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?
android is swirling around the toilet bowl as far as i am concerned, just about to be flushed.
pissed me off. 2.2 is damn close to iphone quality but who has it? handset makers are releasing new models with friggin 1.6 on them!? these people are brain dead! customers buy that crap and they are put off android for good. but really googles fault over all.
some people are always going to buy the cheap crap and others want quality, better designs, a well thought-out package. thats what sets apple apart from everyone else. imo.
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.
You are somewhat correct. It is really the cable companies in danger here. But that is not to say that the networks won't lose some.
The issue is the ratings system. It is very old and very out dated and basically censorship by an extreme minority. That being the 25k folks whose on the air and one day delayed DVR use is what is counted to guess those Millions of Viewers. If any of them start using what is basically a computer instead of their regular tvs it could cut into the numbers. Which means the advertisers would pay less.
The time has come, but the networks are resisting, to revamp the ratings system and use more like 10 times the number of viewers in the sample. And to also combine online ad money, as well as purchased downloads in their budget make goods. If they did these things, the face of tv might just change for the better. But it is costly and Nielsen won't change until the advertisers, the networks and/or a lawsuit makes them change. And the networks won't change companies until basically the same.
You are somewhat correct. It is really the cable companies in danger here. But that is not to say that the networks won't lose some.
The issue is the ratings system. It is very old and very out dated and basically censorship by an extreme minority. That being the 25k folks whose on the air and one day delayed DVR use is what is counted to guess those Millions of Viewers. If any of them start using what is basically a computer instead of their regular tvs it could cut into the numbers. Which means the advertisers would pay less.
The time has come, but the networks are resisting, to revamp the ratings system and use more like 10 times the number of viewers in the sample. And to also combine online ad money, as well as purchased downloads in their budget make goods. If they did these things, the face of tv might just change for the better. But it is costly and Nielsen won't change until the advertisers, the networks and/or a lawsuit makes them change. And the networks won't change companies until basically the same.
So we get Survivor 54 etc.
I don't think any of these things will lead to better quality TV. The only thing likely, maybe, to lead to better TV is less TV. I think the basic problem is that the talent pool -- actors, writers, directors, show creators and producers -- simply isn't deep enough, or broad enough, to support quality in current volumes. So, occasionally, almost by chance, something good pops up, but most of what's on is just junk.
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.
But it is a big deal. Google can now sell ad inventory across internet, print, and tv from a single point. TV is huge because of all the metrics you can gather from the STB which ties a person to what is showing on the TV. Direct TV is really short sighted for letting Google anywhere near their ad inventory and customers.
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.
My take on it is this...
Android is the 'UNAPPLE" choice that the "elitist geek crowd" have all latched onto if for no other reason than 'its not crap and its not Apple'. My question is this. Now that Google is starting to show its nasty underbelly and rewriting what it means to "Don't be evil" I wonder how many of the died in the wool hacker set are coming to terms with the fact that the OS they are promoting is backed by a company that is quickly selling itself out like a $3 whore?
Maybe Google needs to change their mission statement to read "Don't be Evil unless its profitable"
Android is the 'UNAPPLE" choice that the "elitist geek crowd" have all latched onto if for no other reason than 'its not crap and its not Apple'. My question is this. Now that Google is starting to show its nasty underbelly and rewriting what it means to "Don't be evil" I wonder how many of the died in the wool hacker set are coming to terms with the fact that the OS they are promoting is backed by a company that is quickly selling itself out like a $3 whore?
Maybe Google needs to change their mission statement to read "Don't be Evil unless its profitable"
That's right these hemorrDroid fans see this as some sort of David ( Android) versus Goliath ( Apple) thing; when it's really Google versus Apple, and Google wants to data mine every ounce of personal info from you to sell it to the highest bidder. And it now has a pack with Verizon to filter the internet--Do no evil indeed.
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.
Apple's model wasn't a bad deal at all until the introduction of redbox and netflix with instant streaming. I think a lot of people don't realize too how much Netflix and hulu deal with all of this, both having gaping holes in the online content they carry because they can't secure licensing for it.
In the end this is going to come to the consumer and seeing where they put their money. It's already apparent that consumers are quite happy with products like the iPad and iPhone as well as Android, so these models entering the TV market is likely to gain strong leverage as certain studios cave. ABC already has the iPad app, now HBO has an app, I think many studios will follow suite at first creating their own app to house their content. Eventually they will cave and then the fight will be against Cable and Satellite TV, who will likely attempt to ban certain data content unless you pay for channels.
If net neutrality is not secured soon it's going to be a heck of a dog fight, and the consumers are the ones who suffer.
Can't wait for Google TV. The way they pitched it, the way I understood it, it makes me very excited. Essentially I think they want to make a box that will be your cable box, but with a twist of having youtube, hulu, boxee and internet as a whole at your fingertips in addition to whatever shows are on the air.
Essentially this is the setup I have now - an old PC box with a wireless keyboard/trackball, and cable. I mostly watch Boxee or Hulu, but I still have to watch sports over cable. If I can have one small box instead of an old PC and a cable box it would make my life a lot easier.
Today we are announcing a great new model for delivering your content. We don't know how it's going to work yet, or make any money for you, but we're taking steps to make damned sure it's profitable for us. We sincerely hope you are scared stupid enough to cooperate. Your complete gullibility is appreciated.
Today we are announcing a great new model for delivering your content. We don't know how it's going to work yet, or make any money for you, but we're taking steps to make damned sure it's profitable for us. We sincerely hope you are scared stupid enough to cooperate. Your complete gullibility is appreciated.
Today we are announcing a great new model for delivering your content. We don't know how it's going to work yet, or make any money for you, but we're taking steps to make damned sure it's profitable for us. We sincerely hope you are scared stupid enough to cooperate. Your complete gullibility is appreciated.
Your Friends at Google
Classic indeed, to think those IDIOTS were 'nervous' about Apples plans to sell their content. Well now they dragged their silly asses for too long and Google is just gonna give ALL their CRAP away and then lock them up in a mega court battle that will last years and cost millions of dollars..
Hmmm I'm willing to bet Apple's not looking nearly as scary as they were before huh? Maybe the broadcasters shoulda talked to Viacomm first eh?
Today we are announcing a great new model for delivering your content. We don't know how it's going to work yet, or make any money for you, but we're taking steps to make damned sure it's profitable for us. We sincerely hope you are scared stupid enough to cooperate. Your complete gullibility is appreciated.
Your Friends at Google
Hilarious!
Google has done a great job at creating hype around a product with very sketchy details. Time will tell wether it's deserved.
Comments
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?
android is swirling around the toilet bowl as far as i am concerned, just about to be flushed.
pissed me off. 2.2 is damn close to iphone quality but who has it? handset makers are releasing new models with friggin 1.6 on them!? these people are brain dead! customers buy that crap and they are put off android for good. but really googles fault over all.
some people are always going to buy the cheap crap and others want quality, better designs, a well thought-out package. thats what sets apple apart from everyone else. imo.
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.
You are somewhat correct. It is really the cable companies in danger here. But that is not to say that the networks won't lose some.
The issue is the ratings system. It is very old and very out dated and basically censorship by an extreme minority. That being the 25k folks whose on the air and one day delayed DVR use is what is counted to guess those Millions of Viewers. If any of them start using what is basically a computer instead of their regular tvs it could cut into the numbers. Which means the advertisers would pay less.
The time has come, but the networks are resisting, to revamp the ratings system and use more like 10 times the number of viewers in the sample. And to also combine online ad money, as well as purchased downloads in their budget make goods. If they did these things, the face of tv might just change for the better. But it is costly and Nielsen won't change until the advertisers, the networks and/or a lawsuit makes them change. And the networks won't change companies until basically the same.
So we get Survivor 54 etc.
You are somewhat correct. It is really the cable companies in danger here. But that is not to say that the networks won't lose some.
The issue is the ratings system. It is very old and very out dated and basically censorship by an extreme minority. That being the 25k folks whose on the air and one day delayed DVR use is what is counted to guess those Millions of Viewers. If any of them start using what is basically a computer instead of their regular tvs it could cut into the numbers. Which means the advertisers would pay less.
The time has come, but the networks are resisting, to revamp the ratings system and use more like 10 times the number of viewers in the sample. And to also combine online ad money, as well as purchased downloads in their budget make goods. If they did these things, the face of tv might just change for the better. But it is costly and Nielsen won't change until the advertisers, the networks and/or a lawsuit makes them change. And the networks won't change companies until basically the same.
So we get Survivor 54 etc.
I don't think any of these things will lead to better quality TV. The only thing likely, maybe, to lead to better TV is less TV. I think the basic problem is that the talent pool -- actors, writers, directors, show creators and producers -- simply isn't deep enough, or broad enough, to support quality in current volumes. So, occasionally, almost by chance, something good pops up, but most of what's on is just junk.
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.
But it is a big deal. Google can now sell ad inventory across internet, print, and tv from a single point. TV is huge because of all the metrics you can gather from the STB which ties a person to what is showing on the TV. Direct TV is really short sighted for letting Google anywhere near their ad inventory and customers.
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.
My take on it is this...
Android is the 'UNAPPLE" choice that the "elitist geek crowd" have all latched onto if for no other reason than 'its not crap and its not Apple'. My question is this. Now that Google is starting to show its nasty underbelly and rewriting what it means to "Don't be evil" I wonder how many of the died in the wool hacker set are coming to terms with the fact that the OS they are promoting is backed by a company that is quickly selling itself out like a $3 whore?
Maybe Google needs to change their mission statement to read "Don't be Evil unless its profitable"
... Maybe Google needs to change their mission statement to read "Don't be Evil unless its profitable"
How about, "All evil, all the time!"
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
No, I'd much rather have that info monitored and collected by xenophic Steve Jobs and weapons manufacturer AT&T. Makes me feel much safer.
My take on it is this...
Android is the 'UNAPPLE" choice that the "elitist geek crowd" have all latched onto if for no other reason than 'its not crap and its not Apple'. My question is this. Now that Google is starting to show its nasty underbelly and rewriting what it means to "Don't be evil" I wonder how many of the died in the wool hacker set are coming to terms with the fact that the OS they are promoting is backed by a company that is quickly selling itself out like a $3 whore?
Maybe Google needs to change their mission statement to read "Don't be Evil unless its profitable"
That's right these hemorrDroid fans see this as some sort of David ( Android) versus Goliath ( Apple) thing; when it's really Google versus Apple, and Google wants to data mine every ounce of personal info from you to sell it to the highest bidder. And it now has a pack with Verizon to filter the internet--Do no evil indeed.
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.
Apple's model wasn't a bad deal at all until the introduction of redbox and netflix with instant streaming. I think a lot of people don't realize too how much Netflix and hulu deal with all of this, both having gaping holes in the online content they carry because they can't secure licensing for it.
In the end this is going to come to the consumer and seeing where they put their money. It's already apparent that consumers are quite happy with products like the iPad and iPhone as well as Android, so these models entering the TV market is likely to gain strong leverage as certain studios cave. ABC already has the iPad app, now HBO has an app, I think many studios will follow suite at first creating their own app to house their content. Eventually they will cave and then the fight will be against Cable and Satellite TV, who will likely attempt to ban certain data content unless you pay for channels.
If net neutrality is not secured soon it's going to be a heck of a dog fight, and the consumers are the ones who suffer.
As for Don't be Evil.
Evil is a concept... up for interpretation
since Google said it, whatever they do is not evil, at least according to them.
since Google said it, whatever they do is not evil, at least according to them.
Yeah, sort of like, "If the president of the United States does it, it can't be illegal."
Essentially this is the setup I have now - an old PC box with a wireless keyboard/trackball, and cable. I mostly watch Boxee or Hulu, but I still have to watch sports over cable. If I can have one small box instead of an old PC and a cable box it would make my life a lot easier.
Yeah, sort of like, "If the president of the United States does it, it can't be illegal."
Yea bush sucked balls.
Today we are announcing a great new model for delivering your content. We don't know how it's going to work yet, or make any money for you, but we're taking steps to make damned sure it's profitable for us. We sincerely hope you are scared stupid enough to cooperate. Your complete gullibility is appreciated.
Your Friends at Google
Yea bush sucked balls.
Well, that was actually a Nixon quote.
Dear Broadcast Industry,
Today we are announcing a great new model for delivering your content. We don't know how it's going to work yet, or make any money for you, but we're taking steps to make damned sure it's profitable for us. We sincerely hope you are scared stupid enough to cooperate. Your complete gullibility is appreciated.
Your Friends at Google
Don't be evil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_be_evil
Do Know Evil.
Dear Broadcast Industry,
Today we are announcing a great new model for delivering your content. We don't know how it's going to work yet, or make any money for you, but we're taking steps to make damned sure it's profitable for us. We sincerely hope you are scared stupid enough to cooperate. Your complete gullibility is appreciated.
Your Friends at Google
Classic indeed, to think those IDIOTS were 'nervous' about Apples plans to sell their content. Well now they dragged their silly asses for too long and Google is just gonna give ALL their CRAP away and then lock them up in a mega court battle that will last years and cost millions of dollars..
Hmmm I'm willing to bet Apple's not looking nearly as scary as they were before huh? Maybe the broadcasters shoulda talked to Viacomm first eh?
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.
QFT.
I'd much rather pay in dollars for content than trade in my personal information and habits.
Google = evil
Dear Broadcast Industry,
Today we are announcing a great new model for delivering your content. We don't know how it's going to work yet, or make any money for you, but we're taking steps to make damned sure it's profitable for us. We sincerely hope you are scared stupid enough to cooperate. Your complete gullibility is appreciated.
Your Friends at Google
Hilarious!
Google has done a great job at creating hype around a product with very sketchy details. Time will tell wether it's deserved.