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?
I think that there will be final products, and not just one product. IIRC, Google will allow others to incorporate the technology into their own devices.
Some of those devices will likely run other software too. In such a case, if they have a web browser, then torrent files will be available to download, and some third-party software will likely be available to accomplish the task.
I look forward to having better integration between TV and internet and a home server and a DVR. IMO, the current situation is the kludge.
I hook up my laptop to the TV to watch movies. I can't get stuff off of the DVR and onto the computer for remote viewing. The high capacity external drive is a seperate piece, and so if I want to watch an archived movie, I transfer it onto the laptop first, and then hook up the laptop to the TV.
All very Rube Goldberg currently. I could set things up differently, and I used to use a HTC. That too was Rube Goldberg.
If my TV had an internet connection and a big hard drive, along with PVR software and the ability to install extra codecs and misc software, I'd like that a lot.
They will have about as much success as Apple did. These things are just not compelling products.
The thing that gives Google TV a leg up, in my opinion, is that they've gone after big name partners for both hardware and content, instead of trying to go at it all by themselves.
The thing that gives Google TV a leg up, in my opinion, is that they've gone after big name partners for both hardware and content, instead of trying to go at it all by themselves.
Well Apple doesn't need hardware help and Apple does have great content. Google needs to ship not talk. We will see.
The thing that gives Google TV a leg up, in my opinion, is that they've gone after big name partners for both hardware and content, instead of trying to go at it all by themselves.
Apple never tried to go at it all by themselves, either. Sure, they wanted to make the HW and SW, but that is Apple, that's what they do and they have a track record showing this to be financially viable direction.
When it comes to content providers, you have to remember how the TV was brought to the public. The first thing steve did back at the iPod/iTunes Special Event September 12, 2006 was show us a "sneak peak" the then codenamed iTV.
What's unique about this announcement is that it wouldn't be read to ship until March 21, 2007 and they still didn't have a name in place. I think the entire announcement and demo so far in advance was to help sway content providers in three ways:[list=1][*]Give them peace of mind by showing Apple had a secure method for delivering their content via the internet and across home PCs.[*]Scare them by showing them that Disney was on board.[*]Show them public interest in such a device further pushing their hand.
Remember that Apple sold Pixar to Disney earlier that year, becoming the largest single shareholder (by a large margin) and getting a seat on their board. I don't think Jobs gives a shit about Disney for Disney's sake, I think his interest with them falls squarely on how their position can help Apple grow.
Of course, as we all know, none of them worked out right. The content didn't come as they planned and hoped, thus keeping the TV in the hobbled hobby state that we know it. Even back in 2007 Jobs was calling the TV a hobby. I think that that by the time it launched with only Disney for content they knew this was not going to be the revolutionary device they once tried to have. In the real world business is all about "location, location, location!"; on the internet it's all about "content, content, content".
By the time the content did come it was too late, the content providers had found other avenues, digital streaming picked up in other areas and media extender appliances had taken those couple years to copy the TV's winning features, even if mostly ignoring the UX.
Now it's mid-2010, the HW has long sense shown its age. With ARM performance increases besting the Pentium M used in the current TV and easily allowing for requisite 1080p, the once nascent media extender market going from a directionless mess to being fairly structured system that people want, iPhone OS' being ideal for a small dedicated device, Apple now having every major content owner in the iTunes Store, and having 4 years to review their mistakes (including doing a demo right before the famed iPhone demo at MW2007) I think that the time is ripe for Apple to finally release a great media extender appliance.
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.
And then Google I/O happened and Google got up on the stage and ranted about Apple and the iPhone like they were the armies of Hitler sent from Satan to enslave us all, with only Google standing athwart the apocalypse. If anything, Jobs underplayed the situation.
Quote:
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.
Yeah, it'll be interesting to see if Apple decides to take its "simple consumer devices" like the iPhone and iPad and go "mass market."
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.
Job's remarks were spot on. Have you been reading what Google reps have been saying?
Remember that it isn't Apple that's going after Google, it's Google that's been going after Apple. And Google hasn't been honest about it either.
Think about it. Yes, I have an Apple device that I can connect to an HDTV, and play content from ABC, NetFlix, and several others-- I like BFM TV, even though I don't speak French.
Also, I can stream all my content: home movies; ripped DVDs; pictures; slideshows; music, etc. To the same device/HDTV.
Sure, the picture is not the best, and the UEX is a little kludgey (but it is better than what Google demoed!)
The important thing is that 3rd parties are voluntarily, eagerly adding their content to an Apple box!
As you hinted, Apple could make another version of the device, add a few things (HDMI, 1080P), leave a few things out (cell radio, multitouch screen)... Throw in a really good, inexpensive remote...
Remember that Apple sold Pixar to Disney earlier that year, becoming the largest single shareholder (by a large margin) and getting a seat on their board. I don't think Jobs gives a shit about Disney for Disney's sake, I think his interest with them falls squarely on how their position can help Apple grow.
IIRC, it was Steve Jobs (and associates) who sold Pixar to Disney. Not Apple.
Steve Jobs gives a shit about Disney because the bulk of his wealth comes from his shares in Disney. He has 5+ million shares of AAPL and 138 million shares of DIS. If his Apple shares were worthless tomorrow, he still has immense wealth. That's the funny thing about the guy, he cares about Apple because he cares about Apple's success, not because the money is that important.
The thing that gives Google TV a leg up, in my opinion, is that they've gone after big name partners for both hardware and content, instead of trying to go at it all by themselves.
As huge as Google is, they can't go at all by themselves. They have no experience building consumer hardware. Zilch, zip, nada.
IIRC, it was Steve Jobs (and associates) who sold Pixar to Disney. Not Apple.
Steve Jobs gives a shit about Disney because the bulk of his wealth comes from his shares in Disney. He has 5+ million shares of AAPL and 138 million shares of DIS. If his Apple shares were worthless tomorrow, he still has immense wealth. That's the funny thing about the guy, he cares about Apple because he cares about Apple's success, not because the money is that important.
Yes, that is what everyone seems to forget (including, unfortunately, the cable TV providers).
We had Comcast combined Internet and cable TV. Everything was fine until the digital changeover-- while all our TVs and STBs were digital, Comcast moved all the channels, so they were inaccessible without an additional box ($3 per month) for each TV after the main TV. This irked me and I refused to pay for the additional boxes.
We changed to ATT u-verse! They provide faster Internet, more cable TV channels and free boxes and remotes for all the TVs for about the same price. And, the remotes, themselves, are better.
What is not better, however, is the software inside the boxes that helps (?) you find and watch content:
-- There are a bazillion channels, so scrolling through the chaff takes too long
-- "San Jose Sharks" doesn't work as a search term, neither does "NHL". You need to know to search for "Stanley Cup Playoffs"... Well, the Sharks are gone, so maybe, next year
-- Same for the "Lakers".
-- Searching, is a drill-down process, usually through 3-4 levels, to find what you want. Unfortunately, there is no back (or drill-up) button. You must start over-- every search is a "Genesis" operation
Oddly, I have a free iPad, app that sets up easily (enter zip code, select provider) and searches content, great... It just can't control the cable box
Exactly. Which is why Google's solution makes a lot of sense to me.
Three years ago DVRs were all the rage. Everybody watched shows on DVR. Now, the DVR is passe. They're reaching saturation point; almost 40% of households have one. However, market research shows that people use on-demand services in their cable set top boxes more often than DVRs. Why? People just want to watch TV. They don't care about searching for it, recording it, hoping it doesn't get deleted by dad recording a 4 hour football game…they just want to watch TV.
GoogleTV combines your live TV, recorded shows on DVR with on-demand offerings from Hulu, Netflix and YouTube, and puts them all in one interface. I want to watch the latest "30 Rock". Is it on now? Then it'll tell me it's on TV right now. Otherwise it'll stream it from Hulu.
With Apple TV I need to flip input sources and try to find the 30 Rock shows on iTunes--where I then have to buy them, instead of watching them for free. Then wait for the downloads (it's not streaming, so it has to download the entire file from iTunes before it starts), all at a quality that is not even true HD (it's 720p but with more compression; I want 1080p if I have a 1080p TV).
I for one am looking forward to this. Getting Sony on board is a huge step; if it's successful you can bet other TV manufacturers will follow suit. If Google shares ad revenue, there's no reason the cablecos won't get involed; NBC will soon be a cable company/content producer combination, and they may not mind relegating all content distribution to Google in exchange for a tidy cut (right now Comcast gets no cuts of advertising from OnDemand content).
Exactly. Which is why Google's solution makes a lot of sense to me.
Three years ago DVRs were all the rage. Everybody watched shows on DVR. Now, the DVR is passe. They're reaching saturation point; almost 40% of households have one. However, market research shows that people use on-demand services in their cable set top boxes more often than DVRs. Why? People just want to watch TV. They don't care about searching for it, recording it, hoping it doesn't get deleted by dad recording a 4 hour football game…they just want to watch TV.
GoogleTV combines your live TV, recorded shows on DVR with on-demand offerings from Hulu, Netflix and YouTube, and puts them all in one interface. I want to watch the latest "30 Rock". Is it on now? Then it'll tell me it's on TV right now. Otherwise it'll stream it from Hulu.
But, GTV does not, really, combine your live TV. The only way they can do this is at the "pleasure" of the cable companies. There were no cable providers included in the announcement. As others have posted, the cable companies are unlikely to cede control of their content to Google, Apple or anyone else.
To circumvent this problem, GTV includes a STB and an IR Blaster. Assumably, it works like this:
1) you plug the cable box into the GTV STB
2) you plug GTV STB into the TV
3) the GTV STB accesses your cable schedule from the web, e.g. TitanTV
4) you interface the GTV STB with a GTV STB remote (pointer and kb)
5) The GTV STB controls the cable STB (and any other STBs it understands) with the IR Blaster
The cable companies can make it technically, or legally difficult/impossible to manipulate their content.
For example, we just changed to ATT u-verse. It does not "support" STBs like: TiVo; DVD/VCR; EyeTV. You plug your cable box int your TV, period. Now, you could probably hack it to support these things, but that defeats the purpose. Then, the cable company could just reprogram their box.
The whole IR Blaster thing is a disaster waiting to happen.
Quote:
With Apple TV I need to flip input sources and try to find the 30 Rock shows on iTunes--where I then have to buy them, instead of watching them for free. Then wait for the downloads (it's not streaming, so it has to download the entire file from iTunes before it starts), all at a quality that is not even true HD (it's 720p but with more compression; I want 1080p if I have a 1080p TV).
A few posts back, I wrote a long post about why the GTV Aggregator would need to aggregate all the STBs or it would lose its appeal. If you have other sources (STBs) that GTV doesn't understand, it can't aggregate them. To use these STBs they are connect to a different source on your TV (just like the AppleTV).
I have A Sony Bravia with 10 input sources-- I currently use 9. GTV could only aggregate 1 of these, the cable box, if the cable company allows them to!
Likely, GTV will be just another STB source to your TV that allows general web access, and web content playback.
Apple or TiVo could add the same capability to their existing STBs... What's the big deal?
Quote:
I for one am looking forward to this. Getting Sony on board is a huge step; if it's successful you can bet other TV manufacturers will follow suit. If Google shares ad revenue, there's no reason the cablecos won't get involed; NBC will soon be a cable company/content producer combination, and they may not mind relegating all content distribution to Google in exchange for a tidy cut (right now Comcast gets no cuts of advertising from OnDemand content).
You be sure and post here when that all gets worked out. Of course, the Government could step in and make it worse!
Seriously, I suspect that Apple has been trying for years to cut deals with the cable companies. Do you believe they will be more receptive to a deal with Google, a provider of competitive content?
But, GTV does not, really, combine your live TV. The only way they can do this is at the "pleasure" of the cable companies. There were no cable providers included in the announcement. As others have posted, the cable companies are unlikely to cede control of their content to Google, Apple or anyone else.
Here's what I meant when I said GTV would have access to cable TV at the "pleasure" of the cable provider.
Comments
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?
I think that there will be final products, and not just one product. IIRC, Google will allow others to incorporate the technology into their own devices.
Some of those devices will likely run other software too. In such a case, if they have a web browser, then torrent files will be available to download, and some third-party software will likely be available to accomplish the task.
I look forward to having better integration between TV and internet and a home server and a DVR. IMO, the current situation is the kludge.
I hook up my laptop to the TV to watch movies. I can't get stuff off of the DVR and onto the computer for remote viewing. The high capacity external drive is a seperate piece, and so if I want to watch an archived movie, I transfer it onto the laptop first, and then hook up the laptop to the TV.
All very Rube Goldberg currently. I could set things up differently, and I used to use a HTC. That too was Rube Goldberg.
If my TV had an internet connection and a big hard drive, along with PVR software and the ability to install extra codecs and misc software, I'd like that a lot.
They will have about as much success as Apple did. These things are just not compelling products.
The thing that gives Google TV a leg up, in my opinion, is that they've gone after big name partners for both hardware and content, instead of trying to go at it all by themselves.
The thing that gives Google TV a leg up, in my opinion, is that they've gone after big name partners for both hardware and content, instead of trying to go at it all by themselves.
Well Apple doesn't need hardware help and Apple does have great content. Google needs to ship not talk. We will see.
The thing that gives Google TV a leg up, in my opinion, is that they've gone after big name partners for both hardware and content, instead of trying to go at it all by themselves.
Apple never tried to go at it all by themselves, either. Sure, they wanted to make the HW and SW, but that is Apple, that's what they do and they have a track record showing this to be financially viable direction.
When it comes to content providers, you have to remember how the TV was brought to the public. The first thing steve did back at the iPod/iTunes Special Event September 12, 2006 was show us a "sneak peak" the then codenamed iTV.
What's unique about this announcement is that it wouldn't be read to ship until March 21, 2007 and they still didn't have a name in place. I think the entire announcement and demo so far in advance was to help sway content providers in three ways:[list=1][*]Give them peace of mind by showing Apple had a secure method for delivering their content via the internet and across home PCs.[*]Scare them by showing them that Disney was on board.[*]Show them public interest in such a device further pushing their hand.
Remember that Apple sold Pixar to Disney earlier that year, becoming the largest single shareholder (by a large margin) and getting a seat on their board. I don't think Jobs gives a shit about Disney for Disney's sake, I think his interest with them falls squarely on how their position can help Apple grow.
Of course, as we all know, none of them worked out right. The content didn't come as they planned and hoped, thus keeping the TV in the hobbled hobby state that we know it. Even back in 2007 Jobs was calling the TV a hobby. I think that that by the time it launched with only Disney for content they knew this was not going to be the revolutionary device they once tried to have. In the real world business is all about "location, location, location!"; on the internet it's all about "content, content, content".
By the time the content did come it was too late, the content providers had found other avenues, digital streaming picked up in other areas and media extender appliances had taken those couple years to copy the TV's winning features, even if mostly ignoring the UX.
Now it's mid-2010, the HW has long sense shown its age. With ARM performance increases besting the Pentium M used in the current TV and easily allowing for requisite 1080p, the once nascent media extender market going from a directionless mess to being fairly structured system that people want, iPhone OS' being ideal for a small dedicated device, Apple now having every major content owner in the iTunes Store, and having 4 years to review their mistakes (including doing a demo right before the famed iPhone demo at MW2007) I think that the time is ripe for Apple to finally release a great media extender appliance.
I think that the time is ripe for Apple to finally release a great media extender appliance.
...Possibly, they already have...
.
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.
And then Google I/O happened and Google got up on the stage and ranted about Apple and the iPhone like they were the armies of Hitler sent from Satan to enslave us all, with only Google standing athwart the apocalypse. If anything, Jobs underplayed the situation.
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.
Yeah, it'll be interesting to see if Apple decides to take its "simple consumer devices" like the iPhone and iPad and go "mass market."
...Possibly, they already have...
.
... for your HDTV.
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.
Job's remarks were spot on. Have you been reading what Google reps have been saying?
Remember that it isn't Apple that's going after Google, it's Google that's been going after Apple. And Google hasn't been honest about it either.
... for your HDTV.
Think about it. Yes, I have an Apple device that I can connect to an HDTV, and play content from ABC, NetFlix, and several others-- I like BFM TV, even though I don't speak French.
Also, I can stream all my content: home movies; ripped DVDs; pictures; slideshows; music, etc. To the same device/HDTV.
Sure, the picture is not the best, and the UEX is a little kludgey (but it is better than what Google demoed!)
The important thing is that 3rd parties are voluntarily, eagerly adding their content to an Apple box!
As you hinted, Apple could make another version of the device, add a few things (HDMI, 1080P), leave a few things out (cell radio, multitouch screen)... Throw in a really good, inexpensive remote...
That would really be something-- Nes pa?
.
Remember that Apple sold Pixar to Disney earlier that year, becoming the largest single shareholder (by a large margin) and getting a seat on their board. I don't think Jobs gives a shit about Disney for Disney's sake, I think his interest with them falls squarely on how their position can help Apple grow.
IIRC, it was Steve Jobs (and associates) who sold Pixar to Disney. Not Apple.
Steve Jobs gives a shit about Disney because the bulk of his wealth comes from his shares in Disney. He has 5+ million shares of AAPL and 138 million shares of DIS. If his Apple shares were worthless tomorrow, he still has immense wealth. That's the funny thing about the guy, he cares about Apple because he cares about Apple's success, not because the money is that important.
The thing that gives Google TV a leg up, in my opinion, is that they've gone after big name partners for both hardware and content, instead of trying to go at it all by themselves.
As huge as Google is, they can't go at all by themselves. They have no experience building consumer hardware. Zilch, zip, nada.
IIRC, it was Steve Jobs (and associates) who sold Pixar to Disney. Not Apple.
Steve Jobs gives a shit about Disney because the bulk of his wealth comes from his shares in Disney. He has 5+ million shares of AAPL and 138 million shares of DIS. If his Apple shares were worthless tomorrow, he still has immense wealth. That's the funny thing about the guy, he cares about Apple because he cares about Apple's success, not because the money is that important.
Yes, I meant Jobs.
And 98% of the people just want to watch tv.
Yes, that is what everyone seems to forget (including, unfortunately, the cable TV providers).
We had Comcast combined Internet and cable TV. Everything was fine until the digital changeover-- while all our TVs and STBs were digital, Comcast moved all the channels, so they were inaccessible without an additional box ($3 per month) for each TV after the main TV. This irked me and I refused to pay for the additional boxes.
We changed to ATT u-verse! They provide faster Internet, more cable TV channels and free boxes and remotes for all the TVs for about the same price. And, the remotes, themselves, are better.
What is not better, however, is the software inside the boxes that helps (?) you find and watch content:
-- There are a bazillion channels, so scrolling through the chaff takes too long
-- "San Jose Sharks" doesn't work as a search term, neither does "NHL". You need to know to search for "Stanley Cup Playoffs"... Well, the Sharks are gone, so maybe, next year
-- Same for the "Lakers".
-- Searching, is a drill-down process, usually through 3-4 levels, to find what you want. Unfortunately, there is no back (or drill-up) button. You must start over-- every search is a "Genesis" operation
Oddly, I have a free iPad, app that sets up easily (enter zip code, select provider) and searches content, great... It just can't control the cable box
.
And 98% of the people just want to watch tv.
Exactly. Which is why Google's solution makes a lot of sense to me.
Three years ago DVRs were all the rage. Everybody watched shows on DVR. Now, the DVR is passe. They're reaching saturation point; almost 40% of households have one. However, market research shows that people use on-demand services in their cable set top boxes more often than DVRs. Why? People just want to watch TV. They don't care about searching for it, recording it, hoping it doesn't get deleted by dad recording a 4 hour football game…they just want to watch TV.
GoogleTV combines your live TV, recorded shows on DVR with on-demand offerings from Hulu, Netflix and YouTube, and puts them all in one interface. I want to watch the latest "30 Rock". Is it on now? Then it'll tell me it's on TV right now. Otherwise it'll stream it from Hulu.
With Apple TV I need to flip input sources and try to find the 30 Rock shows on iTunes--where I then have to buy them, instead of watching them for free. Then wait for the downloads (it's not streaming, so it has to download the entire file from iTunes before it starts), all at a quality that is not even true HD (it's 720p but with more compression; I want 1080p if I have a 1080p TV).
I for one am looking forward to this. Getting Sony on board is a huge step; if it's successful you can bet other TV manufacturers will follow suit. If Google shares ad revenue, there's no reason the cablecos won't get involed; NBC will soon be a cable company/content producer combination, and they may not mind relegating all content distribution to Google in exchange for a tidy cut (right now Comcast gets no cuts of advertising from OnDemand content).
Exactly. Which is why Google's solution makes a lot of sense to me.
Three years ago DVRs were all the rage. Everybody watched shows on DVR. Now, the DVR is passe. They're reaching saturation point; almost 40% of households have one. However, market research shows that people use on-demand services in their cable set top boxes more often than DVRs. Why? People just want to watch TV. They don't care about searching for it, recording it, hoping it doesn't get deleted by dad recording a 4 hour football game…they just want to watch TV.
GoogleTV combines your live TV, recorded shows on DVR with on-demand offerings from Hulu, Netflix and YouTube, and puts them all in one interface. I want to watch the latest "30 Rock". Is it on now? Then it'll tell me it's on TV right now. Otherwise it'll stream it from Hulu.
But, GTV does not, really, combine your live TV. The only way they can do this is at the "pleasure" of the cable companies. There were no cable providers included in the announcement. As others have posted, the cable companies are unlikely to cede control of their content to Google, Apple or anyone else.
To circumvent this problem, GTV includes a STB and an IR Blaster. Assumably, it works like this:
1) you plug the cable box into the GTV STB
2) you plug GTV STB into the TV
3) the GTV STB accesses your cable schedule from the web, e.g. TitanTV
4) you interface the GTV STB with a GTV STB remote (pointer and kb)
5) The GTV STB controls the cable STB (and any other STBs it understands) with the IR Blaster
The cable companies can make it technically, or legally difficult/impossible to manipulate their content.
For example, we just changed to ATT u-verse. It does not "support" STBs like: TiVo; DVD/VCR; EyeTV. You plug your cable box int your TV, period. Now, you could probably hack it to support these things, but that defeats the purpose. Then, the cable company could just reprogram their box.
The whole IR Blaster thing is a disaster waiting to happen.
With Apple TV I need to flip input sources and try to find the 30 Rock shows on iTunes--where I then have to buy them, instead of watching them for free. Then wait for the downloads (it's not streaming, so it has to download the entire file from iTunes before it starts), all at a quality that is not even true HD (it's 720p but with more compression; I want 1080p if I have a 1080p TV).
A few posts back, I wrote a long post about why the GTV Aggregator would need to aggregate all the STBs or it would lose its appeal. If you have other sources (STBs) that GTV doesn't understand, it can't aggregate them. To use these STBs they are connect to a different source on your TV (just like the AppleTV).
I have A Sony Bravia with 10 input sources-- I currently use 9. GTV could only aggregate 1 of these, the cable box, if the cable company allows them to!
Likely, GTV will be just another STB source to your TV that allows general web access, and web content playback.
Apple or TiVo could add the same capability to their existing STBs... What's the big deal?
I for one am looking forward to this. Getting Sony on board is a huge step; if it's successful you can bet other TV manufacturers will follow suit. If Google shares ad revenue, there's no reason the cablecos won't get involed; NBC will soon be a cable company/content producer combination, and they may not mind relegating all content distribution to Google in exchange for a tidy cut (right now Comcast gets no cuts of advertising from OnDemand content).
You be sure and post here when that all gets worked out. Of course, the Government could step in and make it worse!
Seriously, I suspect that Apple has been trying for years to cut deals with the cable companies. Do you believe they will be more receptive to a deal with Google, a provider of competitive content?
.
But, GTV does not, really, combine your live TV. The only way they can do this is at the "pleasure" of the cable companies. There were no cable providers included in the announcement. As others have posted, the cable companies are unlikely to cede control of their content to Google, Apple or anyone else.
Here's what I meant when I said GTV would have access to cable TV at the "pleasure" of the cable provider.
http://www.tuaw.com/2010/05/24/dear-...etv/#continued
It doesn't appear that Comcast is very "pleased" with anybody!
.