I've read the article and the first 100, or so, comments.
Here's what I understand from all this.
GTV provides a STB and/or
built-in TV Module that allows a TV viewer to:
1) search the web for free/ad-supported content: YouTube, ABC, etc.
2) stream play that content on demand
3) search The Web for paid/subscription content: NetFlix, HuLu,, etc.
4) stream play that content
5) search locally-connected (wired or WiFi) boxes (cable, DVR) for content
6) play that content
7) search locally available iTunes content
8) stream play that content
Apple may block 7 and 8, or at least DRM purchased content
But it looks like GTV [mostly] provides an aggregated search and play.
I suspect that you will still need remotes to schedule the Cable/Box DVR
What will make this work is if:
1) it is reasonably priced
2) it quickly becomes ubiquitous
3) there is a keyboard/device somewhere in the loop that ties this all together and eliminates all other remotes
4) it is drop-dead easy to instal and use
That's a pretty difficult proposition
I don't know whether Google is up to the job.
So, what does this do to the AppleTV?
If Apple does nothing to AppleTV, then it may co-exist with, or become subsumed by GTV-- just another box in the search and play aggregation.
But, will/need this happen?
Consider:
1) the AppleTV already exists.
2) it already does everything the GTV is going to do except search/stream the general web content and search/play local box content
3) it already can (and will continue to) search play iTunes content
AppleTV, while the here and now, is missing a few things to compete with the Future GTV.
But, AppleTV uses basically the same OS as the iPhone-- the AppleTV is just an iPod Shuffle with a really, realy big screen!
That means that Apple could open the device to developers and apps. That means that iPad content apps such as NetFlix, ABC, etc. would be an easy port, today. Likewise mobile Safari!
I suspect that in a matter of weeks Apple could write an Aggregator/Player app with bits and pieces it has laying around. And/or offer an AppleTV that uses a version of the same processor that's in the iPad.
I think that, done soon, and done right Apple could have a 6-month lead over the competition.
Oh yeah, that remote could be:
-- a BT KB with a few reassigned/additional buttons
-- a new, inexpensive, dedicated iPod touch-like device
-- any existing iPhone or iPod Touch
-- for heavy lifting an iPad
And, if Apple does the UI and implementation, you know it'll be done right!
On an unrelated side note I can't help but think how much Steve Balmer has screwed Microsoft.
Consider this. The Xbox was released in 2001, they had a Tablet PC in 2002, Media Center in 2002 and a Windows phone in 2003. With all of the experience they gathered they released the Zune and Xbox 360 in late 2005\\2006.
It's almost unbelievable that Microsoft would let Google and Apple come in and take over markets that they pioneered, but that is exactly was has happened.
Great points. I've never considered how many pioneering products M$ has introduced, but let languish.
Yes. They could be doing a whole lot better. I've never had much respect for M$.
The problem is the TV networks and Hollywood are afraid of letting iTunes dominate. They saw what happened to the music labels. Apple might get a subscription deal, but they won't be allowed to be the only game in town. Consumers will have other options like Hulu, the BBC iPlayer, Netflixs, etc available on the GoogleTV.
Agree.
This would mean that Apple might at last be allowed to un-hobby Apple TV.
Hopefully the massive downloads required for this to work will encourage Australian ISP's to offer decent, cost effective, unlimited internet plans like they have in Europe and the US.
It seems there are lots of people posting to this forum who do not have a clue what is currently available in this market, and some of the great things that the open source community are doing to make some of these Apple products actually usable!
I had an ATV for a while and ran XBMC on it but have binned it, it was too much time and effort to keep updated as Apple kept pulling the plug. I now have a Mac Mini running PLEX, which is essentially a fork of XBMC and much the same thing..
People asked about making the iPhone into a remote for the AppleTV...
As well as being the best media center available XBMC and PLEX now support apps which includes the ability to stream TV from any available source on the Internet. This is all open source so anyone can write an app. I have on my system an app that will stream Hulu, Fox news, South Park, Daily Show etc.. The BBC iPlayer works inside XBMC and countless others. And it will play all your iTunes content, even purchases, as well as every video, audio format you like.
By the way, Open source = free.
But a stunning development is what Dlink are doing with Boxee, Boxee is another fork of XBMC that has been developed as an online TV system, much more like what Google are talking about. Dlink announced a while ago that they would be releasing a hardware solution that runs Boxee and it looks pretty cool.
Check out the coolest remote! Apple take note, you're supposed to be the smart ones....
My point is that GoogleTV is not a rip off of the AppleTV (as some have strangely said) it does not even play in the same park as AppleTV. It is doing things that others have already done for ages.
AppleTV always was dead in the water, it promised so much and yet failed to deliver, There are some very clever people working in this market and none of them it seems work for Apple, most of them I would say are still in basements, helping to make open source apps like XBMC.
Trust me, spend 5mins with XBMC or PLEX and you will never turn on your AppleTV again.
Wow. what a bunch of losers. sit on Apple board, steal ideas, then leave and directly compete with knockoff products.
Google sucks.
And honestly, who needs google for anything other than the search engine? I have no use for them outside that personally. It's "neat" to have the option to try some of their products sometimes, but no one I know relies on them. Well, google Maps is pretty awesome, so I give that to them (even though that capability was a purchased acquisition rather than developed in house)
From office apps, to email, it is not the greatest (and in fact is also an invasion of privacy - something google has no qualms with) and there are much better options out there.
I find it funny that Google points out bad interfaces on TVs and then show their own fisher price looking interface. LAME!
Even google maps is not that good. Mapquest give you the best directions. Google maps gives enough directions to get to the vicinity of your destination and but mapquest gives the best directions for all the small streets that actually take you to the address.
Big deal. Make it three separate boxes if needed, but patch them together with a nice-looking external skin, and call it "Apple TV."
Why would you possibly want to do that? This is called a "distributed cost", you're driving up the cost for all users to please the needs of a minority of them.
DVR's are going the way of the dodo. Certainly there are people that still want them now, but they won't in a year. Doubling the price of the ATV to please that minority is stupid. In an optional box, it's an optional box.
GREAT! THIS WILL MAKE AMERICANS EVEN FATTER THAN THEY ALREADY ARE. McD, BK, Taco Bell, and the rest of the junk food industry will love Google TV. More fat ass couch potatoes to feed...
The difference is that Apple actually "gets" the improve half of the equation.
Apple didn't invent the MP3 player, but they invented a better UX and now everybody carries an iPod.
Apple didn't invent the smartphone, but they invented a better UX and now everybody carries an iPhone.
Google just copies and puts any old UX on there and hopes their fanbois will flock to whatever their latest "me too" project is, funded by their web ads business...
Let's face it, Apple TV went to market too soon. It is a placeholder, an incomplete solution to an ill-defined problem.
Forget about that. Apple is now a Mobile Device company. The living room is dead.
Then Apple should be worried. Froyo is superior to iPhone OS, and Android is ahead in sales in the US and not far behind worldwide.
If Apple are relying on mobile they need to step up their game. Open up the app store, offer a wider choice of handsets - if they can do it with the iPod, why not the iPhone? Why no iPhone Mini and some sort of premium high end model?
Let's face it, Apple TV went to market too soon. It is a placeholder, an incomplete solution to an ill-defined problem.
Maybe so. It's hard to argue against that sentiment, since most people who like the AppleTV are the people who have hacked it. Certainly a lot of of people would like an all-in-one media+dvr solution but its a real minefield and perhaps Apple knew that and decided it wasn't going to worth the effort to support all the permutations of closed cable environments to make that happen.
So Google is willing to take this on, but I didn't notice Comcast or Cox or any of the other cable companies on stage. And since encrypted QAM isn't exactly open itself (ask anyone with an EyeTV), it seems like Google going to try to pass channel changing and recording information through the IR port on the cable box with some ugly dongle-type receiver that communicates with the Google/Logitech/whoever's unit. CableCARD tried to crack this same nut and is, by all accounts, a dismal failure because it's in the cable companies' best interests to have that solution not work -- it would kill their cable box and DVR rental streams. If all they are doing is sending menu navigation commands to a cable box, Comcast can break that with every firmware release.
So maybe it'll be a good media device or maybe not, but I doubt Comcast or Hulu is going to play ball (and Hulu may wind up blocking additional devices or browsers that GoogleTV may mimic -- cf. Boxee).
Anyway, I think we'll see less and less free content and more subscriptions as these devices get more popular. Content owners are going to want to be paid for their investment in developing and producing the entertainment people seem to want to consume. We'll just have to see how that plays out.
It's fine that Google makes a big media splash with this announcement, it's their dog-and-pony show. But I'll be interested to see how kludgey the final shipping product turns out to be. My guess is that getting DVR functionality in there will turn the device into something Rube Goldberg would have been proud of. And the internet content is going to be less and less free. Maybe GoogleTV can just get torrent searching and do it that way?
It seems there are lots of people posting to this forum who do not have a clue what is currently available in this market, and some of the great things that the open source community are doing to make some of these Apple products actually usable!
I had an ATV for a while and ran XBMC on it but have binned it, it was too much time and effort to keep updated as Apple kept pulling the plug. I now have a Mac Mini running PLEX, which is essentially a fork of XBMC and much the same thing..
People asked about making the iPhone into a remote for the AppleTV...
As well as being the best media center available XBMC and PLEX now support apps which includes the ability to stream TV from any available source on the Internet. This is all open source so anyone can write an app. I have on my system an app that will stream Hulu, Fox news, South Park, Daily Show etc.. The BBC iPlayer works inside XBMC and countless others. And it will play all your iTunes content, even purchases, as well as every video, audio format you like.
By the way, Open source = free.
But a stunning development is what Dlink are doing with Boxee, Boxee is another fork of XBMC that has been developed as an online TV system, much more like what Google are talking about. Dlink announced a while ago that they would be releasing a hardware solution that runs Boxee and it looks pretty cool.
Check out the coolest remote! Apple take note, you're supposed to be the smart ones....
My point is that GoogleTV is not a rip off of the AppleTV (as some have strangely said) it does not even play in the same park as AppleTV. It is doing things that others have already done for ages.
AppleTV always was dead in the water, it promised so much and yet failed to deliver, There are some very clever people working in this market and none of them it seems work for Apple, most of them I would say are still in basements, helping to make open source apps like XBMC.
Trust me, spend 5mins with XBMC or PLEX and you will never turn on your AppleTV again.
I reviewed the announcement, and watched the videos (those that are available)*
* I had to laugh! In one demo they made a big deal about playing a video on your Android smart phone and passing that video from the phone to the GTV, in just a few seconds. Wow! All right... they passed the URL of a YouTube video to the GTV, which, then played it! They're just sooo clever!
For all practical purposes, GTV is offering an Aggregator that includes:
-- a STB that runs Android OS and overlays the TV signal
-- a, yet unseen, remote (kb, pointer?)
-- an IR Blaster to control the other STBs
They say that the capability will be built-in on the next Sony TV. But, very few people will buy a New Sony TV just to get GTV... that leaves the GTV STB (and friends).
So, by adding the GTV STB as the last connection between cable box, DVR, whatever, GTV can overlay web and Android capability on top of all the other STBs' outputs.
And, the IR Blaster can be used to schedule/select/control/play content from the other STBs, as well as the TV (I suspect that AppleTV could be just another STB to GTV).
By doing it this way, GTV, takes control of all components of your Home Theater, as opposed to being just another STB, among many, connected to a separate video source on the TV.
That's a pretty good solution:
-- everything connects to the GTV STB
-- the GTV STB connects to the TV
-- GTV controls them all
We have a Sony Bravia with the following sources (STBs, etc.)
-- OTA TV
-- TiVo
-- Wii
-- VideoCam
-- DVD/VCR *
-- Cable Box (just switched from Comcast to ATT U-verse)
-- AppleTV (streamed from a Mac Mini media library with 2 2TB external HDDs)
-- iPhone/iPad
-- Mac Mini (web, EyeTV)
* Yes, occasionally, we need to watch a VCR tape (those things just won't die).
I don't know if the GTV STB / IR Blaster can control all of that but it does add a kinda' integrated web experience.
A few questions:
-- how much will it cost?
-- purchase or subscription?
-- how many sources can be plugged into the STB?
-- how varied can the sources be?
-- what happens if i need other sources not supported by the GTV STB and IR Blaster?
An aggregator begins to lose appeal if it can't aggregate everything.
This is a key point!
If an Aggregator can't aggregate everything, the things it can't aggregate remain as separate sources plugged into the TV. The only way to access these, is for the Aggregator to switch the TV to another source, thus GTV gives up control.
Then:
-- likely, you will need other remotes for these other sources
-- there is no control or communication between GTV and these non-aggregated devices: GTV doesn't know what's on EyeTV, or how to schedule it.
-- it becomes kludgey to go back and forth between Aggregator and non-aggregated devices.
I guess we'll still need a coffee table full of remotes (or issue a tool belt to each family member
The whole experience begins to tarnish, to degrade into what we have today... Except now, we have another [specialty] STB and another remote control.
My AppleTV or Mac Mini (or any other STB) could be upgraded to add an IR Blaster and remote. That STB, then would become the "First among Equals" source plugged into the TV. Conceivably, this could deliver a better UX than an Aggregator that doesn't really aggregate everything.
And then there's the remote... yes the remote! From what I saw in the GTV videos, they had several people running remotes (sometimes concurrently), and I believe they were using an iPad as a story-board for the demo.
I saw a BT keyboard and several Android smart phones being used as remotes.
An iPod Touch or a iPad would be a better solution than what they showed.
But, consider this: just as few will buy a new Sony TV to get GTV, few will buy an expensive remote to control GTV... Sure, they'll use an Android smart phone if they have one, and it's handy.
The GTV system needs to include an inexpensive, intuitive, comfortable, hand-held (one hand) combination kb pointer device.
What's that going to look like?
The more I think about GTV, the less appeal it has to me... It seems like a half-baked solution, not ready for prime time!
So, by adding the GTV STB as the last connection between cable box, DVR, whatever, GTV can overlay web and Android capability on top of all the other STBs output.
And, the IR Blaster can be used to schedule/select/control/play content from the other STBs, as well as the TV (I suspect that AppleTV could be just another STB to GTV).
By doing it this way, GTV, takes control of all components of your HTPC, as opposed to being just another STB, among many, connected to a separate video source on the TV.
Do you think Panasonic is going to play nice with Sony on this? Or do you have to replace everything with Sony gear?
Have you ever used the current or prior generation of IR blasters?
Do you think Comcast or Cox is going to readily turn over their interface to a Google device? That they will suddenly stop encrypting the QAM digital TV streams? For Sony or Google or anyone else? Do you know anyone who's gotten CableCARD to even begin to deliver on that promise?
As I said earlier, this is going to be a minefield with lots of players defending lots of competing interests. Including privacy advocates who haven't been heard from yet, but will be in spades when this turns into a shipping product. Sure, the tech blogs are falling over themselves to suck up to Google on this. But let's wait and see what actually gets delivered before we anoint Eric Schmidt as king of the STB.
If Google is indexing all the torrents on Teh Intarwebz, and they start making money off a GoogleTV STB or Google licensed STB where they have a defined profit motive...
How long before the content owners go directly after Google?
Today they can claim to just to have an ISP-type relationship and try to hide behind the YouTube "licenses". Does Google really think that will shield them from big lawsuits from Universal, et al?
Do you think Panasonic is going to play nice with Sony on this? Or do you have to replace everything with Sony gear?
Have you ever used the current or prior generation of IR blasters?
Do you think Comcast or Cox is going to readily turn over their interface to a Google device? That they will suddenly stop encrypting the QAM digital TV streams? For Sony or Google or anyone else? Do you know anyone who's gotten CableCARD to even begin to deliver on that promise?
As I said earlier, this is going to be a minefield with lots of players defending lots of competing interests. Including privacy advocates who haven't been heard from yet, but will be in spades when this turns into a shipping product. Sure, the tech blogs are falling over themselves to suck up to Google on this. But let's wait and see what actually gets delivered before we anoint Eric Schmidt as king of the STB.
Your points in this and your prior post are spot on!
I'll add just one more!
Are you willing to delegate to Google the ability to search for/prioritize/select which content to view?
Wouldn't Google, likely, give preference to content that is directly beneficial to Google (ads, adsense, adwords, etc.)?
I suspect what they actually deliver will be a partial solution of what "could be". But, it will be a poor UX of limited use that will be abandoned within a year... or it will evolve into a Google game box competitor to the PS3, Wii, XBox.
All this talk about rivalry among Apple, Google, Adobe, content owners, cable providers, TV providers, TV Mfgrs- Sony, Panasonic et al... all jostling for position, cutting deals, seeking advantage/power over the others.
It reminds me of a Paul Harveyism:
"We cannot all stand around in a circle with our hands in each others pockets and get rich thereby!"
Actually, I spent about 1/2 hour with each system. While the UI for using the system is nice, the setup is rather primitive.
I have my media library on a Mac Mini running Snow Leopard, iTunes and iPhoto on 2 2TB external drives.
Why can't either XMBC or PLEX use Bonjour to recognize these shared libraries. And the configuration options to access these (add source) don't work.
Further, PLEX doesn't run properly under screen sharing (my media library has neither screen or keyboard attached). And on the local Mac you cannot use the mouse (even during configuration/setup)-- you must use an Apple remote... real sucky!
Then Apple should be worried. Froyo is superior to iPhone OS, and Android is ahead in sales in the US and not far behind worldwide.
If Apple are relying on mobile they need to step up their game. Open up the app store, offer a wider choice of handsets - if they can do it with the iPod, why not the iPhone? Why no iPhone Mini and some sort of premium high end model?
My guess is that Apple is very worried about Android. Steve made silly hyperbolic remarks about Google's intentions with Android. ISTM that he is worried, or at least, wants his minions to feel worried.
Apple might rely on mobile, but keep up their current strategy. They have had great success being a niche supplier to rabid fans, and more recently, with making simple consumer electronics devices which were market leaders. That market is now dying, given the recent integration of music players with phones.
It will be interesting to see which direction Apple will go with their future strategy - to make a niche product, or to make a mass-market product.
Comments
Who will win? I'm honestly not sure but it will be interesting to see what happens.
If past performance is any indicator of future results, both companies will continue to do very well for the foreseeable future.
But nobody can know the future in any detail.
I've read the article and the first 100, or so, comments.
Here's what I understand from all this.
GTV provides a STB and/or
built-in TV Module that allows a TV viewer to:
1) search the web for free/ad-supported content: YouTube, ABC, etc.
2) stream play that content on demand
3) search The Web for paid/subscription content: NetFlix, HuLu,, etc.
4) stream play that content
5) search locally-connected (wired or WiFi) boxes (cable, DVR) for content
6) play that content
7) search locally available iTunes content
8) stream play that content
Apple may block 7 and 8, or at least DRM purchased content
But it looks like GTV [mostly] provides an aggregated search and play.
I suspect that you will still need remotes to schedule the Cable/Box DVR
What will make this work is if:
1) it is reasonably priced
2) it quickly becomes ubiquitous
3) there is a keyboard/device somewhere in the loop that ties this all together and eliminates all other remotes
4) it is drop-dead easy to instal and use
That's a pretty difficult proposition
I don't know whether Google is up to the job.
So, what does this do to the AppleTV?
If Apple does nothing to AppleTV, then it may co-exist with, or become subsumed by GTV-- just another box in the search and play aggregation.
But, will/need this happen?
Consider:
1) the AppleTV already exists.
2) it already does everything the GTV is going to do except search/stream the general web content and search/play local box content
3) it already can (and will continue to) search play iTunes content
AppleTV, while the here and now, is missing a few things to compete with the Future GTV.
But, AppleTV uses basically the same OS as the iPhone-- the AppleTV is just an iPod Shuffle with a really, realy big screen!
That means that Apple could open the device to developers and apps. That means that iPad content apps such as NetFlix, ABC, etc. would be an easy port, today. Likewise mobile Safari!
I suspect that in a matter of weeks Apple could write an Aggregator/Player app with bits and pieces it has laying around. And/or offer an AppleTV that uses a version of the same processor that's in the iPad.
I think that, done soon, and done right Apple could have a 6-month lead over the competition.
Oh yeah, that remote could be:
-- a BT KB with a few reassigned/additional buttons
-- a new, inexpensive, dedicated iPod touch-like device
-- any existing iPhone or iPod Touch
-- for heavy lifting an iPad
And, if Apple does the UI and implementation, you know it'll be done right!
.
You present these ideas very well.
On an unrelated side note I can't help but think how much Steve Balmer has screwed Microsoft.
Consider this. The Xbox was released in 2001, they had a Tablet PC in 2002, Media Center in 2002 and a Windows phone in 2003. With all of the experience they gathered they released the Zune and Xbox 360 in late 2005\\2006.
It's almost unbelievable that Microsoft would let Google and Apple come in and take over markets that they pioneered, but that is exactly was has happened.
Great points. I've never considered how many pioneering products M$ has introduced, but let languish.
Yes. They could be doing a whole lot better. I've never had much respect for M$.
The problem is the TV networks and Hollywood are afraid of letting iTunes dominate. They saw what happened to the music labels. Apple might get a subscription deal, but they won't be allowed to be the only game in town. Consumers will have other options like Hulu, the BBC iPlayer, Netflixs, etc available on the GoogleTV.
Agree.
This would mean that Apple might at last be allowed to un-hobby Apple TV.
Hopefully the massive downloads required for this to work will encourage Australian ISP's to offer decent, cost effective, unlimited internet plans like they have in Europe and the US.
I had an ATV for a while and ran XBMC on it but have binned it, it was too much time and effort to keep updated as Apple kept pulling the plug. I now have a Mac Mini running PLEX, which is essentially a fork of XBMC and much the same thing..
People asked about making the iPhone into a remote for the AppleTV...
http://www.collect3.com.au/xbmc-remote/
As well as being the best media center available XBMC and PLEX now support apps which includes the ability to stream TV from any available source on the Internet. This is all open source so anyone can write an app. I have on my system an app that will stream Hulu, Fox news, South Park, Daily Show etc.. The BBC iPlayer works inside XBMC and countless others. And it will play all your iTunes content, even purchases, as well as every video, audio format you like.
By the way, Open source = free.
But a stunning development is what Dlink are doing with Boxee, Boxee is another fork of XBMC that has been developed as an online TV system, much more like what Google are talking about. Dlink announced a while ago that they would be releasing a hardware solution that runs Boxee and it looks pretty cool.
Check out the coolest remote! Apple take note, you're supposed to be the smart ones....
http://ces.cnet.com/8301-31045_1-10429585-269.html
My point is that GoogleTV is not a rip off of the AppleTV (as some have strangely said) it does not even play in the same park as AppleTV. It is doing things that others have already done for ages.
AppleTV always was dead in the water, it promised so much and yet failed to deliver, There are some very clever people working in this market and none of them it seems work for Apple, most of them I would say are still in basements, helping to make open source apps like XBMC.
Trust me, spend 5mins with XBMC or PLEX and you will never turn on your AppleTV again.
http://www.plexapp.com/
Wow. what a bunch of losers. sit on Apple board, steal ideas, then leave and directly compete with knockoff products.
Google sucks.
And honestly, who needs google for anything other than the search engine? I have no use for them outside that personally. It's "neat" to have the option to try some of their products sometimes, but no one I know relies on them. Well, google Maps is pretty awesome, so I give that to them (even though that capability was a purchased acquisition rather than developed in house)
From office apps, to email, it is not the greatest (and in fact is also an invasion of privacy - something google has no qualms with) and there are much better options out there.
I find it funny that Google points out bad interfaces on TVs and then show their own fisher price looking interface. LAME!
Even google maps is not that good. Mapquest give you the best directions. Google maps gives enough directions to get to the vicinity of your destination and but mapquest gives the best directions for all the small streets that actually take you to the address.
Big deal. Make it three separate boxes if needed, but patch them together with a nice-looking external skin, and call it "Apple TV."
Why would you possibly want to do that? This is called a "distributed cost", you're driving up the cost for all users to please the needs of a minority of them.
DVR's are going the way of the dodo. Certainly there are people that still want them now, but they won't in a year. Doubling the price of the ATV to please that minority is stupid. In an optional box, it's an optional box.
Maury
GREAT! THIS WILL MAKE AMERICANS EVEN FATTER THAN THEY ALREADY ARE. McD, BK, Taco Bell, and the rest of the junk food industry will love Google TV. More fat ass couch potatoes to feed...
Don't hate me because I'm beautifat.
The difference is that Apple actually "gets" the improve half of the equation.
Apple didn't invent the MP3 player, but they invented a better UX and now everybody carries an iPod.
Apple didn't invent the smartphone, but they invented a better UX and now everybody carries an iPhone.
Google just copies and puts any old UX on there and hopes their fanbois will flock to whatever their latest "me too" project is, funded by their web ads business...
Let's face it, Apple TV went to market too soon. It is a placeholder, an incomplete solution to an ill-defined problem.
Forget about that. Apple is now a Mobile Device company. The living room is dead.
Then Apple should be worried. Froyo is superior to iPhone OS, and Android is ahead in sales in the US and not far behind worldwide.
If Apple are relying on mobile they need to step up their game. Open up the app store, offer a wider choice of handsets - if they can do it with the iPod, why not the iPhone? Why no iPhone Mini and some sort of premium high end model?
Let's face it, Apple TV went to market too soon. It is a placeholder, an incomplete solution to an ill-defined problem.
Maybe so. It's hard to argue against that sentiment, since most people who like the AppleTV are the people who have hacked it. Certainly a lot of of people would like an all-in-one media+dvr solution but its a real minefield and perhaps Apple knew that and decided it wasn't going to worth the effort to support all the permutations of closed cable environments to make that happen.
So Google is willing to take this on, but I didn't notice Comcast or Cox or any of the other cable companies on stage. And since encrypted QAM isn't exactly open itself (ask anyone with an EyeTV), it seems like Google going to try to pass channel changing and recording information through the IR port on the cable box with some ugly dongle-type receiver that communicates with the Google/Logitech/whoever's unit. CableCARD tried to crack this same nut and is, by all accounts, a dismal failure because it's in the cable companies' best interests to have that solution not work -- it would kill their cable box and DVR rental streams. If all they are doing is sending menu navigation commands to a cable box, Comcast can break that with every firmware release.
So maybe it'll be a good media device or maybe not, but I doubt Comcast or Hulu is going to play ball (and Hulu may wind up blocking additional devices or browsers that GoogleTV may mimic -- cf. Boxee).
Anyway, I think we'll see less and less free content and more subscriptions as these devices get more popular. Content owners are going to want to be paid for their investment in developing and producing the entertainment people seem to want to consume. We'll just have to see how that plays out.
It's fine that Google makes a big media splash with this announcement, it's their dog-and-pony show. But I'll be interested to see how kludgey the final shipping product turns out to be. My guess is that getting DVR functionality in there will turn the device into something Rube Goldberg would have been proud of. And the internet content is going to be less and less free. Maybe GoogleTV can just get torrent searching and do it that way?
It seems there are lots of people posting to this forum who do not have a clue what is currently available in this market, and some of the great things that the open source community are doing to make some of these Apple products actually usable!
I had an ATV for a while and ran XBMC on it but have binned it, it was too much time and effort to keep updated as Apple kept pulling the plug. I now have a Mac Mini running PLEX, which is essentially a fork of XBMC and much the same thing..
People asked about making the iPhone into a remote for the AppleTV...
http://www.collect3.com.au/xbmc-remote/
As well as being the best media center available XBMC and PLEX now support apps which includes the ability to stream TV from any available source on the Internet. This is all open source so anyone can write an app. I have on my system an app that will stream Hulu, Fox news, South Park, Daily Show etc.. The BBC iPlayer works inside XBMC and countless others. And it will play all your iTunes content, even purchases, as well as every video, audio format you like.
By the way, Open source = free.
But a stunning development is what Dlink are doing with Boxee, Boxee is another fork of XBMC that has been developed as an online TV system, much more like what Google are talking about. Dlink announced a while ago that they would be releasing a hardware solution that runs Boxee and it looks pretty cool.
Check out the coolest remote! Apple take note, you're supposed to be the smart ones....
http://ces.cnet.com/8301-31045_1-10429585-269.html
My point is that GoogleTV is not a rip off of the AppleTV (as some have strangely said) it does not even play in the same park as AppleTV. It is doing things that others have already done for ages.
AppleTV always was dead in the water, it promised so much and yet failed to deliver, There are some very clever people working in this market and none of them it seems work for Apple, most of them I would say are still in basements, helping to make open source apps like XBMC.
Trust me, spend 5mins with XBMC or PLEX and you will never turn on your AppleTV again.
http://www.plexapp.com/
Good post!
I JailBroke an early AppleTV (a while back) and was able to play video from all over the web-- there are thousands of free movies out there.
With the advent of the iPhone, I kinda' lost interest in JB AppleTV solutions.
I looked at the sites you referenced and will Install XBMC or Plex late tonight (when the AppleTV is free)
Do either of these provide any kind of general web surfing capability?
.
I reviewed the announcement, and watched the videos (those that are available)*
* I had to laugh! In one demo they made a big deal about playing a video on your Android smart phone and passing that video from the phone to the GTV, in just a few seconds. Wow! All right... they passed the URL of a YouTube video to the GTV, which, then played it! They're just sooo clever!
For all practical purposes, GTV is offering an Aggregator that includes:
-- a STB that runs Android OS and overlays the TV signal
-- a, yet unseen, remote (kb, pointer?)
-- an IR Blaster to control the other STBs
They say that the capability will be built-in on the next Sony TV. But, very few people will buy a New Sony TV just to get GTV... that leaves the GTV STB (and friends).
So, by adding the GTV STB as the last connection between cable box, DVR, whatever, GTV can overlay web and Android capability on top of all the other STBs' outputs.
And, the IR Blaster can be used to schedule/select/control/play content from the other STBs, as well as the TV (I suspect that AppleTV could be just another STB to GTV).
By doing it this way, GTV, takes control of all components of your Home Theater, as opposed to being just another STB, among many, connected to a separate video source on the TV.
That's a pretty good solution:
-- everything connects to the GTV STB
-- the GTV STB connects to the TV
-- GTV controls them all
We have a Sony Bravia with the following sources (STBs, etc.)
-- OTA TV
-- TiVo
-- Wii
-- VideoCam
-- DVD/VCR *
-- Cable Box (just switched from Comcast to ATT U-verse)
-- AppleTV (streamed from a Mac Mini media library with 2 2TB external HDDs)
-- iPhone/iPad
-- Mac Mini (web, EyeTV)
* Yes, occasionally, we need to watch a VCR tape (those things just won't die).
I don't know if the GTV STB / IR Blaster can control all of that but it does add a kinda' integrated web experience.
A few questions:
-- how much will it cost?
-- purchase or subscription?
-- how many sources can be plugged into the STB?
-- how varied can the sources be?
-- what happens if i need other sources not supported by the GTV STB and IR Blaster?
An aggregator begins to lose appeal if it can't aggregate everything.
This is a key point!
If an Aggregator can't aggregate everything, the things it can't aggregate remain as separate sources plugged into the TV. The only way to access these, is for the Aggregator to switch the TV to another source, thus GTV gives up control.
Then:
-- likely, you will need other remotes for these other sources
-- there is no control or communication between GTV and these non-aggregated devices: GTV doesn't know what's on EyeTV, or how to schedule it.
-- it becomes kludgey to go back and forth between Aggregator and non-aggregated devices.
I guess we'll still need a coffee table full of remotes (or issue a tool belt to each family member
The whole experience begins to tarnish, to degrade into what we have today... Except now, we have another [specialty] STB and another remote control.
My AppleTV or Mac Mini (or any other STB) could be upgraded to add an IR Blaster and remote. That STB, then would become the "First among Equals" source plugged into the TV. Conceivably, this could deliver a better UX than an Aggregator that doesn't really aggregate everything.
And then there's the remote... yes the remote! From what I saw in the GTV videos, they had several people running remotes (sometimes concurrently), and I believe they were using an iPad as a story-board for the demo.
I saw a BT keyboard and several Android smart phones being used as remotes.
An iPod Touch or a iPad would be a better solution than what they showed.
But, consider this: just as few will buy a new Sony TV to get GTV, few will buy an expensive remote to control GTV... Sure, they'll use an Android smart phone if they have one, and it's handy.
The GTV system needs to include an inexpensive, intuitive, comfortable, hand-held (one hand) combination kb pointer device.
What's that going to look like?
The more I think about GTV, the less appeal it has to me... It seems like a half-baked solution, not ready for prime time!
.
So, by adding the GTV STB as the last connection between cable box, DVR, whatever, GTV can overlay web and Android capability on top of all the other STBs output.
And, the IR Blaster can be used to schedule/select/control/play content from the other STBs, as well as the TV (I suspect that AppleTV could be just another STB to GTV).
By doing it this way, GTV, takes control of all components of your HTPC, as opposed to being just another STB, among many, connected to a separate video source on the TV.
Do you think Panasonic is going to play nice with Sony on this? Or do you have to replace everything with Sony gear?
Have you ever used the current or prior generation of IR blasters?
Do you think Comcast or Cox is going to readily turn over their interface to a Google device? That they will suddenly stop encrypting the QAM digital TV streams? For Sony or Google or anyone else? Do you know anyone who's gotten CableCARD to even begin to deliver on that promise?
As I said earlier, this is going to be a minefield with lots of players defending lots of competing interests. Including privacy advocates who haven't been heard from yet, but will be in spades when this turns into a shipping product. Sure, the tech blogs are falling over themselves to suck up to Google on this. But let's wait and see what actually gets delivered before we anoint Eric Schmidt as king of the STB.
If Google is indexing all the torrents on Teh Intarwebz, and they start making money off a GoogleTV STB or Google licensed STB where they have a defined profit motive...
How long before the content owners go directly after Google?
Today they can claim to just to have an ISP-type relationship and try to hide behind the YouTube "licenses". Does Google really think that will shield them from big lawsuits from Universal, et al?
Do you think Panasonic is going to play nice with Sony on this? Or do you have to replace everything with Sony gear?
Have you ever used the current or prior generation of IR blasters?
Do you think Comcast or Cox is going to readily turn over their interface to a Google device? That they will suddenly stop encrypting the QAM digital TV streams? For Sony or Google or anyone else? Do you know anyone who's gotten CableCARD to even begin to deliver on that promise?
As I said earlier, this is going to be a minefield with lots of players defending lots of competing interests. Including privacy advocates who haven't been heard from yet, but will be in spades when this turns into a shipping product. Sure, the tech blogs are falling over themselves to suck up to Google on this. But let's wait and see what actually gets delivered before we anoint Eric Schmidt as king of the STB.
Your points in this and your prior post are spot on!
I'll add just one more!
Are you willing to delegate to Google the ability to search for/prioritize/select which content to view?
Wouldn't Google, likely, give preference to content that is directly beneficial to Google (ads, adsense, adwords, etc.)?
I suspect what they actually deliver will be a partial solution of what "could be". But, it will be a poor UX of limited use that will be abandoned within a year... or it will evolve into a Google game box competitor to the PS3, Wii, XBox.
King of the STB... I like the sound of that!
.
It reminds me of a Paul Harveyism:
"We cannot all stand around in a circle with our hands in each others pockets and get rich thereby!"
... it's kinda' fun though!!
... er, ah: a little to the left!
.
Trust me, spend 5mins with XBMC or PLEX and you will never turn on your AppleTV again.
http://www.plexapp.com/
Actually, I spent about 1/2 hour with each system. While the UI for using the system is nice, the setup is rather primitive.
I have my media library on a Mac Mini running Snow Leopard, iTunes and iPhoto on 2 2TB external drives.
Why can't either XMBC or PLEX use Bonjour to recognize these shared libraries. And the configuration options to access these (add source) don't work.
Further, PLEX doesn't run properly under screen sharing (my media library has neither screen or keyboard attached). And on the local Mac you cannot use the mouse (even during configuration/setup)-- you must use an Apple remote... real sucky!
Free, open source !~= good UX!
.
Then Apple should be worried. Froyo is superior to iPhone OS, and Android is ahead in sales in the US and not far behind worldwide.
If Apple are relying on mobile they need to step up their game. Open up the app store, offer a wider choice of handsets - if they can do it with the iPod, why not the iPhone? Why no iPhone Mini and some sort of premium high end model?
My guess is that Apple is very worried about Android. Steve made silly hyperbolic remarks about Google's intentions with Android. ISTM that he is worried, or at least, wants his minions to feel worried.
Apple might rely on mobile, but keep up their current strategy. They have had great success being a niche supplier to rabid fans, and more recently, with making simple consumer electronics devices which were market leaders. That market is now dying, given the recent integration of music players with phones.
It will be interesting to see which direction Apple will go with their future strategy - to make a niche product, or to make a mass-market product.
I see them taking the latter tack.