Google exec expects 'majority' of TVs to have Google TV in 2012 - Page 2

I have never owned a tv and never will.

On a separate note. I'm so over this crap, the thought that everything is so worthless that it needs to be plastered with spyware and spam just so people will use it is horrid and distorts what is manufactured through that lens.

I have no idea why there are laws against unsolicited spam and data theft yet you can have a public listed multi national where that is its whole business model.

Perhaps the next uber company will succeed by selling CE products with free drugs to it's hapless consumers. Or you just sign your ass up to be on call for use by auction to the lowest bidder and get a free phone.

"man this is the best phone and tv ever, cost me nothing plus free calls, music, videos, games"
"yeah but you get ass raped by strangers"
"nah man, I don't even notice cause I'm too busy shoving my brain full of free shit, I can't believe people would pay for things, they are stupid sheep"
"yeah but yer ass..."
"I never used it for much anyway and it is not like I see the person doing me cause I signed up for the free laptop plus glory hole gold class option, 20mins a week"

Our society is on a dark path

I have an image in my head of Schmidt breaking into electronics stores in the dead of night, prying off the backs of the TVs on the shelves, and reflashing the chips...all while giggling maniacally.

With how easy it is to create a distribute Malware on Android, I can already predict that unless some more stringent security is enabled on these GooleTvs, the most prevalent Malwares will "brick" the TV. Its easy to take a phone and restore it, but a TV?

I will NEVER buy a TV that is collecting data on me and sending it out to the highest bidder.

Come on... really? \

I mean TV's on store shelves as per the article we're all commenting on. No one is claiming Goolge is going to go to every persons house and swap out the internals of every single TV in existence in the next 12 months.

No, Eric, no I will not want to develop for it because Android stinks and you have no way for me to make proper money "SELLING my apps", instead I have to "SELL my end-users" to YOUR customers as ad-supported is the only really viable option for Android developers and even then, a lot of Android users are A-Holes and do their best to block ads, so I won't get anything!

No thank you. Come back when you offer something viable for DEVELOPERS, rather than your CUSTOMERS (advertisers, end-users of Google products ARE COMMODITIES).

Keep telling yourself that Eric. I mean Google TV has been in the market for 18 months has NO TRACTION! Because it's awful, and nobody wants is, as Logitech found out at their expense.

Google can talk it up all they like, but doesn't mean it's going to happen.

Microsoft have said Windows EVERYWHERE since before 2000, and still they barely have any presence in the tablet market, and almost none now in the Phone market.

You have to back up your words with an excellent compelling product, Google thus far haven't (as far as Google TV is concerned), and neither has Microsoft really in Phones as anything before Windows Phone 7 was utter crap and barely registered on the radar (I've had my share of Compaq/HP high-end WinMo devices) and Windows Phone 7 is even less of a blip on the radar.

There may be some truth to it.

After the success of the iPhone, Every PC manufacture were on the Windows tablet bandwagon. HP even demoed a prototype.

Then Apple introduced iPad.

TV manufactures have such small margins, They will hedge their bets with the "free" Google TV license. They are hoping to supplement their revenue with Ads.

You mean like Samasung, the most successful Android handset maker, that is also doing their own OS, just in case things don't pan out how they like with Android. Yeah, that's great!

Also, if a TV manufacturer wants to provide a better experience, they can use a better paid for (or for in-house solution) and then be able to charge more for their TV, you know like a TON of TV manufacturers do.

The premium brands have had smart TV tech since before Google TV came along. ONLY at the bottom end will Google TV succeed. People trust these premium TV manufacturers a hell of lot more than some cheapy manufacturer.

Look at the $200 small/no margin bottom end of Google Android-based tablets. They're utter underpowered crap, that barely work, don't even run a tablet version of the OS.

You're already hearing about a ton of returns on Kindle Fire tablets from AMAZON! Mostly cos they balls'ed up the implementation royally and the devices are very crap.

This what Google is aiming for, and I certainly don't want to have to PUT UP WITH IT. I want GOOD products, with EXCELLENT build quality and GREAT performance (performance not necessarily highest spec, as iOS devices perform better than much higher spec'ed Android devices).

Does it matter if there even in every TV, it doesn't mean anyones actually going to use the "smart" bit.

Maybe when Steve said he'd cracked it he meant he realised that the set top box needs to be built into the TV. When it isn't you're just left with what Microsoft released this week. A really nice interface and a really nice way of searching for programs but ultimately useless when it doesn't do normal TV. The fact it doesn't have every channel my set top box has mean when I want to see whats on I turn on the set to box and not the Xbox. So my tv has it's channel set to the set top box. Despite all the amazing stuff the Xbox does until I can hook up my satalite dish to it, it's not going to be what I use by default.

The same goes for a Smart TV. Unless I can give up the set top box, all it's functions are still on the wrong remote!

Eric Schmidt is starting to remind me more and more of Steve Ballmer. He's always seemed a little mentally unstable, and the creepiness factor is even higher than Ballmer's, but now he's adopting the trash talkin' too? How long until we have a weasel boy video for Schmidt going viral, assuming he doesn't have them pull it from you tube.

Does he have some sort of plan for a remote redesign? I've shown pictures of the GoogleTV remote to a bunch of my "average end user" friends, and they all stared in horror. I can just imagine the unfortunate sales person in best buy trying to convince someone that having that built in to the $2000 tv they want to buy is a GOOD thing...

Said Schmidt as he left the stage, "All your TV are belong to us!"

Sounds a lot like the Ballmer jump up and down "me too, look at us, not at them" marketing ploy.

Bold prediction? Welcome to Fantasy Island. Da plane, da plane...

Anything running Android is a Trojan Horse. Google does not make a penny on Android, yet Google is not a charity. Therefore, they have plans to monetize Android in the future. This stage of Android is called expansion, aka "grabbing the market share." They are trying to put Android on as many devices and platforms as they can as quickly as possible by offering it to OEMs for no cost. OEMs eat it up because Android is free for them, so their development costs are minimized compared to having to develop and maintain their own software platform.

Free cheese only occurs in a mouse trap - never forget this. The more people buy and use Android devices, the more reach Google will have in the future when they start monetizing Android. Does everyone remember how Google makes money? Advertizements! So, be my guest and spend your personal money and time on acquiring, learning and getting addicted to the OS that is a foundation for Google to inundate you with advertisements in the future. In the meantime, I will stick to more expensive iOS, knowing full well that Apple imbeds a huge profit margin in their devices on the front end, but has no ulterior motives for the OS in the future. I have set up my digital life style around the Apple ecosystem, and the money that I invested on the front end of the deal will pay off in the future years.

I do not hate Google. I almost went working for them. In fact, I admire Google as a successful company. However, I never forget that Google is a high-tech advertisement agency, and advertisement is the core of their business. They have no other significant source of revenue besides advertisement, and the reason they have invested so much money into Android development is to utilize the platform to contribute to their core business - advertisement.

The question one has to ask is: "Do I want GoogleTV in my TV?" For me the answer is hell no.

I just want a high quality big-ass screen that's as dumb as a brick. All it needs is 1 HDMI and component inputs. I will provide the content myself, thank you.

If that's the case, their ads suck!

Stop being argumentative and use some common sense. Clearly the poster meant that the majority of TVs SOLD in 2012 will be smart TVs.

Lots of irrational talk coming out of Google these days. Feels like they are turning in to RIM. They will be eating their words in 6 months. You can't make a prediction for that short of a timeframe without the actual change happening now. I don't see any change.

Could this external threat be... Apple? Were it not for the iPhone changing the game, how rapidly would carriers have adopted Google's Blackberry clone?

You mean, once again, Google will need to wait for Apple to create or redefine a market, and then weasel their way in by undercutting the market with their "free" product?

No, he has a good point. It's a valid comparison (accurate I'd say), and we are critiquing Schmidt here.

Everybody knows Google TV is a disaster waiting to happen. I would NEVER buy a TV with that in it.
I just want some of what Schmidt is smoking.

Agree with you 120%

Has Eric Schmidt ever predicted anything accurately?

While I am not saying that the numbers are wrong, I did find them very interesting.

In my home I have four HDTVs and only one is over 22". There are many places where I can see the typical family having/wanting TVs that they wouldn't want being large. Which, makes me wonder if most people have already fulfilled their small TV needs and thus the reason that only about 10-15% of televisions sold are below 30".

As for the Google thing. Is this even news? Seriously, "major executive in company predicts that his company will dominate a market in the future," isn't even news anymore. It is after reading things like this and practically anything spewing from Ballmer's mouth that I am glad Apple is as tight lipped as they are.

This is something I have been thinking about allot. In my opinion I couldn't agree with you more. Google's public motives always have this dark advertising cloud behind them. Apple freely admits that their goal is to make money via grate products and that you will buy them if you love them. If and or when Apple releases a stronger Apple TV I would imagine that apple would follow their current direction for delivering content for next to nothing as a means to make margins on the hardware. So at the end of the day what I'm getting is I think more straightforward.

With Google it's a different story. Google only understands Ad's or at least thats how it seams. I remember seeing a really funny super news video where the character takes a dump on a Google toilet to witch the toilet begins displaying adds for indian food. In my mind that kind of sums it up. I can't in good conscious get past the fact that everything I do involving Google is a means for them to subliminally sell me stuff. So at the end of the day I can't get behind Google 100% because there not making the best products for users. There expanding their market as a simple means to expand there advertising and revenue network.

I don't hate Google. There a spectacular company that has delivered some simply amazing products. Im just on comfortable with portions of there business model and what they are required to do in order to make that model successful.

I wonder how long it's going to take before the SEC goes after him for making blatantly false public statements. Or shareholders get tired of his obvious lies and sue him.


Not at all. Schmidt has a history of talking out of is rear - and he's gotten away with it for far too long.

Just as with computers, it's misleading to talk only about numbers. Look at the total value of TVs in each bracket. TV OEMs are making far more money on the large TVs than your numbers would suggest - because the large TVs cost so much more.

It's also misleading in the context of this thread. The larger TVs are more likely to have the extra electronics to make them 'smart' TVs.

Makes perfect sense to me.

I enjoy my Panasonic Plasma and separate Blu-Ray player (and no I don't have a vested interested in that particulur manufacture). The upside is I can connect them with a single HDMI cable and they integrate nicely with one remote. That I like, because it's both easy and it works (very Apple-like). Plus I was able to select each separate component from multiple available ones. And while I do have access to Viera Cast content, I only use a small number of it's features. The down side is I have two separate components and an extra cable and power cord, plus I am effectively locked out of other content that is manufacturer specific.

Why is this relevant to SmartTVs? There appear to be both strengths and limitations to SmartTVs. A SmartTV eliminates a separate box, but currently ties you to a 'content' provider. The latter limits functionality. In addition, most likely the content provider hardware/software/firmware will reach end of software upgradability and/or usefulness long before the display portion of a SmartTV does.

Think of the TV/VCR/DVD combos that eliminated multiple components and remotes, but was also limited by manufacturer and screen size. And being mechanical devices, the DVD and/or VCR usually died before the TV itself did.

As for myself, I want to pick and choose the TV manufacture, screen size, features as well as plasma vs. LCD. I don't see being able to do that with any SmartTVs. Most importantly, I want my TV to have the ability to receive any/and all programming, not just Google or Netflix or Amazon or Pandora. It's too limiting and a separate box would work better for me, not to mention the ability to instantly upgrade your TV to a 'smart' one. Seems to be a plus for the consumer, but a negative for content provides (that inherent 'lock-in' process).

For me, the debate is over before it's started.

Google watches and tracks everything we do now on their services. Why would anyone want them to track, save, and potentially sell everything you watch, DVR, and search on your tv? Thsts not for me, I'd trust Apple or the tv manufactures system more than google.

I would hate to see my web browsing habits be used to tailor my TV commercials. I would hate to see my TV watching habits tailor my spam email. And yes.....your email content is scanned by google to tailor your spam mail.

Not something I would ever buy.

I don't want google on my tv trying to show me more ads and selling my viewing data. I want a company that makes something because they want it and it's cool. Not one whoa trying to get in my living room for market data

Yes. That is the only possibility.

The TV sets that will be in stores next summer are already well underway, at the least they have completed the circuitry design. Maybe the entire design except for non-physical aspects. Likely the tooling and molds and other factory stuff is in production right now.

What is the cost of an LSI chip?

All google has to do is give it away for free. They don't make money in hardware or software sales anyway. Plenty of idiots will fall for the free and doesn't really care about the data mining portion of Google conditions.

There's a lot more to the cost than simply the cost of an LSi chip. Engineering work to redesign things. Training of all their tech support people. Handling 10,000 tech support calls per day from people who can't figure out how to do something. Extra quality checks. Overhead costs. Increased rework costs. And lots more.

Besides, even the cost of the LSi chip itself is significant on a $250 TV.

I'm with you 110% on this. What concerns me is if Google did, in fact, ink some deals with all the major players in the TV arena, what kind of choice is that going to leave us with. For example, I'm a fan of Sony TVs (and always have been). I really wouldn't even consider buying a TV from any of the other 1st or 2nd tier brands with the exception of Panasonic or Sharp. So, by choice, I've already limited myself to a handful of manufacturers. Additionally, I typically get a model at or near the top-of-the-line for performance reasons. I would hate to have to consider a Google equipped model because it also happens to be the one that has all the best specs/performance features. Conversely, I would hate to have to excluded a model that would otherwise be perfect for me just because it's powered by Ggle.

This may be just me, but I think Google needs to be put in their place. They're getting a little too big for their britches. I'm sure you've all seen this before, but I'll link to it again http://vimeo.com/9897083. Seems to be even more relevant now, after 2 years.

Every TV I've ever bought was manufactured 3-6 months before I bought it. So for them to be "in stores" by summer 2012, it's a damn good estimate of yours that they're in production now.

To be honest I think what he said is more then possible. Consider that three of the largest television makers work with Google's android, Sony, Samsung, and LG. They can easily push more of the other OEMS into doing it to compete with the rumor of the threat of an Apple T.V. The T.V.s have the hardware to do this what they will need to get is a hard drive in some of these TVs and an internet port.

Remember the man has foot in the mouth disease. So 2020 to him would be 2012

lol...even Android centric sites are wondering what Schmidt is smoking.

Unless Google has some serious content and OEM deals secretly in the works this is impossible.