or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Google looks to upstage Apple with new Google TV content teasers
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Google looks to upstage Apple with new Google TV content teasers - Page 3

post #81 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

LOL I'm in Asia at the moment so I get away with being 30+ and living with my parents.

My neighbour has his nuclear family plus his dad, mother in law and sister in law in the same house. Our houses are not big, but I'm not talking the slums here. They like cramming families together in this part of the world...

Good for you...I wish I had never moved out! I miss my Mom! The only woman I would ever trust!

Best of luck to you!
post #82 of 129
(Disclaimer: I havent read a single comment on this thread so my apologizes if this has been covered already)

I think Googles maneuvering here is better than Apples. Apples vision has alway been to create OS/SW and services to sell HW, which is great for the premium Mac, iPhone and iPod lines that make those products that dominate the profits of the PC, handset and PMP markets, respectively.

But Apple has only a cheap piece of HW for AppleTV. Even if they have a decent profit margin theyd have to sell a lot of them to make it more than a hobby, but the setup doesnt really lead to it being possible. But its not all their fault. They really are at the mercy of the content providers on this one. An App Store will help, but I dont think it will make it a break away product on that along even if it does skyrocket the sales.

For these reasons I think Googles plan is better as they will try to get this in TVs, Blu-ray players, PVRs, and everything else in between, and they will probably do it.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #83 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by myapplelove View Post

Whenever I hear Schmidt's conception of privacy and civil liberties, I am literally petrified.

I am pretty sure that you can only be petrified once. Or, I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Quote:
His opinions sounds like some evil offspring of the dark ages and some hellish futuristic dystopia. His apparent (at least to me) ignorance and idiocy become extremely alarming because of the sheer extent of power over the globe this guy exerts. It's no joke that never before has humanity "entrusted" so much of their private lives and knowledge to single all powerful entity such as google. The fact that this reversal in terms of years of progress and struggles for civil liberties is spearhead by a pretence of "do no evil" and "a free open source mobile os" and the legions who've swallowed this makes it all the more grotesquely ironic.

I feel it's safe to say at this moment that Orwell's big brother in 1984 has never before found a better real life counterpart than that of what google is, and particularly of what it can be. It's chilling to hear this Schmidt guy talk about privacy, "if you don't want people knowing about something, you shouldn't be doing it in the first place".

Perhaps he's the only one with courage enough to say it like it is. People have been gathering information about you for all time. How else do you expect to function in this society? Corporations, when they gather information about you, aren't doing it to be nice. They might be nice to get the information, but I'll leave the purpose for gathering the information to you.
post #84 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by kotatsu View Post

Here's why you need apps - so content providers can add their own content without having to go through Apple. In the US Apple have integrated Netflix, well that's great for US customers, but for everyone else, about as useful as a chocolate teapot.

If the Apple TV supported apps we could get a BBC iPlayer app, a Channel 4 On Demand app, a LoveFilm app (poor UK equivalent of Netflix), and so on. Instead we get absolutely nothing.

Beyond simple streaming apps you could add the likes of VLC to play non-Apple video formats (it's already on the iPad), Last FM, Spotify, Pandora, etc. Then you could add web site apps reformatted for the TV screen - Engadget, IGN, The Guardian, BBC NEWS etc.

Then you throw in Twitter and Facebook.

So I can see a very good case for Apps on the TV, and I think many others will too.


You are right and that is exactly why it is wrong. We will end up with a complex interface with dozens of apps (need player x to view y). Sounds like 'channels' all over again! This is exactly what Google tries to fix: the complex nature of the television.
post #85 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by kotatsu View Post

Here's why you need apps - so content providers can add their own content without having to go through Apple. In the US Apple have integrated Netflix, well that's great for US customers, but for everyone else, about as useful as a chocolate teapot.

If the Apple TV supported apps we could get a BBC iPlayer app, a Channel 4 On Demand app, a LoveFilm app (poor UK equivalent of Netflix), and so on. Instead we get absolutely nothing.

Beyond simple streaming apps you could add the likes of VLC to play non-Apple video formats (it's already on the iPad), Last FM, Spotify, Pandora, etc. Then you could add web site apps reformatted for the TV screen - Engadget, IGN, The Guardian, BBC NEWS etc.

Then you throw in Twitter and Facebook.

So I can see a very good case for Apps on the TV, and I think many others will too.

If Apple can integrate Netflix without using "apps", then iPlayer, hulu etc. integration is just around the corner, once content providers and studios get on board. This doesn't need an app store, it needs an integrated, consistent interface across each app/channel - the last I thing I want is for each 'channel' to have a completely different UI - that would be a horrible user experience.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dacloo View Post

You are right and that is exactly why it is wrong. We will end up with a complex interface with dozens of apps (need player x to view y). Sounds like 'channels' all over again! This is exactly what Google tries to fix: the complex nature of the television.

What google are doing is allowing anyone to stream to their device using any UI/practice they see fit. It's nothing more than glorified web browsing for video. Nothing new in this. I want a unified UI. Search for a programme or film - all matching content from all of your 'channel's displayed because of tight integration. I hope this is what Apple is aiming for. Not a mismatch of different sites streamed into the box in some messy free-for-all.
post #86 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by nkhm View Post

What google are doing is allowing anyone to stream to their device using any UI/practice they see fit. It's nothing more than glorified web browsing for video. Nothing new in this. I want a unified UI. Search for a programme or film - all matching content from all of your 'channel's displayed because of tight integration. I hope this is what Apple is aiming for. Not a mismatch of different sites streamed into the box in some messy free-for-all.

Exactly! I'd rather have a simple unified interface over apps/features.
post #87 of 129
People seem to be jumping the gun here in calling a winner.

Google's offering is as crippled as Apple's. Where is ABC? Sorry, but CBS isn't much of a partner in our household.

I am sure that Google will have all sorts of new features and strategies as this evolves, but it's early days still and there is no winner yet.

Regarding Apple, I think one would be wise to wait for AirPlay to roll out before evaluating AppleTV. We still don't know exactly what it will and won't do, and whether it is indeed the Trojan Horse as some have speculated.

It will also be interesting to see if Disney is willing to play hardball against competitors in support of Apple.
post #88 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly View Post

I am pretty sure that you can only be petrified once. Or, I don't think that word means what you think it means.



Perhaps he's the only one with courage enough to say it like it is. People have been gathering information about you for all time. How else do you expect to function in this society? Corporations, when they gather information about you, aren't doing it to be nice. They might be nice to get the information, but I'll leave the purpose for gathering the information to you.

I don't think said word means what you think it means. My usage is very common.

Courage to say what? His big brotherish vision of privacy and civil liberties? Are you joking?

The gathering of information is unavoidable, it's how this is gathered and used. That's they almost all major western governments have passed strict privacy legislation, as well as legislating the rights and obligations of the information gatherer. Get along with the times. This guys vision that "you shouldn't be doing in the first place what you don't want people to know" is not only simplistic and moronic, it's also counter to a few hundreds of years of western cultural evolution.
post #89 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by myapplelove View Post

This guys vision that "you shouldn't be doing in the first place what you don't want people to know" is not only simplistic and moronic, it's also counter to a few hundreds of years of western cultural evolution.

It's also evil.
post #90 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by myapplelove View Post

I don't think said word means what you think it means. My usage is very common.

..and stupid.

Of course it means what I think it means. Your assertion that your usage is common doesn't make it any less stupid.

Quote:
Courage to say what? His big brotherish vision of privacy and civil liberties? Are you joking?

The gathering of information is unavoidable, it's how this is gathered and used. That's they almost all major western governments have passed strict privacy legislation, as well as legislating the rights and obligations of the information gatherer. Get along with the times. This guys vision that "you shouldn't be doing in the first place what you don't want people to know" is not only simplistic and moronic, it's also counter to a few hundreds of years of western cultural evolution.

He simply said there's a line and there's a policy to go as close to it as one can without crossing it. I think the facts are that this legislation doesn't go as far as you'd like it to, and google is exploiting that.

Remember that public policy sets the line. I don't like it, but what he's saying is right and an inevitable incident of the ability to gather and shuttle around huge amounts of data. If you feel so strongly about it, I am sure your local member (or whatever you call your local representative) will carry the baton for you.
post #91 of 129
Everything Apple does, Google responds with an identical product, what gives?
post #92 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

.

It looks pretty good -- but like the PlayBook video, it was all mockup.

I have a Mini attached to my Sony Bravia 46" TV. The screen size is set as either 1080P TV, 1600 x 900 0r 1344 x 756.

The display when used as a computer works best at 1080P or 1600 x 900.

However, it is very difficult to read as a computer screen -- especially web sites.

My 24" iMac has a resolution of 1920 x 1200.

There is no comparison viewing a web site on the TV vs the Computer -- no matter how near or far away, the TV pales in comparison.

.

If Apple released their next OS with true resolution independence, this issue would be eliminated and using a computer attached to a TV would be fantastic, even at large distances because all the text would scale up while the pixel output would remain native to the display.

I have the same setup and typically use 720P to make the text big enough to view. It's annoying though cause I am wasting most of the resolution of the TV.
post #93 of 129
>> ... by previewing a portion of the content arsenal its building ... <<

How about:

.. by previewing a portion of the content arsenal it's building ...
post #94 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcahill009 View Post

I really do not want to go on the internet on my tv. period. Apps that do tv content might be interesting but honestly I can't think of other apps that I would want on my tv if I have a laptop or an ipad. The tv is the place where people want to do as little work as possible. Youtube is worth it because the content is worth the work. For the average person I do not see a reason got gtv and therefore I do not see this being the huge tech people want it to be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mgl323 View Post

Cant TV just be for watching TV? I mean, if I wanted to check stocks, game scores, play music through the TV, why not just check your smartphone to see those updates? Why not just plug (or use bluetooth) in your mp3 or smartphone directly into the surround sound system? The only good option that I see is the amazon movie market and netflix.


Exactly the point here, these are neat tricks and great that it can be done and probably great for the sole techno geek sitting in a room by themselves, however, these people are a small % of the market. I can tell there are 4 people in our house and it tough enough to get everyone to agree on watch one show without channel surfing. Imagine how many divorces that will happen over this.

In our house, we watch movies and TV shows on our TV and if want to search the net or do other activities everyone does it on the computer or smart phone.

MS is trying to turn their Xbox into a Set Top Box/DVR and I can tell you right now it will not happen in our house. Imagine having to fight with your kids over whether to watch TV or pay xbox games. The Xbox & Wii in our house are connected to their own TV without Cable connected to it, period, not got to fight with the kid to watch tv when I want.

Convergence is good to a point, at some point it just does not work well.
post #95 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by zindako View Post

Everything Apple does, Google responds with an identical product, what gives?

Except the Google product spies on you. If you're a Google fanboi, that's a feature!

  Google Maps: ("Directions may be inaccurate, incomplete, dangerous, or prohibited.")

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply

  Google Maps: ("Directions may be inaccurate, incomplete, dangerous, or prohibited.")

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply
post #96 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by juandl View Post

T
As far as the Content. No one really trusts Apple. They are so afraid that they will do to T.V. con-
tent the same as they did for Music...

And that would be 'save the industry from itself'?
post #97 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by juandl View Post

Everyone seems to have noticed how easy it seems to be to JailBreak the ATV. I believe that it was made like that on purpose.
Once this starts to happen, and all the JailBreaks lets loose of Medusa's Box and all the Content
starts flowing out for free. .

Truth be told, as much as I've been anti Jailbreak on iPhone (because its linked into a broader network of devices), I think I'll probably be happy to experiment with JB for my ATV2. Worst that happens is I have to reset it, no potential harm to anyone else. (Although I guess there's still the chance of becoming an attack vector.)
post #98 of 129
Am looking forward to google TV. Honestly I think it will take off a lot more then TV. I will definitely be looking into buying one from what I have seen so far.

All I am waiting for is if SHAtter will allow for apps to be installed. If it does I might go with apple, if not is Google TV.

I want apple to succeed in this space, but currently they are not offering me what I want.
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
post #99 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


As with its Android smartphones, Google TV hardware will not be made by the search giant. Instead, hardware partners and HDTV makers will create devices that will run the company's flavor of Android for TVs.


...Google's plan was to funnel most of that available web video content to TV watchers through a proprietary interface, which would meld its own search technology with a version of its Chrome Web browser, rather than strike individual content deals with providers like Apple does.

...Google TV-optimized websites that will allow those partners to "personalize, monetize and distribute their content in new ways," affording them more flexibility over revenue generation.

...Turner Broadcasting has been hard at work optimizing some of their most popular websites for viewing on Google TV, including TBS, TNT, CNN, Cartoon Network and Adult Swim, available anytime through Google TV.

...NBC Universal ... CNBC Real-Time, ... CNBC directly on the TV screen.

...HBO will bring access to hundreds of hours of programming to Google TV with HBO GO.

...access all of their favorite HBO content on-demand in an enhanced website for Google TV.

...NBA has built NBA Game Time,

...Amazon Video On Demand, for example, will offer access to over 75,000 titles for rental or purchase, and Netflix will offer the ability to instantly watch unlimited movies and TV shows, anytime, streaming directly to the TV.

...The New York Times and USA Today; music sites like VEVO, Pandora and Napster; information networks like Twitter; and online networks like blip.tv.

...Sony (Internet TV and Blu-ray Player)

...Logitech (companion box),



This sounds friggin' GREAT!! Wow. You've got to hand it to Google - they innovate like nobody else.

And seemingly, they have been able to line up lots and lots and lots of premium partners before the launch date, rather than having public pissing contests post-launch. That makes a lot of sense to me.

Competition is good for everybody, and seemingly, Google has really stepped up to the plate this time. It will improve everybody's products once they try to catch up.
post #100 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by nkhm View Post

If Apple can integrate Netflix without using "apps", then iPlayer, hulu etc. integration is just around the corner, once content providers and studios get on board. This doesn't need an app store, it needs an integrated, consistent interface across each app/channel - the last I thing I want is for each 'channel' to have a completely different UI - that would be a horrible user experience.

Weird how before the new AppleTV was introduced one of the "killer" features many people on this site were hoping for was support for apps. But now that Google is on the verge of launching a competing product that does support apps, the tune is "We don't need no stinkin' apps on our TV." Make up your minds, people...
post #101 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by netdog View Post

People seem to be jumping the gun here in calling a winner.

Google's offering is as crippled as Apple's. Where is ABC? Sorry, but CBS isn't much of a partner in our household.

I am sure that Google will have all sorts of new features and strategies as this evolves, but it's early days still and there is no winner yet.

Regarding Apple, I think one would be wise to wait for AirPlay to roll out before evaluating AppleTV. We still don't know exactly what it will and won't do, and whether it is indeed the Trojan Horse as some have speculated.

It will also be interesting to see if Disney is willing to play hardball against competitors in support of Apple.

i don't think it will be as crippled as apple tv. apple tv doesn't let have a web browser does it? i could be wrong.
post #102 of 129
I said this back in May when Google introduced GTV...
If Apple truly wants to compete with GTV, which IMO they are two totally different things and experiences, then they need to pair with ATT's Uverse and add DVR functionality and more Apps to ATV. With Apple's excellent User Interface and clean look too it, It could be Apple's answer to the idea of Cable TV. I agree that TV (at least provided by cable/SATV/Dish) needs to be simplified and enhanced. I love Google's idea behind GTV, but by the looks of the User Interface, it needs some work. GTV pairing with Dish Network is a HUGE move though. And offering it as a DVR instead of the standard Dish Box is what Apple should be scared of. Even the Logitec box is brilliant, allbeit a bit dumpy looking, but all the wish-lists from techys has been answered in this box.
post #103 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by CIM View Post

Lame.

Google is trying to package to much to quickly, most people get overwhelmed by the barrage of features. I also doubt very much people will run out to replace their current LCD with a google one, adoption will more likely be very slow & gradual. That being said Apple better be paying attention cause Netflix & media sharing isn't going to keep their edge, they'll need to expand features & quickly.

AppleTV makes more sense because it will work with any current TV and if you want to get a newer model you don't have to upgrade your entire TV. Once AppleTV gets upgraded to support an App Store I just don't see how GoogleTV will be able to compete.

Google would do better to partner with cable companies to get Android built into their DVRs, but I doubt this will ever happen since it would likely give hackers an easy way to rip HD content.
post #104 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by thompr View Post

Well, the ability to stream my own video content from my computer is a major feature for me. If Apple TV did not allow that, then I wouldn't have purchased one. So the important question: can Google TV do that? (I doubt it.)

So now perhaps you could see why someone might want Apple TV over Google TV, even if the feature I described is not important for you.

Yes, I agree, music also. But actually, I think ATV is weak on this point as well. iTunes is a pain in the neck to deal with. I want to just drop files in a folder and have them accessible on my TV/home stereo. Boxee is the best for that for now, but they don't offer Amazon streaming content. None of the existing boxes meet my needs at this point. Boxee is the closest.

APPLE: If you're listening, I'd spend a lot more money in your video store if you had a plan something like : $15 a month all you can eat video from the "back catalog" plus 2 new releases. Make a plan that would entice Netflix users. Otherwise, I'm strictly a "once in a blue-moon" video renter at the iTunes store.
post #105 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by hezetation View Post

Google is trying to package to much to quickly, most people get overwhelmed by the barrage of features. I also doubt very much people will run out to replace their current LCD with a google one, adoption will more likely be very slow & gradual. That being said Apple better be paying attention cause Netflix & media sharing isn't going to keep their edge, they'll need to expand features & quickly.

AppleTV makes more sense because it will work with any current TV and if you want to get a newer model you don't have to upgrade your entire TV. Once AppleTV gets upgraded to support an App Store I just don't see how GoogleTV will be able to compete.

Google would do better to partner with cable companies to get Android built into their DVRs, but I doubt this will ever happen since it would likely give hackers an easy way to rip HD content.

Did you even bother to read the article? GoogleTV is going to be available as both something built into new TVs as well as standalone set top boxes. It will also apparently be built into some models of Dish Network satellite receivers.

The new AppleTV WON'T work with any current TV. It only supports HDMI output which most older sets don't have. You WON'T have to upgrade your entire TV to get a newer version of GoogleTV hardware.
post #106 of 129
anyone try to get customer service on a google product
anyone try to get customer service on an apple product

i rest my case, apple for me
i tried weeks to get google to help with docs, piss poor then i bought pages and gee i'm happy
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
post #107 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly View Post

..and stupid.

Of course it means what I think it means. Your assertion that your usage is common doesn't make it any less stupid.

He simply said there's a line and there's a policy to go as close to it as one can without crossing it. I think the facts are that this legislation doesn't go as far as you'd like it to, and google is exploiting that.

Remember that public policy sets the line. I don't like it, but what he's saying is right and an inevitable incident of the ability to gather and shuttle around huge amounts of data. If you feel so strongly about it, I am sure your local member (or whatever you call your local representative) will carry the baton for you.

(Petrified means to become so frightened that you freeze, and yes you can be petrified every time some event takes place, every time say you come face to face with a very dangerous criminal. So, please stop this nonsense of "correcting" me with insults.)

As for the rest, sure, that's why apple explicitly inform you of using your location, while google has been sending location information freely (and secretly) to advertisers. (Remember why S. Jobs got so angry with google a few months ago?)

And yes I will demand from my elected officials to "carry the baton" for me as they should, and I am sure you will be more than happy to just let Eric "inevitably" stick that baton up to where the sun don't shine for you.
post #108 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

(Disclaimer: I haven’t read a single comment on this thread so my apologizes if this has been covered already)

I think Google’s maneuvering here is better than Apple’s. Apple’s vision has alway been to create OS/SW and services to sell HW, which is great for the premium Mac, iPhone and iPod lines that make those products that dominate the profits of the PC, handset and PMP markets, respectively.

But Apple has only a cheap piece of HW for AppleTV. Even if they have a decent profit margin they’d have to sell a lot of them to make it more than a hobby, but the setup doesn’t really lead to it being possible. But it’s not all their fault. They really are at the mercy of the content providers on this one. An App Store will help, but I don’t think it will make it a break away product on that along even if it does skyrocket the sales.

For these reasons I think Google’s plan is better as they will try to get this in TVs, Blu-ray players, PVRs, and everything else in between, and they will probably do it.

Even they 'd already been an established content provider (or whatever they are, content middle man and ad seller) they would have a hard time getting it in every device you mention. Who would support all that hardware and software on so many devices? Would it be google or any dime a dozen manufacturer?

Apple can still get their equipment in every home right here and now and very cheaply so they are aiming at mass adoption rather than profits, and once it's everywhere and people use it they can leverage that power to maybe add it "as is" and unmodified to any partner they wish to if they wish too.

And what with the app store or jailbreaking potential atv has this will be huge.

It's far easier to put a tiny dirt cheap box under you existing equipment to serve both music and other media, than to have to buy a new tv or dvd. So what if it's reported that Sony are planning to add gtv to new models of theirs? How many people will actually own a new sony as opposed to those willing to shell out a few bucks and add atv to any set up they want?
post #109 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by myapplelove View Post

(Petrified means to become so frightened that you freeze, and yes you can be petrified every time some event takes place, every time say you come face to face with a very dangerous criminal. So, please stop this nonsense of "correcting" me with insults.)

(It also means 'turn to stone')

Quote:
As for the rest, sure, that's why apple explicitly inform you of using your location, while google has been sending location information freely (and secretly) to advertisers. (Remember why S. Jobs got so angry with google a few months ago?)

I was not aware of Jobs reaction, but it's pretty obvious from search results in google that some location awareness is going on. I guess I'm free to use Bing or Yahoo but the results are substandard.

Quote:
And yes I will demand from my elected officials to "carry the baton" for me as they should, and I am sure you will be more than happy to just let Eric "inevitably" stick that baton up to where the sun don't shine for you.

How do you know the sun doesn't shine there?
post #110 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly View Post

(It also means 'turn to stone')



I was not aware of Jobs reaction, but it's pretty obvious from search results in google that some location awareness is going on. I guess I'm free to use Bing or Yahoo but the results are substandard.



How do you know the sun doesn't shine there?

We are not talking about ip location awareness, we are talking about gps location awareness and the sending of private data such as the brand and identification of the phone handset. People where trialing the iphone 4 (or was it the ipad, I don't remember to be honest) on apple's campus and because they did a google search some ad agency associated with google tracked the make and model as well as the location it was being used in. See jobs talk about this on all things d, it's hard to find the news link from then. That's a different ball game than knowing your general whereabouts from ips.
post #111 of 129
I think the killer for GTV will be price....as in the ability to pick up a GTV cable box from the cable company for the same monthly rental most people pay for their cable box/DVR. Or simply picking up a Blu-Ray home theatre system or TV running on GTV. Who wouldn't do that? Given the choice between a GTV equipped system and the plain old menus that equip most conventional home electronics today, I'd choose the former.

This isn't just about GTV vs. Apple TV. Google is putting out an OS for home electronics that will standardize the home electronics industry just like Android is well on its way to standardizing the smartphone world across several OEMs. Yes, Android has fragmentation issues. Yes, it's got flaws. But imagine where those OEMs would be without Android.

That's the difference IMHO. Apple's selling a box. Google is selling a standard. Time will tell, which model will be more successful.
post #112 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetz View Post

I think the killer for GTV will be price....as in the ability to pick up a GTV cable box from the cable company for the same monthly rental most people pay for their cable box/DVR. Or simply picking up a Blu-Ray home theatre system or TV running on GTV. Who wouldn't do that? Given the choice between a GTV equipped system and the plain old menus that equip most conventional home electronics today, I'd choose the former.

This isn't just about GTV vs. Apple TV. Google is putting out an OS for home electronics that will standardize the home electronics industry just like Android is well on its way to standardizing the smartphone world across several OEMs. Yes, Android has fragmentation issues. Yes, it's got flaws. But imagine where those OEMs would be without Android.

That's the difference IMHO. Apple's selling a box. Google is selling a standard. Time will tell, which model will be more successful.

Since you did a segue into:

"But imagine where those OEMs would be without Android."

Likely, Most OEMs would be better off -- at least they were better off before Android "just came along to help them out".

`

Over the last 3 years, every Android OEM has lost "profit share" growth except Motorola. Motorola has show "profit share" growth at the cost of significant "market share" loss.

http://www.asymco.com/2010/10/05/the...mobile-phones/

.
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #113 of 129
Ha, what an interesting post Dick. So apparently the "do no evil" and bs my way into getting some not so astute observers and users (and pay my way too in the meda) to have them think android is the smart phone makers saviour for them, it turns out that it's actually hurt these guys instead of helped them. It's all about helping other with google isn't it, I feel so warm and fuzzy with their open source platform, and the tons of patents they stole from sun. But of course it's still making millions, android that is, for google...
post #114 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Since you did a segue into:

"But imagine where those OEMs would be without Android."

Likely, Most OEMs would be better off -- at least they were better off before Android "just came along to help them out".

`

Over the last 3 years, every Android OEM has lost "profit share" growth except Motorola. Motorola has show "profit share" growth at the cost of significant "market share" loss.

http://www.asymco.com/2010/10/05/the...mobile-phones/

.

Nice graph. This shows what I said earlier about the vendors using Android the ones that were going under.


Quote:
Originally Posted by myapplelove View Post

Ha, what an interesting post Dick. So apparently the "do no evil" and bs my way into getting some not so astute observers and users (and pay my way too in the meda) to have them think android is the smart phone makers saviour for them, it turns out that it's actually hurt these guys instead of helped them. It's all about helping other with google isn't it, I feel so warm and fuzzy with their open source platform, and the tons of patents they stole from sun. But of course it's still making millions, android that is, for google...

How is Android hurting them? From what I can see Android has helped them. For example, Moto finally turned a profit by focusing on higher-end phones running Android. If we look at a linear graph showing net profit and Android-based handset releases for a vendor I think well see an increase across the board.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #115 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

How is Android hurting them? From what I can see Android has helped them. For example, Moto finally turned a profit by focusing on higher-end phones running Android. If we look at a linear graph showing net profit and Android-based handset releases for a vendor I think well see an increase across the board.

On a slight tangent, but didn't I read somewhere recently that Moto was shopping around their phone manufacturing business?

Edit: Here it is. (sfgate.com)

  Google Maps: ("Directions may be inaccurate, incomplete, dangerous, or prohibited.")

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply

  Google Maps: ("Directions may be inaccurate, incomplete, dangerous, or prohibited.")

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply
post #116 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Since you did a segue into:

"But imagine where those OEMs would be without Android."

Likely, Most OEMs would be better off -- at least they were better off before Android "just came along to help them out".

`

Over the last 3 years, every Android OEM has lost "profit share" growth except Motorola. Motorola has show "profit share" growth at the cost of significant "market share" loss.

http://www.asymco.com/2010/10/05/the...mobile-phones/

.

I dunno. I sincerely disagree with this analysis. Before Android came along, the only thing these OEMs had to fight Apple with was Windows Mobile and Symbian. Are you seriously suggesting that these guys could have put up a decent fight with those two platforms. Colour me skeptical.

And you're cherry picking. HTC, LG and Samsung have seen market share growth according to your graph and only Motorola has slid on that metric. That too, this is a 3 year graph (with much of Android's growth coming in the last year). Moto went from selling the RAZR to having nothing (when it came to responding to the iPhone) to being resurrected by the Droid lineup (which only launched in late 2009) . None of that is captured in this graphic. Moto's sliding market and profit share probably has more to do with the end of the trendiness of the RAZR than anything else. Let's see this graphic 3 years from now, when the rise of Android has effectively countered the cumulative damage done to Moto by the iPhone killing off the RAZR trend so sharply in 2007.

Finally, do you think the OEMs are stupid? Why would they embrace Android if they considered it detrimental to their own interests? I'd like to sincerely know why you think you know more than their CEOs.
post #117 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by GQB View Post

I'm trying to objectively look at the items announced...

* Turner Broadcasting has been hard at work optimizing some of their most popular websites for viewing on Google TV, including TBS, TNT, CNN, Cartoon Network and Adult Swim, available anytime through Google TV.

- What would Turner's motive be in dealing exclusively with Google instead of Apple? I don't see one, and believe that any such content will be available through Apple as well.
No net advantage

* NBC Universal has collaborated with Google TV to bring CNBC Real-Time, an application that allows you to track your favorite stocks and access news feeds while enjoying the best financial news from CNBC directly on the TV screen.

- Big 'nothing' here. CNBC Real-Time has been available on iOS all along, and CNBC only offers real-time streaming of the actual network via its crappy CNBC+ service... (Windows Media only.)
No net advantage

* HBO will bring access to hundreds of hours of programming to Google TV with HBO GO. Authenticated subscribers will soon be able to access all of their favorite HBO content on-demand in an enhanced website for Google TV.

- If I already subscribe to HBO, why would I need to insert a GoogleTV into the stream to... what? Time shift? DVR does that, as does OnDemand.
Watch on my phone? I supposed, but hardly a killer app.
No net advantage

* NBA has built NBA Game Time, an application that lets you follow game scores in real-time and catch up on the latest highlights from your favorite team in HD.

- Again, NBA has no more incentive to support Google over Apple than does Turner.
No net advantage

My personal bet is that Apple will think things through better than Google, and not just throw spaghetti at the wall and call it beta.
But time will tell.

That was hardly objective. You seem to assume that Apple can automatically negotiate the same deals. That's hardly true given that Apple already comes to the table with a pre-existing paradigm for how media should be distributed.
post #118 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetz View Post

That was hardly objective. You seem to assume that Apple cannot automatically negotiate the same deals. That's hardly true given that Apple already comes to the table with a pre-existing paradigm for how media should be distributed.

Base on the 4 years since the AppleTV was oddly unveiled it seems clear to me Apple doesn't have the upper hand with video confent owners. Google's method is to ineract with current revenue streams while Apple's looks more to supersede bulk paid cable and sat who then won't be able to pay the networks, and affiliates who then won't be able to pay the networks. One in the hand is worth more than 2 in the bush, as they say.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #119 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

(Disclaimer: I havent read a single comment on this thread so my apologizes if this has been covered already)

I think Googles maneuvering here is better than Apples. Apples vision has alway been to create OS/SW and services to sell HW, which is great for the premium Mac, iPhone and iPod lines that make those products that dominate the profits of the PC, handset and PMP markets, respectively.

But Apple has only a cheap piece of HW for AppleTV. Even if they have a decent profit margin theyd have to sell a lot of them to make it more than a hobby, but the setup doesnt really lead to it being possible. But its not all their fault. They really are at the mercy of the content providers on this one. An App Store will help, but I dont think it will make it a break away product on that along even if it does skyrocket the sales.

For these reasons I think Googles plan is better as they will try to get this in TVs, Blu-ray players, PVRs, and everything else in between, and they will probably do it.


Bingo. That's what I was getting at. The fundamental problems for Apple TV are 1) it's another box, 2) limited content. Compare that to the way GTV is heading. You're next cable box, BR player, TV, etc. could have GTV OS in there. You might not care. You might just buy the TV or cable box, or BR player for the hardware. But once it's in your house, it's not like you won't use the features.
post #120 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetz View Post

Bingo. That's what I was getting at. The fundamental problems for Apple TV are 1) it's another box, 2) limited content. Compare that to the way GTV is heading. You're next cable box, BR player, TV, etc. could have GTV OS in there. You might not care. You might just buy the TV or cable box, or BR player for the hardware. But once it's in your house, it's not like you won't use the features.

I am not so sure.

http://www.macworld.com/article/1546...slideshow.html

The above describes a $300 box (including a $150 qwerty remote) an IR blaster and HDMI in/out from the Cable STB.

Supposedly GTV controls and overlays on-screen for all of these.

I just don't see it.

The XBox, WII, PS3, VideoCam, PVR, DVD, BR, etc. don't go through the STB, rather they connect to a separate input ports on the HDTV,

So, AFAICT, GTV can't overlay those devices screens.

Then, the IR Blaster that is used to control the GTV, Cable STB and all these other devices, appears to reside in the supplied qwerty remote.

This makes sense, but limits the capability of a tablet or smart phone to be used as a remote. Does the app on the tablet or remote IR Blast through the qwerty remote -- or do these sophisticated remotes only support the limited function provided by the GTV box.

It could that Apple has done too little, and GTV is trying to do to much.

The public needs to demand some standards from the industries involved, or we'll remain stuck on square one.

.
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Google looks to upstage Apple with new Google TV content teasers