Google TV facing resistance from studios

Posted:
in iPod + iTunes + AppleTV edited January 2014
Google's effort to launch Android-based set top boxes by the end of the year is running into reluctance from content owners skeptical of the company's business model.



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



The TV set top box market has found few successes, with the well-liked TiVo failing to make money while Microsoft's DVR-centric Media Center PCs finding insufficient traction to maintain the interest of computer makers. If Apple can successfully launch its new TV appliance at a low price point, it could give the company a strong third product launch following iPhone 4 and the iPad, which similarly entered a moribund market and stoked major new interest from consumers and developers.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 42
    finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
  • Reply 2 of 42
    columbuscolumbus Posts: 281member
    I wondered about this the other day and I also wondered how Chrome OS was coming along. Two projects both announced to great fan fare a while back and any news on them seems to have been lost amongst the Android juggernaut.
  • Reply 3 of 42
    str1f3str1f3 Posts: 573member
    Although Google and Apple are approaching this at different angles, both are fighting the same fight in trying to get TV to the web where it belongs. It's time for the content owners to realize that they won't be losing money and the only ones who are left out in the cold is the cable companies who are an unnecessary middle man.
  • Reply 4 of 42
    4phun4phun Posts: 51member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by columbus View Post


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



    Chrome will have to replace Android sooner than later.

    Google is already clearly shifting attention to Chrome.



    Android is probably going to be killed by Google if they loose to Oracle's lawsuits.
  • Reply 5 of 42
    realisticrealistic Posts: 1,126member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by 4phun View Post


    Chrome will have to replace Android sooner than later.

    Google is already clearly shifting attention to Chrome.



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



    If Google loses the lawsuit to Oracle or settles out of court (either of which I doubt), you are talking a VERY BIG dollar penalty for paying to develop then give away a FREE mobile OS all to generate ad revenue. Will it all have been worth it?
  • Reply 6 of 42
    hzchzc Posts: 63member
    Well, seems like Google can't use their "anything goes" approach here. They'll have to accommodate the content providers, and in the end people will criticize Google for being so closed, controlling of content, charging too much for a show, etc. Oh, sorry, was thinking about Apple.



    Sorry. Couldn't resist. It's just that Apple has been playing with the big boys for a while now. Google's turn to be tamed.
  • Reply 7 of 42
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hzc View Post


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



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



    It would have been cool if you knew what you were talking about before making that comment.

    Apple has a contract to sell media content on iTunes. so what is the matter? The movie studios and the tv networks are making bank allowing Apple to sell their intellectual property.



    And what did you mean about being tamed? that was out of context!

    Anywaaaaaaaaay!!!!!

    the tv folks use the neilson rating system to guage who is watching their shows and that data in compiled using the bell curve and eventually a number is obtain and related to MONEY.

    What else. Google stands to disrupt that formula, shift the viewer eyeballs some place else and in a nutshell f*** everything up!
  • Reply 8 of 42
    djrumpydjrumpy Posts: 1,116member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post


    Don't be evil



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



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



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_no_evil
  • Reply 9 of 42
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,570member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by 4phun View Post


    Chrome will have to replace Android sooner than later.

    Google is already clearly shifting attention to Chrome.



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



    Quote:

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



    It'll probably be 5-10 years before those lawsuits are resolved, at which point, Android may or may not be relevant. Interestingly, it seems that the Android handset makers aren't making any money at all, even using a "free" OS, so, someone's going to have to start turning some serious money over to them or they aren't going to be able to afford to keep making Android handsets. Maybe someone should have thought through the business model. From http://www.asymco.com/2010/08/17/and...iggest-losers/ :
    It's no wonder that broadcast content owners aren't excited about being assimilated by Google.
  • Reply 10 of 42
    irnchrizirnchriz Posts: 1,580member
    Do you really want Google monitoring and collecting data for advertising from

    1. your PC browsing habits

    2. your mobile usage

    3. your TV viewing

    4. spying on your wi-fi access point location



    Google the new big brother.
  • Reply 11 of 42
    [QUOTE=anonymouse;1698242]I'm not convinced that Chrome is going anywhere. It's just another thin client technology, and people (and, by "people" I don't mean tech geeks) just don't like thin clients, they want apps, that they control, and that don't always depend on a network connection to be useful. Chrome is just the latest attempt to return us to the green screen model of computing, the model that personal computers represented a rebellion against, and it's no more appealing that previous offerings from Oracle, IBM, Sun, et al. Maybe someday (or maybe not) but I don't think that day is today.





    if you are referring to chrome os then you don't understand it. if you are referring to chrome the browser then you haven't been keeping up with adoption rates.

    and you are right no one wants computers that depend on a network connection like ipad, iphone. they just can't sell those things...oh...wait. they are selling like mad.
  • Reply 12 of 42
    At the all things digital conference this year, Jobs said that there wasn't a go to market strategy for set top boxes. He said Tivo learned that, Microsoft learned that, Apple learned that and google was about to learn that.



    Maybe this is the first sign that he was right.



    Then again, maybe he wanted to lull competitors into a false sense of security before rolling out iTV...
  • Reply 13 of 42
    bullheadbullhead Posts: 493member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by irnchriz View Post


    Do you really want Google monitoring and collecting data for advertising from

    1. your PC browsing habits

    2. your mobile usage

    3. your TV viewing

    4. spying on your wi-fi access point location



    Google the new big brother.



    Direct TV just signed a deal to use Google TV, basically giving away a huge chunk of their advertising revenue for short term profit. Look for the clueless cable companies to do the same as they are so horribly managed it is mind boggling.
  • Reply 14 of 42
    herbapouherbapou Posts: 2,217member
    Like I said in another thread, Apple is in a much better position to put AppleTV software in every TV's because it ALREADY has a negociated distribution system that is approuved by the studios in MANY countries. They dont even need a set-up box, it could be built-in.



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



    Welcome to Studios negociations hell, Google.
  • Reply 15 of 42
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by str1f3 View Post


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



    Very, very different situation.



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



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



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



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bullhead View Post


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



    You had me worried for a while, but then I read the terms of that agreement. It's really not a big deal - other than Google advertising on Direct TV. As long as Google isn't taking control, I don't care where they spend their money to advertise. What Google is trying to do wrt TV studios is entirely different.
  • Reply 16 of 42
    antkm1antkm1 Posts: 1,441member
    I was waiting for this to happen. The big 5 media giants pretty much own everything, and they are not going to give up all the ad space to Google. Just take a look at this article and you'll understand:



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



    One could also check out the documentary "This Film is not yet Rated" for a really good idea of what's going on here.
  • Reply 17 of 42
    antkm1antkm1 Posts: 1,441member
    [QUOTE=screamingfist;1698261]
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


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





    if you are referring to chrome os then you don't understand it. if you are referring to chrome the browser then you haven't been keeping up with adoption rates.

    and you are right no one wants computers that depend on a network connection like ipad, iphone. they just can't sell those things...oh...wait. they are selling like mad.



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



    Chrome OS seems to be struggling (or at least not as widely publicized) IMO because we haven't seen any devices for it yet, which I think we will be seeing soon. Google did state at the release event (last fall) that it would be ready by fall 2010, it's still under development. We're not there yet guys. Look how long people had been talking about an Apple Tablet (and SJ's denial of it) before we saw anything...5 years?
  • Reply 18 of 42
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,570member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by screamingfist View Post


    if you are referring to chrome os then you don't understand it. if you are referring to chrome the browser then you haven't been keeping up with adoption rates.

    and you are right no one wants computers that depend on a network connection like ipad, iphone. they just can't sell those things...oh...wait. they are selling like mad.



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



    I'm also aware that lots of people think this model is the bees knees, but I think those are mostly tech geeks who think it's just so cool, and adoption by normal citizens will not be enthusiastic.
  • Reply 19 of 42
    djrumpydjrumpy Posts: 1,116member
    [QUOTE=antkm1;1698299]
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by screamingfist View Post




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



    I tend to think Android does as well as it does because it's a decent alternative to iOS, and pretty much anyone can get in on it as long as they provide the hardware. It's an easy 'in' for hardware vendors to get into the touch market since they can't leverage iOS. Windows isn't a blip yet, so they really have no alternative at this point. It's either iOS which they obviously can't do, or Android.
  • Reply 20 of 42
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


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



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



    i don't think it is the bees knees (and have doubts about googles ability to deliver a decent product), just a natural obvious direction to take when dealing with the web.

    who knew that iphone would restore the old 'app' model when most were proclaiming it dead!

    still, if users see icons on the 'desktop' and can click on them and use the 'app' then they won't care whether it is chrome os or something else. as long as they can get online and it works. will be interesting to see what comes of it.

    i don't see it being anymore a threat to apple as android is/was. android had potential to be, but looks doomed due to poor control, stupid providers and handset makers oh and maybe oracle.
Sign In or Register to comment.