't think that day is today.

Quote:
Android is probably going to be killed by Google if they loose to Oracle's lawsuits.

It'll probably be 5-10 years before those lawsuits are resolved, at which point, Android may or may not be relevant. Interestingly, it seems that the Android handset makers aren't making any money at all, even using a "free" OS, so, someone's going to have to start turning some serious money over to them or they aren't going to be able to afford to keep making Android handsets. Maybe someone should have thought through the business model. From http://www.asymco.com/2010/08/17/and...iggest-losers/ :

It's no wonder that broadcast content owners aren't excited about being assimilated by Google.
post #11 of 43
Do you really want Google monitoring and collecting data for advertising from
1. your PC browsing habits
2. your mobile usage
3. your TV viewing
4. spying on your wi-fi access point location

Google the new big brother.
post #12 of 43
[QUOTE=anonymouse;1698242]I'm not convinced that Chrome is going anywhere. It's just another thin client technology, and people (and, by "people" I don't mean tech geeks) just don't like thin clients, they want apps, that they control, and that don't always depend on a network connection to be useful. Chrome is just the latest attempt to return us to the green screen model of computing, the model that personal computers represented a rebellion against, and it's no more appealing that previous offerings from Oracle, IBM, Sun, et al. Maybe someday (or maybe not) but I don't think that day is today.


if you are referring to chrome os then you don't understand it. if you are referring to chrome the browser then you haven't been keeping up with adoption rates.
and you are right no one wants computers that depend on a network connection like ipad, iphone. they just can't sell those things...oh...wait. they are selling like mad.
post #13 of 43
At the all things digital conference this year, Jobs said that there wasn't a go to market strategy for set top boxes. He said Tivo learned that, Microsoft learned that, Apple learned that and google was about to learn that.

Maybe this is the first sign that he was right.

Then again, maybe he wanted to lull competitors into a false sense of security before rolling out iTV...
post #14 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by irnchriz View Post

Do you really want Google monitoring and collecting data for advertising from
1. your PC browsing habits
2. your mobile usage
3. your TV viewing
4. spying on your wi-fi access point location

Google the new big brother.

Direct TV just signed a deal to use Google TV, basically giving away a huge chunk of their advertising revenue for short term profit. Look for the clueless cable companies to do the same as they are so horribly managed it is mind boggling.
post #15 of 43
Like I said in another thread, Apple is in a much better position to put AppleTV software in every TV's because it ALREADY has a negociated distribution system that is approuved by the studios in MANY countries. They dont even need a set-up box, it could be built-in.

This is like the netflix build-in my TV set that I CANT used because I lived in Canada.

Welcome to Studios negociations hell, Google.
post #16 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by str1f3 View Post

Although Google and Apple are approaching this at different angles, both are fighting the same fight in trying to get TV to the web where it belongs. It's time for the content owners to realize that they won't be losing money and the only ones who are left out in the cold is the cable companies who are an unnecessary middle man.

Very, very different situation.

First, Apple has iTunes, so the content is SOLD, not given away. That means that the studios actually get paid for content used on Apple devices.

Second, Apple is mainly interested in selling hardware to view content. The studios really don't care if their content is viewed on a TV screen or a computer or an iPad - as long as they get their advertising revenue. Granted, iAds may be a potential problem, but only if Apple uses iAds in iTunes.

Google, OTOH, is competing directly with the studios for revenue. Google wants to control the advertising revenue and data - which hurts the studios directly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bullhead View Post

Direct TV just signed a deal to use Google TV, basically giving away a huge chunk of their advertising revenue for short term profit. Look for the clueless cable companies to do the same as they are so horribly managed it is mind boggling.

You had me worried for a while, but then I read the terms of that agreement. It's really not a big deal - other than Google advertising on Direct TV. As long as Google isn't taking control, I don't care where they spend their money to advertise. What Google is trying to do wrt TV studios is entirely different.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #17 of 43
I was waiting for this to happen. The big 5 media giants pretty much own everything, and they are not going to give up all the ad space to Google. Just take a look at this article and you'll understand:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1406

One could also check out the documentary "This Film is not yet Rated" for a really good idea of what's going on here.
post #18 of 43
[QUOTE=screamingfist;1698261]
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

I'm not convinced that Chrome is going anywhere. It's just another thin client technology, and people (and, by "people" I don't mean tech geeks) just don't like thin clients, they want apps, that they control, and that don't always depend on a network connection to be useful. Chrome is just the latest attempt to return us to the green screen model of computing, the model that personal computers represented a rebellion against, and it's no more appealing that previous offerings from Oracle, IBM, Sun, et al. Maybe someday (or maybe not) but I don't think that day is today.


if you are referring to chrome os then you don't understand it. if you are referring to chrome the browser then you haven't been keeping up with adoption rates.
and you are right no one wants computers that depend on a network connection like ipad, iphone. they just can't sell those things...oh...wait. they are selling like mad.

yep, good point. I think the reason why Android is doing well enough is because of market saturation and it's a open source approach, kind of like how Windows became so dominant. Plus there are already tons of devices for it. Plus Android OS does not rely on the web to function. It is more of a standard OS. Chrome OS is 100% dependent on the web. It doesn't need much memory or storage to operate, which is a huge plus for weight.

Chrome OS seems to be struggling (or at least not as widely publicized) IMO because we haven't seen any devices for it yet, which I think we will be seeing soon. Google did state at the release event (last fall) that it would be ready by fall 2010, it's still under development. We're not there yet guys. Look how long people had been talking about an Apple Tablet (and SJ's denial of it) before we saw anything...5 years?
post #19 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by screamingfist View Post

if you are referring to chrome os then you don't understand it. if you are referring to chrome the browser then you haven't been keeping up with adoption rates.
and you are right no one wants computers that depend on a network connection like ipad, iphone. they just can't sell those things...oh...wait. they are selling like mad.

I am referring to Chrome OS, which is essentially a thin client running the Chrome browser, with some offline capabilities (theoretically, although whether, for various reasons, this will be the case in practice is an open question). And yes, I'm aware that many iOS apps require network access, and also that many iOS apps don't require network access to be fully functional. People simply prefer their own apps to web apps, and I think it likely, based on any likely Google business model, that Chrome OS and the web apps that run on it (or at least most of them) will require network access to be functional -- so for example you can be served ads.

I'm also aware that lots of people think this model is the bees knees, but I think those are mostly tech geeks who think it's just so cool, and adoption by normal citizens will not be enthusiastic.
post #20 of 43
[QUOTE=antkm1;1698299]
Quote:
Originally Posted by screamingfist View Post


yep, good point. I think the reason why Android is doing well enough is because of market saturation and it's a open source approach, kind of like how Windows became so dominant. Plus there are already tons of devices for it. Plus Android OS does not rely on the web to function. It is more of a standard OS. Chrome OS is 100% dependent on the web. It doesn't need much memory or storage to operate, which is a huge plus for weight.

I tend to think Android does as well as it does because it's a decent alternative to iOS, and pretty much anyone can get in on it as long as they provide the hardware. It's an easy 'in' for hardware vendors to get into the touch market since they can't leverage iOS. Windows isn't a blip yet, so they really have no alternative at this point. It's either iOS which they obviously can't do, or Android.
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
post #21 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

I am referring to Chrome OS, which is essentially a thin client running the Chrome browser, with some offline capabilities (theoretically, although whether, for various reasons, this will be the case in practice is an open question). And yes, I'm aware that many iOS apps require network access, and also that many iOS apps don't require network access to be fully functional. People simply prefer their own apps to web apps, and I think it likely, based on any likely Google business model, that Chrome OS and the web apps that run on it (or at least most of them) will require network access to be functional -- so for example you can be served ads.

I'm also aware that lots of people think this model is the bees knees, but I think those are mostly tech geeks who think it's just so cool, and adoption by normal citizens will not be enthusiastic.

i don't think it is the bees knees (and have doubts about googles ability to deliver a decent product), just a natural obvious direction to take when dealing with the web.
who knew that iphone would restore the old 'app' model when most were proclaiming it dead!
still, if users see icons on the 'desktop' and can click on them and use the 'app' then they won't care whether it is chrome os or something else. as long as they can get online and it works. will be interesting to see what comes of it.
i don't see it being anymore a threat to apple as android is/was. android had potential to be, but looks doomed due to poor control, stupid providers and handset makers oh and maybe oracle.
post #22 of 43
[QUOTE=antkm1;1698299]
Quote:
Originally Posted by screamingfist View Post


yep, good point. I think the reason why Android is doing well enough is because of market saturation and it's a open source approach, kind of like how Windows became so dominant. Plus there are already tons of devices for it. Plus Android OS does not rely on the web to function. It is more of a standard OS. Chrome OS is 100% dependent on the web. It doesn't need much memory or storage to operate, which is a huge plus for weight.

Chrome OS seems to be struggling (or at least not as widely publicized) IMO because we haven't seen any devices for it yet, which I think we will be seeing soon. Google did state at the release event (last fall) that it would be ready by fall 2010, it's still under development. We're not there yet guys. Look how long people had been talking about an Apple Tablet (and SJ's denial of it) before we saw anything...5 years?

android is swirling around the toilet bowl as far as i am concerned, just about to be flushed.
pissed me off. 2.2 is damn close to iphone quality but who has it? handset makers are releasing new models with friggin 1.6 on them!? these people are brain dead! customers buy that crap and they are put off android for good. but really googles fault over all.
some people are always going to buy the cheap crap and others want quality, better designs, a well thought-out package. thats what sets apple apart from everyone else. imo.
post #23 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by str1f3 View Post

Although Google and Apple are approaching this at different angles, both are fighting the same fight in trying to get TV to the web where it belongs. It's time for the content owners to realize that they won't be losing money and the only ones who are left out in the cold is the cable companies who are an unnecessary middle man.

You are somewhat correct. It is really the cable companies in danger here. But that is not to say that the networks won't lose some.

The issue is the ratings system. It is very old and very out dated and basically censorship by an extreme minority. That being the 25k folks whose on the air and one day delayed DVR use is what is counted to guess those Millions of Viewers. If any of them start using what is basically a computer instead of their regular tvs it could cut into the numbers. Which means the advertisers would pay less.

The time has come, but the networks are resisting, to revamp the ratings system and use more like 10 times the number of viewers in the sample. And to also combine online ad money, as well as purchased downloads in their budget make goods. If they did these things, the face of tv might just change for the better. But it is costly and Nielsen won't change until the advertisers, the networks and/or a lawsuit makes them change. And the networks won't change companies until basically the same.

So we get Survivor 54 etc.
post #24 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

You are somewhat correct. It is really the cable companies in danger here. But that is not to say that the networks won't lose some.

The issue is the ratings system. It is very old and very out dated and basically censorship by an extreme minority. That being the 25k folks whose on the air and one day delayed DVR use is what is counted to guess those Millions of Viewers. If any of them start using what is basically a computer instead of their regular tvs it could cut into the numbers. Which means the advertisers would pay less.

The time has come, but the networks are resisting, to revamp the ratings system and use more like 10 times the number of viewers in the sample. And to also combine online ad money, as well as purchased downloads in their budget make goods. If they did these things, the face of tv might just change for the better. But it is costly and Nielsen won't change until the advertisers, the networks and/or a lawsuit makes them change. And the networks won't change companies until basically the same.

So we get Survivor 54 etc.

I don't think any of these things will lead to better quality TV. The only thing likely, maybe, to lead to better TV is less TV. I think the basic problem is that the talent pool -- actors, writers, directors, show creators and producers -- simply isn't deep enough, or broad enough, to support quality in current volumes. So, occasionally, almost by chance, something good pops up, but most of what's on is just junk.
post #25 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

You had me worried for a while, but then I read the terms of that agreement. It's really not a big deal - other than Google advertising on Direct TV. As long as Google isn't taking control, I don't care where they spend their money to advertise. What Google is trying to do wrt TV studios is entirely different.

But it is a big deal. Google can now sell ad inventory across internet, print, and tv from a single point. TV is huge because of all the metrics you can gather from the STB which ties a person to what is showing on the TV. Direct TV is really short sighted for letting Google anywhere near their ad inventory and customers.
post #26 of 43
[QUOTE=DJRumpy;1698316]
Quote:
Originally Posted by antkm1 View Post


I tend to think Android does as well as it does because it's a decent alternative to iOS, and pretty much anyone can get in on it as long as they provide the hardware. It's an easy 'in' for hardware vendors to get into the touch market since they can't leverage iOS. Windows isn't a blip yet, so they really have no alternative at this point. It's either iOS which they obviously can't do, or Android.

My take on it is this...

Android is the 'UNAPPLE" choice that the "elitist geek crowd" have all latched onto if for no other reason than 'its not crap and its not Apple'. My question is this. Now that Google is starting to show its nasty underbelly and rewriting what it means to "Don't be evil" I wonder how many of the died in the wool hacker set are coming to terms with the fact that the OS they are promoting is backed by a company that is quickly selling itself out like a $3 whore?

Maybe Google needs to change their mission statement to read "Don't be Evil unless its profitable"
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #27 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveGee View Post

... Maybe Google needs to change their mission statement to read "Don't be Evil unless its profitable"

How about, "All evil, all the time!"
post #28 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by irnchriz View Post

Do you really want Google monitoring and collecting data for advertising from
1. your PC browsing habits
2. your mobile usage
3. your TV viewing
4. spying on your wi-fi access point location

No, I'd much rather have that info monitored and collected by xenophic Steve Jobs and weapons manufacturer AT&T. Makes me feel much safer.
post #29 of 43
[QUOTE=DaveGee;1698352]
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post


My take on it is this...

Android is the 'UNAPPLE" choice that the "elitist geek crowd" have all latched onto if for no other reason than 'its not crap and its not Apple'. My question is this. Now that Google is starting to show its nasty underbelly and rewriting what it means to "Don't be evil" I wonder how many of the died in the wool hacker set are coming to terms with the fact that the OS they are promoting is backed by a company that is quickly selling itself out like a $3 whore?

Maybe Google needs to change their mission statement to read "Don't be Evil unless its profitable"

That's right these hemorrDroid fans see this as some sort of David ( Android) versus Goliath ( Apple) thing; when it's really Google versus Apple, and Google wants to data mine every ounce of personal info from you to sell it to the highest bidder. And it now has a pack with Verizon to filter the internet--Do no evil indeed.
post #30 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by hzc View Post

Well, seems like Google can't use their "anything goes" approach here. They'll have to accommodate the content providers, and in the end people will criticize Google for being so closed, controlling of content, charging too much for a show, etc. Oh, sorry, was thinking about Apple.

Sorry. Couldn't resist. It's just that Apple has been playing with the big boys for a while now. Google's turn to be tamed.

Apple's model wasn't a bad deal at all until the introduction of redbox and netflix with instant streaming. I think a lot of people don't realize too how much Netflix and hulu deal with all of this, both having gaping holes in the online content they carry because they can't secure licensing for it.

In the end this is going to come to the consumer and seeing where they put their money. It's already apparent that consumers are quite happy with products like the iPad and iPhone as well as Android, so these models entering the TV market is likely to gain strong leverage as certain studios cave. ABC already has the iPad app, now HBO has an app, I think many studios will follow suite at first creating their own app to house their content. Eventually they will cave and then the fight will be against Cable and Satellite TV, who will likely attempt to ban certain data content unless you pay for channels.

If net neutrality is not secured soon it's going to be a heck of a dog fight, and the consumers are the ones who suffer.
post #31 of 43
I honestly don't know how netflix got them on board with streaming TV shows.

As for Don't be Evil.

Evil is a concept... up for interpretation

since Google said it, whatever they do is not evil, at least according to them.
post #32 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by ihxo View Post

since Google said it, whatever they do is not evil, at least according to them.

Yeah, sort of like, "If the president of the United States does it, it can't be illegal."
post #33 of 43
Can't wait for Google TV. The way they pitched it, the way I understood it, it makes me very excited. Essentially I think they want to make a box that will be your cable box, but with a twist of having youtube, hulu, boxee and internet as a whole at your fingertips in addition to whatever shows are on the air.

Essentially this is the setup I have now - an old PC box with a wireless keyboard/trackball, and cable. I mostly watch Boxee or Hulu, but I still have to watch sports over cable. If I can have one small box instead of an old PC and a cable box it would make my life a lot easier.
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
post #34 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Yeah, sort of like, "If the president of the United States does it, it can't be illegal."

Yea bush sucked balls.
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
post #35 of 43
Dear Broadcast Industry,

Today we are announcing a great new model for delivering your content. We don't know how it's going to work yet, or make any money for you, but we're taking steps to make damned sure it's profitable for us. We sincerely hope you are scared stupid enough to cooperate. Your complete gullibility is appreciated.

Your Friends at Google
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #36 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheff View Post

Yea bush sucked balls.

Well, that was actually a Nixon quote.
post #37 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

Dear Broadcast Industry,

Today we are announcing a great new model for delivering your content. We don't know how it's going to work yet, or make any money for you, but we're taking steps to make damned sure it's profitable for us. We sincerely hope you are scared stupid enough to cooperate. Your complete gullibility is appreciated.

Your Friends at Google

Priceless
turtles all the way up and turtles all the way down... infinite context means infinite possibility
Reply
turtles all the way up and turtles all the way down... infinite context means infinite possibility
Reply
post #38 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post

Don't be evil

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_be_evil\

Do Know Evil.
post #39 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

Dear Broadcast Industry,

Today we are announcing a great new model for delivering your content. We don't know how it's going to work yet, or make any money for you, but we're taking steps to make damned sure it's profitable for us. We sincerely hope you are scared stupid enough to cooperate. Your complete gullibility is appreciated.

Your Friends at Google

Classic indeed, to think those IDIOTS were 'nervous' about Apples plans to sell their content. Well now they dragged their silly asses for too long and Google is just gonna give ALL their CRAP away and then lock them up in a mega court battle that will last years and cost millions of dollars..

Hmmm I'm willing to bet Apple's not looking nearly as scary as they were before huh? Maybe the broadcasters shoulda talked to Viacomm first eh?
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #40 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by irnchriz View Post

Do you really want Google monitoring and collecting data for advertising from
1. your PC browsing habits
2. your mobile usage
3. your TV viewing
4. spying on your wi-fi access point location

Google the new big brother.

QFT.
I'd much rather pay in dollars for content than trade in my personal information and habits.

Google = evil
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Google TV facing resistance from studios