People seem to be jumping the gun here in calling a winner.
Google's offering is as crippled as Apple's. Where is ABC? Sorry, but CBS isn't much of a partner in our household.
I am sure that Google will have all sorts of new features and strategies as this evolves, but it's early days still and there is no winner yet.
Regarding Apple, I think one would be wise to wait for AirPlay to roll out before evaluating AppleTV. We still don't know exactly what it will and won't do, and whether it is indeed the Trojan Horse as some have speculated.
It will also be interesting to see if Disney is willing to play hardball against competitors in support of Apple.
i don't think it will be as crippled as apple tv. apple tv doesn't let have a web browser does it? i could be wrong.
I said this back in May when Google introduced GTV...
If Apple truly wants to compete with GTV, which IMO they are two totally different things and experiences, then they need to pair with ATT's Uverse and add DVR functionality and more Apps to ATV. With Apple's excellent User Interface and clean look too it, It could be Apple's answer to the idea of Cable TV. I agree that TV (at least provided by cable/SATV/Dish) needs to be simplified and enhanced. I love Google's idea behind GTV, but by the looks of the User Interface, it needs some work. GTV pairing with Dish Network is a HUGE move though. And offering it as a DVR instead of the standard Dish Box is what Apple should be scared of. Even the Logitec box is brilliant, allbeit a bit dumpy looking, but all the wish-lists from techys has been answered in this box.
Google is trying to package to much to quickly, most people get overwhelmed by the barrage of features. I also doubt very much people will run out to replace their current LCD with a google one, adoption will more likely be very slow & gradual. That being said Apple better be paying attention cause Netflix & media sharing isn't going to keep their edge, they'll need to expand features & quickly.
AppleTV makes more sense because it will work with any current TV and if you want to get a newer model you don't have to upgrade your entire TV. Once AppleTV gets upgraded to support an App Store I just don't see how GoogleTV will be able to compete.
Google would do better to partner with cable companies to get Android built into their DVRs, but I doubt this will ever happen since it would likely give hackers an easy way to rip HD content.
Well, the ability to stream my own video content from my computer is a major feature for me. If Apple TV did not allow that, then I wouldn't have purchased one. So the important question: can Google TV do that? (I doubt it.)
So now perhaps you could see why someone might want Apple TV over Google TV, even if the feature I described is not important for you.
Yes, I agree, music also. But actually, I think ATV is weak on this point as well. iTunes is a pain in the neck to deal with. I want to just drop files in a folder and have them accessible on my TV/home stereo. Boxee is the best for that for now, but they don't offer Amazon streaming content. None of the existing boxes meet my needs at this point. Boxee is the closest.
APPLE: If you're listening, I'd spend a lot more money in your video store if you had a plan something like : $15 a month all you can eat video from the "back catalog" plus 2 new releases. Make a plan that would entice Netflix users. Otherwise, I'm strictly a "once in a blue-moon" video renter at the iTunes store.
Google is trying to package to much to quickly, most people get overwhelmed by the barrage of features. I also doubt very much people will run out to replace their current LCD with a google one, adoption will more likely be very slow & gradual. That being said Apple better be paying attention cause Netflix & media sharing isn't going to keep their edge, they'll need to expand features & quickly.
AppleTV makes more sense because it will work with any current TV and if you want to get a newer model you don't have to upgrade your entire TV. Once AppleTV gets upgraded to support an App Store I just don't see how GoogleTV will be able to compete.
Google would do better to partner with cable companies to get Android built into their DVRs, but I doubt this will ever happen since it would likely give hackers an easy way to rip HD content.
Did you even bother to read the article? GoogleTV is going to be available as both something built into new TVs as well as standalone set top boxes. It will also apparently be built into some models of Dish Network satellite receivers.
The new AppleTV WON'T work with any current TV. It only supports HDMI output which most older sets don't have. You WON'T have to upgrade your entire TV to get a newer version of GoogleTV hardware.
Of course it means what I think it means. Your assertion that your usage is common doesn't make it any less stupid.
He simply said there's a line and there's a policy to go as close to it as one can without crossing it. I think the facts are that this legislation doesn't go as far as you'd like it to, and google is exploiting that.
Remember that public policy sets the line. I don't like it, but what he's saying is right and an inevitable incident of the ability to gather and shuttle around huge amounts of data. If you feel so strongly about it, I am sure your local member (or whatever you call your local representative) will carry the baton for you.
(Petrified means to become so frightened that you freeze, and yes you can be petrified every time some event takes place, every time say you come face to face with a very dangerous criminal. So, please stop this nonsense of "correcting" me with insults.)
As for the rest, sure, that's why apple explicitly inform you of using your location, while google has been sending location information freely (and secretly) to advertisers. (Remember why S. Jobs got so angry with google a few months ago?)
And yes I will demand from my elected officials to "carry the baton" for me as they should, and I am sure you will be more than happy to just let Eric "inevitably" stick that baton up to where the sun don't shine for you.
(Disclaimer: I haven’t read a single comment on this thread so my apologizes if this has been covered already)
I think Google’s maneuvering here is better than Apple’s. Apple’s vision has alway been to create OS/SW and services to sell HW, which is great for the premium Mac, iPhone and iPod lines that make those products that dominate the profits of the PC, handset and PMP markets, respectively.
But Apple has only a cheap piece of HW for AppleTV. Even if they have a decent profit margin they’d have to sell a lot of them to make it more than a hobby, but the setup doesn’t really lead to it being possible. But it’s not all their fault. They really are at the mercy of the content providers on this one. An App Store will help, but I don’t think it will make it a break away product on that along even if it does skyrocket the sales.
For these reasons I think Google’s plan is better as they will try to get this in TVs, Blu-ray players, PVRs, and everything else in between, and they will probably do it.
Even they 'd already been an established content provider (or whatever they are, content middle man and ad seller) they would have a hard time getting it in every device you mention. Who would support all that hardware and software on so many devices? Would it be google or any dime a dozen manufacturer?
Apple can still get their equipment in every home right here and now and very cheaply so they are aiming at mass adoption rather than profits, and once it's everywhere and people use it they can leverage that power to maybe add it "as is" and unmodified to any partner they wish to if they wish too.
And what with the app store or jailbreaking potential atv has this will be huge.
It's far easier to put a tiny dirt cheap box under you existing equipment to serve both music and other media, than to have to buy a new tv or dvd. So what if it's reported that Sony are planning to add gtv to new models of theirs? How many people will actually own a new sony as opposed to those willing to shell out a few bucks and add atv to any set up they want?
(Petrified means to become so frightened that you freeze, and yes you can be petrified every time some event takes place, every time say you come face to face with a very dangerous criminal. So, please stop this nonsense of "correcting" me with insults.)
(It also means 'turn to stone')
Quote:
As for the rest, sure, that's why apple explicitly inform you of using your location, while google has been sending location information freely (and secretly) to advertisers. (Remember why S. Jobs got so angry with google a few months ago?)
I was not aware of Jobs reaction, but it's pretty obvious from search results in google that some location awareness is going on. I guess I'm free to use Bing or Yahoo but the results are substandard.
Quote:
And yes I will demand from my elected officials to "carry the baton" for me as they should, and I am sure you will be more than happy to just let Eric "inevitably" stick that baton up to where the sun don't shine for you.
I was not aware of Jobs reaction, but it's pretty obvious from search results in google that some location awareness is going on. I guess I'm free to use Bing or Yahoo but the results are substandard.
How do you know the sun doesn't shine there?
We are not talking about ip location awareness, we are talking about gps location awareness and the sending of private data such as the brand and identification of the phone handset. People where trialing the iphone 4 (or was it the ipad, I don't remember to be honest) on apple's campus and because they did a google search some ad agency associated with google tracked the make and model as well as the location it was being used in. See jobs talk about this on all things d, it's hard to find the news link from then. That's a different ball game than knowing your general whereabouts from ips.
I think the killer for GTV will be price....as in the ability to pick up a GTV cable box from the cable company for the same monthly rental most people pay for their cable box/DVR. Or simply picking up a Blu-Ray home theatre system or TV running on GTV. Who wouldn't do that? Given the choice between a GTV equipped system and the plain old menus that equip most conventional home electronics today, I'd choose the former.
This isn't just about GTV vs. Apple TV. Google is putting out an OS for home electronics that will standardize the home electronics industry just like Android is well on its way to standardizing the smartphone world across several OEMs. Yes, Android has fragmentation issues. Yes, it's got flaws. But imagine where those OEMs would be without Android.
That's the difference IMHO. Apple's selling a box. Google is selling a standard. Time will tell, which model will be more successful.
I think the killer for GTV will be price....as in the ability to pick up a GTV cable box from the cable company for the same monthly rental most people pay for their cable box/DVR. Or simply picking up a Blu-Ray home theatre system or TV running on GTV. Who wouldn't do that? Given the choice between a GTV equipped system and the plain old menus that equip most conventional home electronics today, I'd choose the former.
This isn't just about GTV vs. Apple TV. Google is putting out an OS for home electronics that will standardize the home electronics industry just like Android is well on its way to standardizing the smartphone world across several OEMs. Yes, Android has fragmentation issues. Yes, it's got flaws. But imagine where those OEMs would be without Android.
That's the difference IMHO. Apple's selling a box. Google is selling a standard. Time will tell, which model will be more successful.
Since you did a segue into:
"But imagine where those OEMs would be without Android."
Likely, Most OEMs would be better off -- at least they were better off before Android "just came along to help them out".
`
Over the last 3 years, every Android OEM has lost "profit share" growth except Motorola. Motorola has show "profit share" growth at the cost of significant "market share" loss.
Ha, what an interesting post Dick. So apparently the "do no evil" and bs my way into getting some not so astute observers and users (and pay my way too in the meda) to have them think android is the smart phone makers saviour for them, it turns out that it's actually hurt these guys instead of helped them. It's all about helping other with google isn't it, I feel so warm and fuzzy with their open source platform, and the tons of patents they stole from sun. But of course it's still making millions, android that is, for google...
"But imagine where those OEMs would be without Android."
Likely, Most OEMs would be better off -- at least they were better off before Android "just came along to help them out".
`
Over the last 3 years, every Android OEM has lost "profit share" growth except Motorola. Motorola has show "profit share" growth at the cost of significant "market share" loss.
Nice graph. This shows what I said earlier about the vendors using Android the ones that were going under.
Quote:
Originally Posted by myapplelove
Ha, what an interesting post Dick. So apparently the "do no evil" and bs my way into getting some not so astute observers and users (and pay my way too in the meda) to have them think android is the smart phone makers saviour for them, it turns out that it's actually hurt these guys instead of helped them. It's all about helping other with google isn't it, I feel so warm and fuzzy with their open source platform, and the tons of patents they stole from sun. But of course it's still making millions, android that is, for google...
How is Android hurting them? From what I can see Android has helped them. For example, Moto finally turned a profit by focusing on higher-end phones running Android. If we look at a linear graph showing net profit and Android-based handset releases for a vendor I think well see an increase across the board.
How is Android hurting them? From what I can see Android has helped them. For example, Moto finally turned a profit by focusing on higher-end phones running Android. If we look at a linear graph showing net profit and Android-based handset releases for a vendor I think well see an increase across the board.
On a slight tangent, but didn't I read somewhere recently that Moto was shopping around their phone manufacturing business?
"But imagine where those OEMs would be without Android."
Likely, Most OEMs would be better off -- at least they were better off before Android "just came along to help them out".
`
Over the last 3 years, every Android OEM has lost "profit share" growth except Motorola. Motorola has show "profit share" growth at the cost of significant "market share" loss.
I dunno. I sincerely disagree with this analysis. Before Android came along, the only thing these OEMs had to fight Apple with was Windows Mobile and Symbian. Are you seriously suggesting that these guys could have put up a decent fight with those two platforms. Colour me skeptical.
And you're cherry picking. HTC, LG and Samsung have seen market share growth according to your graph and only Motorola has slid on that metric. That too, this is a 3 year graph (with much of Android's growth coming in the last year). Moto went from selling the RAZR to having nothing (when it came to responding to the iPhone) to being resurrected by the Droid lineup (which only launched in late 2009) . None of that is captured in this graphic. Moto's sliding market and profit share probably has more to do with the end of the trendiness of the RAZR than anything else. Let's see this graphic 3 years from now, when the rise of Android has effectively countered the cumulative damage done to Moto by the iPhone killing off the RAZR trend so sharply in 2007.
Finally, do you think the OEMs are stupid? Why would they embrace Android if they considered it detrimental to their own interests? I'd like to sincerely know why you think you know more than their CEOs.
I'm trying to objectively look at the items announced...
* Turner Broadcasting has been hard at work optimizing some of their most popular websites for viewing on Google TV, including TBS, TNT, CNN, Cartoon Network and Adult Swim, available anytime through Google TV.
- What would Turner's motive be in dealing exclusively with Google instead of Apple? I don't see one, and believe that any such content will be available through Apple as well.
No net advantage
* NBC Universal has collaborated with Google TV to bring CNBC Real-Time, an application that allows you to track your favorite stocks and access news feeds while enjoying the best financial news from CNBC directly on the TV screen.
- Big 'nothing' here. CNBC Real-Time has been available on iOS all along, and CNBC only offers real-time streaming of the actual network via its crappy CNBC+ service... (Windows Media only.)
No net advantage
* HBO will bring access to hundreds of hours of programming to Google TV with HBO GO. Authenticated subscribers will soon be able to access all of their favorite HBO content on-demand in an enhanced website for Google TV.
- If I already subscribe to HBO, why would I need to insert a GoogleTV into the stream to... what? Time shift? DVR does that, as does OnDemand.
Watch on my phone? I supposed, but hardly a killer app.
No net advantage
* NBA has built NBA Game Time, an application that lets you follow game scores in real-time and catch up on the latest highlights from your favorite team in HD.
- Again, NBA has no more incentive to support Google over Apple than does Turner.
No net advantage
My personal bet is that Apple will think things through better than Google, and not just throw spaghetti at the wall and call it beta.
But time will tell.
That was hardly objective. You seem to assume that Apple can automatically negotiate the same deals. That's hardly true given that Apple already comes to the table with a pre-existing paradigm for how media should be distributed.
That was hardly objective. You seem to assume that Apple cannot automatically negotiate the same deals. That's hardly true given that Apple already comes to the table with a pre-existing paradigm for how media should be distributed.
Base on the 4 years since the AppleTV was oddly unveiled it seems clear to me Apple doesn't have the upper hand with video confent owners. Google's method is to ineract with current revenue streams while Apple's looks more to supersede bulk paid cable and sat who then won't be able to pay the networks, and affiliates who then won't be able to pay the networks. One in the hand is worth more than 2 in the bush, as they say.
(Disclaimer: I haven?t read a single comment on this thread so my apologizes if this has been covered already)
I think Google?s maneuvering here is better than Apple?s. Apple?s vision has alway been to create OS/SW and services to sell HW, which is great for the premium Mac, iPhone and iPod lines that make those products that dominate the profits of the PC, handset and PMP markets, respectively.
But Apple has only a cheap piece of HW for AppleTV. Even if they have a decent profit margin they?d have to sell a lot of them to make it more than a hobby, but the setup doesn?t really lead to it being possible. But it?s not all their fault. They really are at the mercy of the content providers on this one. An App Store will help, but I don?t think it will make it a break away product on that along even if it does skyrocket the sales.
For these reasons I think Google?s plan is better as they will try to get this in TVs, Blu-ray players, PVRs, and everything else in between, and they will probably do it.
Bingo. That's what I was getting at. The fundamental problems for Apple TV are 1) it's another box, 2) limited content. Compare that to the way GTV is heading. You're next cable box, BR player, TV, etc. could have GTV OS in there. You might not care. You might just buy the TV or cable box, or BR player for the hardware. But once it's in your house, it's not like you won't use the features.
Bingo. That's what I was getting at. The fundamental problems for Apple TV are 1) it's another box, 2) limited content. Compare that to the way GTV is heading. You're next cable box, BR player, TV, etc. could have GTV OS in there. You might not care. You might just buy the TV or cable box, or BR player for the hardware. But once it's in your house, it's not like you won't use the features.
The above describes a $300 box (including a $150 qwerty remote) an IR blaster and HDMI in/out from the Cable STB.
Supposedly GTV controls and overlays on-screen for all of these.
I just don't see it.
The XBox, WII, PS3, VideoCam, PVR, DVD, BR, etc. don't go through the STB, rather they connect to a separate input ports on the HDTV,
So, AFAICT, GTV can't overlay those devices screens.
Then, the IR Blaster that is used to control the GTV, Cable STB and all these other devices, appears to reside in the supplied qwerty remote.
This makes sense, but limits the capability of a tablet or smart phone to be used as a remote. Does the app on the tablet or remote IR Blast through the qwerty remote -- or do these sophisticated remotes only support the limited function provided by the GTV box.
It could that Apple has done too little, and GTV is trying to do to much.
The public needs to demand some standards from the industries involved, or we'll remain stuck on square one.
Comments
People seem to be jumping the gun here in calling a winner.
Google's offering is as crippled as Apple's. Where is ABC? Sorry, but CBS isn't much of a partner in our household.
I am sure that Google will have all sorts of new features and strategies as this evolves, but it's early days still and there is no winner yet.
Regarding Apple, I think one would be wise to wait for AirPlay to roll out before evaluating AppleTV. We still don't know exactly what it will and won't do, and whether it is indeed the Trojan Horse as some have speculated.
It will also be interesting to see if Disney is willing to play hardball against competitors in support of Apple.
i don't think it will be as crippled as apple tv. apple tv doesn't let have a web browser does it? i could be wrong.
If Apple truly wants to compete with GTV, which IMO they are two totally different things and experiences, then they need to pair with ATT's Uverse and add DVR functionality and more Apps to ATV. With Apple's excellent User Interface and clean look too it, It could be Apple's answer to the idea of Cable TV. I agree that TV (at least provided by cable/SATV/Dish) needs to be simplified and enhanced. I love Google's idea behind GTV, but by the looks of the User Interface, it needs some work. GTV pairing with Dish Network is a HUGE move though. And offering it as a DVR instead of the standard Dish Box is what Apple should be scared of. Even the Logitec box is brilliant, allbeit a bit dumpy looking, but all the wish-lists from techys has been answered in this box.
Lame.
Google is trying to package to much to quickly, most people get overwhelmed by the barrage of features. I also doubt very much people will run out to replace their current LCD with a google one, adoption will more likely be very slow & gradual. That being said Apple better be paying attention cause Netflix & media sharing isn't going to keep their edge, they'll need to expand features & quickly.
AppleTV makes more sense because it will work with any current TV and if you want to get a newer model you don't have to upgrade your entire TV. Once AppleTV gets upgraded to support an App Store I just don't see how GoogleTV will be able to compete.
Google would do better to partner with cable companies to get Android built into their DVRs, but I doubt this will ever happen since it would likely give hackers an easy way to rip HD content.
Well, the ability to stream my own video content from my computer is a major feature for me. If Apple TV did not allow that, then I wouldn't have purchased one. So the important question: can Google TV do that? (I doubt it.)
So now perhaps you could see why someone might want Apple TV over Google TV, even if the feature I described is not important for you.
Yes, I agree, music also. But actually, I think ATV is weak on this point as well. iTunes is a pain in the neck to deal with. I want to just drop files in a folder and have them accessible on my TV/home stereo. Boxee is the best for that for now, but they don't offer Amazon streaming content. None of the existing boxes meet my needs at this point. Boxee is the closest.
APPLE: If you're listening, I'd spend a lot more money in your video store if you had a plan something like : $15 a month all you can eat video from the "back catalog" plus 2 new releases. Make a plan that would entice Netflix users. Otherwise, I'm strictly a "once in a blue-moon" video renter at the iTunes store.
Google is trying to package to much to quickly, most people get overwhelmed by the barrage of features. I also doubt very much people will run out to replace their current LCD with a google one, adoption will more likely be very slow & gradual. That being said Apple better be paying attention cause Netflix & media sharing isn't going to keep their edge, they'll need to expand features & quickly.
AppleTV makes more sense because it will work with any current TV and if you want to get a newer model you don't have to upgrade your entire TV. Once AppleTV gets upgraded to support an App Store I just don't see how GoogleTV will be able to compete.
Google would do better to partner with cable companies to get Android built into their DVRs, but I doubt this will ever happen since it would likely give hackers an easy way to rip HD content.
Did you even bother to read the article? GoogleTV is going to be available as both something built into new TVs as well as standalone set top boxes. It will also apparently be built into some models of Dish Network satellite receivers.
The new AppleTV WON'T work with any current TV. It only supports HDMI output which most older sets don't have. You WON'T have to upgrade your entire TV to get a newer version of GoogleTV hardware.
anyone try to get customer service on an apple product
i rest my case, apple for me
i tried weeks to get google to help with docs, piss poor then i bought pages and gee i'm happy
..and stupid.
Of course it means what I think it means. Your assertion that your usage is common doesn't make it any less stupid.
He simply said there's a line and there's a policy to go as close to it as one can without crossing it. I think the facts are that this legislation doesn't go as far as you'd like it to, and google is exploiting that.
Remember that public policy sets the line. I don't like it, but what he's saying is right and an inevitable incident of the ability to gather and shuttle around huge amounts of data. If you feel so strongly about it, I am sure your local member (or whatever you call your local representative) will carry the baton for you.
(Petrified means to become so frightened that you freeze, and yes you can be petrified every time some event takes place, every time say you come face to face with a very dangerous criminal. So, please stop this nonsense of "correcting" me with insults.)
As for the rest, sure, that's why apple explicitly inform you of using your location, while google has been sending location information freely (and secretly) to advertisers. (Remember why S. Jobs got so angry with google a few months ago?)
And yes I will demand from my elected officials to "carry the baton" for me as they should, and I am sure you will be more than happy to just let Eric "inevitably" stick that baton up to where the sun don't shine for you.
(Disclaimer: I haven’t read a single comment on this thread so my apologizes if this has been covered already)
I think Google’s maneuvering here is better than Apple’s. Apple’s vision has alway been to create OS/SW and services to sell HW, which is great for the premium Mac, iPhone and iPod lines that make those products that dominate the profits of the PC, handset and PMP markets, respectively.
But Apple has only a cheap piece of HW for AppleTV. Even if they have a decent profit margin they’d have to sell a lot of them to make it more than a hobby, but the setup doesn’t really lead to it being possible. But it’s not all their fault. They really are at the mercy of the content providers on this one. An App Store will help, but I don’t think it will make it a break away product on that along even if it does skyrocket the sales.
For these reasons I think Google’s plan is better as they will try to get this in TVs, Blu-ray players, PVRs, and everything else in between, and they will probably do it.
Even they 'd already been an established content provider (or whatever they are, content middle man and ad seller) they would have a hard time getting it in every device you mention. Who would support all that hardware and software on so many devices? Would it be google or any dime a dozen manufacturer?
Apple can still get their equipment in every home right here and now and very cheaply so they are aiming at mass adoption rather than profits, and once it's everywhere and people use it they can leverage that power to maybe add it "as is" and unmodified to any partner they wish to if they wish too.
And what with the app store or jailbreaking potential atv has this will be huge.
It's far easier to put a tiny dirt cheap box under you existing equipment to serve both music and other media, than to have to buy a new tv or dvd. So what if it's reported that Sony are planning to add gtv to new models of theirs? How many people will actually own a new sony as opposed to those willing to shell out a few bucks and add atv to any set up they want?
(Petrified means to become so frightened that you freeze, and yes you can be petrified every time some event takes place, every time say you come face to face with a very dangerous criminal. So, please stop this nonsense of "correcting" me with insults.)
(It also means 'turn to stone')
As for the rest, sure, that's why apple explicitly inform you of using your location, while google has been sending location information freely (and secretly) to advertisers. (Remember why S. Jobs got so angry with google a few months ago?)
I was not aware of Jobs reaction, but it's pretty obvious from search results in google that some location awareness is going on. I guess I'm free to use Bing or Yahoo but the results are substandard.
And yes I will demand from my elected officials to "carry the baton" for me as they should, and I am sure you will be more than happy to just let Eric "inevitably" stick that baton up to where the sun don't shine for you.
How do you know the sun doesn't shine there?
(It also means 'turn to stone')
I was not aware of Jobs reaction, but it's pretty obvious from search results in google that some location awareness is going on. I guess I'm free to use Bing or Yahoo but the results are substandard.
How do you know the sun doesn't shine there?
We are not talking about ip location awareness, we are talking about gps location awareness and the sending of private data such as the brand and identification of the phone handset. People where trialing the iphone 4 (or was it the ipad, I don't remember to be honest) on apple's campus and because they did a google search some ad agency associated with google tracked the make and model as well as the location it was being used in. See jobs talk about this on all things d, it's hard to find the news link from then. That's a different ball game than knowing your general whereabouts from ips.
This isn't just about GTV vs. Apple TV. Google is putting out an OS for home electronics that will standardize the home electronics industry just like Android is well on its way to standardizing the smartphone world across several OEMs. Yes, Android has fragmentation issues. Yes, it's got flaws. But imagine where those OEMs would be without Android.
That's the difference IMHO. Apple's selling a box. Google is selling a standard. Time will tell, which model will be more successful.
I think the killer for GTV will be price....as in the ability to pick up a GTV cable box from the cable company for the same monthly rental most people pay for their cable box/DVR. Or simply picking up a Blu-Ray home theatre system or TV running on GTV. Who wouldn't do that? Given the choice between a GTV equipped system and the plain old menus that equip most conventional home electronics today, I'd choose the former.
This isn't just about GTV vs. Apple TV. Google is putting out an OS for home electronics that will standardize the home electronics industry just like Android is well on its way to standardizing the smartphone world across several OEMs. Yes, Android has fragmentation issues. Yes, it's got flaws. But imagine where those OEMs would be without Android.
That's the difference IMHO. Apple's selling a box. Google is selling a standard. Time will tell, which model will be more successful.
Since you did a segue into:
"But imagine where those OEMs would be without Android."
Likely, Most OEMs would be better off -- at least they were better off before Android "just came along to help them out".
Over the last 3 years, every Android OEM has lost "profit share" growth except Motorola. Motorola has show "profit share" growth at the cost of significant "market share" loss.
http://www.asymco.com/2010/10/05/the...mobile-phones/
.
Since you did a segue into:
"But imagine where those OEMs would be without Android."
Likely, Most OEMs would be better off -- at least they were better off before Android "just came along to help them out".
Over the last 3 years, every Android OEM has lost "profit share" growth except Motorola. Motorola has show "profit share" growth at the cost of significant "market share" loss.
http://www.asymco.com/2010/10/05/the...mobile-phones/
.
Nice graph. This shows what I said earlier about the vendors using Android the ones that were going under.
Ha, what an interesting post Dick. So apparently the "do no evil" and bs my way into getting some not so astute observers and users (and pay my way too in the meda) to have them think android is the smart phone makers saviour for them, it turns out that it's actually hurt these guys instead of helped them. It's all about helping other with google isn't it, I feel so warm and fuzzy with their open source platform, and the tons of patents they stole from sun. But of course it's still making millions, android that is, for google...
How is Android hurting them? From what I can see Android has helped them. For example, Moto finally turned a profit by focusing on higher-end phones running Android. If we look at a linear graph showing net profit and Android-based handset releases for a vendor I think well see an increase across the board.
How is Android hurting them? From what I can see Android has helped them. For example, Moto finally turned a profit by focusing on higher-end phones running Android. If we look at a linear graph showing net profit and Android-based handset releases for a vendor I think well see an increase across the board.
On a slight tangent, but didn't I read somewhere recently that Moto was shopping around their phone manufacturing business?
Edit: Here it is. (sfgate.com)
Since you did a segue into:
"But imagine where those OEMs would be without Android."
Likely, Most OEMs would be better off -- at least they were better off before Android "just came along to help them out".
Over the last 3 years, every Android OEM has lost "profit share" growth except Motorola. Motorola has show "profit share" growth at the cost of significant "market share" loss.
http://www.asymco.com/2010/10/05/the...mobile-phones/
.
I dunno. I sincerely disagree with this analysis. Before Android came along, the only thing these OEMs had to fight Apple with was Windows Mobile and Symbian. Are you seriously suggesting that these guys could have put up a decent fight with those two platforms. Colour me skeptical.
And you're cherry picking. HTC, LG and Samsung have seen market share growth according to your graph and only Motorola has slid on that metric. That too, this is a 3 year graph (with much of Android's growth coming in the last year). Moto went from selling the RAZR to having nothing (when it came to responding to the iPhone) to being resurrected by the Droid lineup (which only launched in late 2009) . None of that is captured in this graphic. Moto's sliding market and profit share probably has more to do with the end of the trendiness of the RAZR than anything else. Let's see this graphic 3 years from now, when the rise of Android has effectively countered the cumulative damage done to Moto by the iPhone killing off the RAZR trend so sharply in 2007.
Finally, do you think the OEMs are stupid? Why would they embrace Android if they considered it detrimental to their own interests? I'd like to sincerely know why you think you know more than their CEOs.
I'm trying to objectively look at the items announced...
* Turner Broadcasting has been hard at work optimizing some of their most popular websites for viewing on Google TV, including TBS, TNT, CNN, Cartoon Network and Adult Swim, available anytime through Google TV.
- What would Turner's motive be in dealing exclusively with Google instead of Apple? I don't see one, and believe that any such content will be available through Apple as well.
No net advantage
* NBC Universal has collaborated with Google TV to bring CNBC Real-Time, an application that allows you to track your favorite stocks and access news feeds while enjoying the best financial news from CNBC directly on the TV screen.
- Big 'nothing' here. CNBC Real-Time has been available on iOS all along, and CNBC only offers real-time streaming of the actual network via its crappy CNBC+ service... (Windows Media only.)
No net advantage
* HBO will bring access to hundreds of hours of programming to Google TV with HBO GO. Authenticated subscribers will soon be able to access all of their favorite HBO content on-demand in an enhanced website for Google TV.
- If I already subscribe to HBO, why would I need to insert a GoogleTV into the stream to... what? Time shift? DVR does that, as does OnDemand.
Watch on my phone? I supposed, but hardly a killer app.
No net advantage
* NBA has built NBA Game Time, an application that lets you follow game scores in real-time and catch up on the latest highlights from your favorite team in HD.
- Again, NBA has no more incentive to support Google over Apple than does Turner.
No net advantage
My personal bet is that Apple will think things through better than Google, and not just throw spaghetti at the wall and call it beta.
But time will tell.
That was hardly objective. You seem to assume that Apple can automatically negotiate the same deals. That's hardly true given that Apple already comes to the table with a pre-existing paradigm for how media should be distributed.
That was hardly objective. You seem to assume that Apple cannot automatically negotiate the same deals. That's hardly true given that Apple already comes to the table with a pre-existing paradigm for how media should be distributed.
Base on the 4 years since the AppleTV was oddly unveiled it seems clear to me Apple doesn't have the upper hand with video confent owners. Google's method is to ineract with current revenue streams while Apple's looks more to supersede bulk paid cable and sat who then won't be able to pay the networks, and affiliates who then won't be able to pay the networks. One in the hand is worth more than 2 in the bush, as they say.
(Disclaimer: I haven?t read a single comment on this thread so my apologizes if this has been covered already)
I think Google?s maneuvering here is better than Apple?s. Apple?s vision has alway been to create OS/SW and services to sell HW, which is great for the premium Mac, iPhone and iPod lines that make those products that dominate the profits of the PC, handset and PMP markets, respectively.
But Apple has only a cheap piece of HW for AppleTV. Even if they have a decent profit margin they?d have to sell a lot of them to make it more than a hobby, but the setup doesn?t really lead to it being possible. But it?s not all their fault. They really are at the mercy of the content providers on this one. An App Store will help, but I don?t think it will make it a break away product on that along even if it does skyrocket the sales.
For these reasons I think Google?s plan is better as they will try to get this in TVs, Blu-ray players, PVRs, and everything else in between, and they will probably do it.
Bingo. That's what I was getting at. The fundamental problems for Apple TV are 1) it's another box, 2) limited content. Compare that to the way GTV is heading. You're next cable box, BR player, TV, etc. could have GTV OS in there. You might not care. You might just buy the TV or cable box, or BR player for the hardware. But once it's in your house, it's not like you won't use the features.
Bingo. That's what I was getting at. The fundamental problems for Apple TV are 1) it's another box, 2) limited content. Compare that to the way GTV is heading. You're next cable box, BR player, TV, etc. could have GTV OS in there. You might not care. You might just buy the TV or cable box, or BR player for the hardware. But once it's in your house, it's not like you won't use the features.
I am not so sure.
http://www.macworld.com/article/1546...slideshow.html
The above describes a $300 box (including a $150 qwerty remote) an IR blaster and HDMI in/out from the Cable STB.
Supposedly GTV controls and overlays on-screen for all of these.
I just don't see it.
The XBox, WII, PS3, VideoCam, PVR, DVD, BR, etc. don't go through the STB, rather they connect to a separate input ports on the HDTV,
So, AFAICT, GTV can't overlay those devices screens.
Then, the IR Blaster that is used to control the GTV, Cable STB and all these other devices, appears to reside in the supplied qwerty remote.
This makes sense, but limits the capability of a tablet or smart phone to be used as a remote. Does the app on the tablet or remote IR Blast through the qwerty remote -- or do these sophisticated remotes only support the limited function provided by the GTV box.
It could that Apple has done too little, and GTV is trying to do to much.
The public needs to demand some standards from the industries involved, or we'll remain stuck on square one.
.