The above describes a $300 box (including a $150 qwerty remote) an IR blaster and HDMI in/out from the Cable STB.
That device says failure all over it, but what Jetz and I are referring to is Google?s plan, not how some goofy vendors are going to implement it. If this gets into HDTVs, cable boxes, sat boxes, blu-ray players, DVRs, etc. without increasing the cost much if at all for devices you already buy or rent, then Google will have brought internet to the living room WITHOUT having to break apart the very way things are currently done.
And that?s a big deal and hard nut to crack for Apple because this system is very stable, very profitable and very closed. Eventually the current paradigm will collapse but so far it looks pretty solid and not one that wants Apple if they are bringing their own ball.
I always thought Apple?s ticket in would be to make their set top box that works with cable companies across the US, but in an interview Steve Job was asked about this idea and he dismissed it saying that there are too many ?standards? and CableCards aren?t very good that it would essentially be more trouble than it?s worth.
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.
Can't resist...
..."And, a push in the bush is worth two in the hand!"
From a sign on the wall at the "Bull 'n the Bush" restaurant (across from the Ambassador Hotel), Los Angeles.
Can?t TV just be for watching TV? I mean, if I wanted to check stocks, game scores, play music through the TV, why not just check your smartphone to see those updates? Why not just plug (or use bluetooth) in your mp3 or smartphone directly into the surround sound system? The only good option that I see is the amazon movie market and netflix.
All google is doing is allowing people to get content in one place. Seems like a smart idea to me and one i bet Apple will do in the near future. why watch hulu and youtube on a computer when you can on a TV?. Why should i have to view stock, game scores etc on a tiny screen if i can on a bigger screen. The question is not why google tv exist but why are these things on a phone?.. why does your phone allow you to watch video?.. you can ask the same dumb question.. shouldn't a phone just make calls?. Dude, this is not 1990. I know, i know.. it's hard to keep up with tech advances.. if you have grandkids, invite them over and let them educate you on new tech.
That device says failure all over it, but what Jetz and I are referring to is Google?s plan, not how some goofy vendors are going to implement it. If this gets into HDTVs, cable boxes, sat boxes, blu-ray players, DVRs, etc. without increasing the cost much if at all for devices you already buy or rent, then Google will have brought internet to the living room WITHOUT having to break apart the very way things are currently done.
And that?s a big deal and hard nut to crack for Apple because this system is very stable, very profitable and very closed. Eventually the current paradigm will collapse but so far it looks pretty solid and not one that wants Apple if they are bringing their own ball.
I always thought Apple?s ticket in would be to make their set top box that works with cable companies across the US, but in an interview Steve Job was asked about this idea and he dismissed it saying that there are too many ?standards? and CableCards aren?t very good that it would essentially be more trouble than it?s worth.
Ahh....
Lets look at that, then, from several perspectives:
1) While it may be desireable to have the Internet in The living room, does it mean we want to see it on the big screen. Seriously, the mechanics of surfing and searching, entering userids and passwords, seeing gaudy, disruptive and distracting ads; while looking for content that also includes commercials... That's not very appealing.
2) Yes, you want the content found on the web -- but you can access it easier, faster and more pleasntly through aggregators like. NetFlix.
3) If you want background info, stats, etc., an app could do that and hide the drudgery of retrieving it. Or, you could do that offline (on a tablet) and stream the resutls as an overlay to the TV.
4) I just can't see surfing and watching on the same screen.
5) From a cost standpoint, each component will have to contain a CPU, RAM, NAND, WiFi, etc. And software. The AppleTV, purportedly, cost $62 in parts. Let's say that GTV can do it for $30 and so it would add, say, $50 to each component.
6) Will consumers buy a new $3050 HDTV just to get GTV... No!
7) Will the consumer buy a new, say, DVR or whatever component at $50 added over device cost, just to Get GTV... No!
8) Maybe, they'll come up with some marketing scheme and put a little sticker on each new component that says "GoogleTV Ready"... we all know what that means -- Nothing!
So, we're back to square one -- an additional, expensive, box that does a half-assed job.
..."And, a push in the bush is worth two in the hand!"
From a sign on the wall at the "Bull 'n the Bush" restaurant (across from the Ambassador Hotel), Los Angeles.
.
I always (intentionally) goof up the adage, saying "A hand in the bush is better than two birds".
Anyway, with regard to "surfing" the web on the TV, I have had that capability for several years, ever since I hooked up an extra Mac Mini to my big screen via HDMI. It was really cool when I hooked it up. I watched a lot of iTunes movies that way, and I surfed the web a couple of times, just to show off. Then, I never surfed the web on it again.
Lets look at that, then, from several perspectives:
1) While it may be desireable to have the Internet in The living room, does it mean we want to see it on the big screen. Seriously, the mechanics of surfing and searching, entering userids and passwords, seeing gaudy, disruptive and distracting ads; while looking for content that also includes commercials... That's not very appealing.
2) Yes, you want the content found on the web -- but you can access it easier, faster and more pleasntly through aggregators like. NetFlix.
3) If you want background info, stats, etc., an app could do that and hide the drudgery of retrieving it. Or, you could do that offline (on a tablet) and stream the resutls as an overlay to the TV.
4) I just can't see surfing and watching on the same screen.
5) From a cost standpoint, each component will have to contain a CPU, RAM, NAND, WiFi, etc. And software. The AppleTV, purportedly, cost $62 in parts. Let's say that GTV can do it for $30 and so it would add, say, $50 to each component.
6) Will consumers buy a new $3050 HDTV just to get GTV... No!
7) Will the consumer buy a new, say, DVR or whatever component at $50 added over device cost, just to Get GTV... No!
8) Maybe, they'll come up with some marketing scheme and put a little sticker on each new component that says "GoogleTV Ready"... we all know what that means -- Nothing!
So, we're back to square one -- an additional, expensive, box that does a half-assed job.
I just don't see it!
.
Yeah, this. If MS had gotten manufacturers to include WebTV on varying boxes, would that have helped?
So I get "Google TV" built into my next TV. Does the TV come with a keyboard? If so, doesn't that make the average consumer feel sort of tired? They can barely access the settings menu, your'e going to make them try to operate it as a computer?
And I've got a Samsung Blu-ray player with "internet apps", it's fucking horrible. The UI is horrible, the performance is horrible, I use it for one thing only, to get to the Netflix streaming icon, the implementation of which is horrible.
Throwing your software out there to 3rd party box makers is way more fraught in TV/box land than it is in phone land. Phones are reasonably constrained devices, and there's some fair agreement on what they ought to do and how they ought to work.
A "TV operating system" without any clear demarcation as to where it leaves off and the other devices take over is just a recipe for a user experience ranging from hopelessly complex to merely terrible.
1) While it may be desireable to have the Internet in The living room, does it mean we want to see it on the big screen. Seriously, the mechanics of surfing and searching, entering userids and passwords, seeing gaudy, disruptive and distracting ads; while looking for content that also includes commercials... That's not very appealing.
The same types of arguments could be made for the internet on phones, yet that seems to be doing quite well
Quote:
2) Yes, you want the content found on the web -- but you can access it easier, faster and more pleasntly through aggregators like. NetFlix.
NetFlix isn't a content aggregator. Ironically, that's what GoogleTV is intended to be.
Quote:
3) If you want background info, stats, etc., an app could do that and hide the drudgery of retrieving it. Or, you could do that offline (on a tablet) and stream the resutls as an overlay to the TV.
Great, so your solution is bring another expensive device into the mix. How is searching for it on a tablet going to do anything to "hide the drudgery of retrieving it" ?
Quote:
4) I just can't see surfing and watching on the same screen.
How is this different that using a computer and for example surfing the web than hopping over to YouTube to watch a video? Same screen there.
Quote:
5) From a cost standpoint, each component will have to contain a CPU, RAM, NAND, WiFi, etc. And software. The AppleTV, purportedly, cost $62 in parts. Let's say that GTV can do it for $30 and so it would add, say, $50 to each component.
6) Will consumers buy a new $3050 HDTV just to get GTV... No!
7) Will the consumer buy a new, say, DVR or whatever component at $50 added over device cost, just to Get GTV... No!
More and more electronic devices (TVs, DVRs, game consoles, Blu-Ray players, etc.) are including some level of internet access built in. Which means many of them will already have most of the components necessary for GoogleTV (or be able to switch their existing components to ones that support GTV). Thus, that $50 price increase is pretty much non-existent. Nor is it like there's going to be the near exact same models sitting next to each other, one without GTV and one with it for $50 more.
All GoogleTV would be doing is standardizing the internet access these devices are already providing. A consistent user experience, that's something Mac fans clamor for all the time. And Google is trying to deliver it.
Quote:
8) Maybe, they'll come up with some marketing scheme and put a little sticker on each new component that says "GoogleTV Ready"... we all know what that means -- Nothing!
Right, we all know what that means on a product that hasn't even actually launched.
What really pisses me off about the GoogleTV discussions is the hypocrisy. Most of what GTV is offering is stuff that people here were hoping the revised AppleTV would deliver: Netflix, Hulu, web browsing, apps, etc. Now that a competitor to Apple is ready to deliver all that, everyone is crapping all over those ideas.
lousy interface, oh and because its a browser without virus protection , popup blocking etc
your family is exposed to all that is bad in the internet
now i don't have to buy anything else for my new basement entertainment room, i don't have to get that bluray with netflix, pandora, i'll have atv, and a cable hookup with no box. now all i have to find a led tv that can power external speakers and a subwoofer (i was planning on a bluray all in one to play discs, AND run my speakers
ATV is just fine for me, sure i would like it to integrate with my dvr and be like slingblade to view any of my content from anywhere (may happen) works great just for the picture viewing is worth it to my family
i was tying just a few months ago to kluge up some way to view my pictures on the tv, included a new sd card reader hooked to rca output (my tv has no usb) and well what a mess then i read about atv and bingo sold
google tv is going backwards IMO, for me and my family i don't want my 7 and 9 year old to open pandora's box the price is also insane, and all those peripherals a waste, more junk around the already crowded living room, simple simple simple
the fact that i can take my regular remote and make it control the atc was cherry on top of a wonderful sundae
here is a simple question except for us geeks that understand a download from a webpage
how do you explain it to my mom or grandma
that's why i had to pull the webtv project years ago
$99 is an impulse buy, makes it simple and integrates all my macs
my wife loves it
BUT the real killer app= airplay that is the explosive catalyst for apple in the "everyroom"
Comments
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.
That device says failure all over it, but what Jetz and I are referring to is Google?s plan, not how some goofy vendors are going to implement it. If this gets into HDTVs, cable boxes, sat boxes, blu-ray players, DVRs, etc. without increasing the cost much if at all for devices you already buy or rent, then Google will have brought internet to the living room WITHOUT having to break apart the very way things are currently done.
And that?s a big deal and hard nut to crack for Apple because this system is very stable, very profitable and very closed. Eventually the current paradigm will collapse but so far it looks pretty solid and not one that wants Apple if they are bringing their own ball.
I always thought Apple?s ticket in would be to make their set top box that works with cable companies across the US, but in an interview Steve Job was asked about this idea and he dismissed it saying that there are too many ?standards? and CableCards aren?t very good that it would essentially be more trouble than it?s worth.
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.
Can't resist...
..."And, a push in the bush is worth two in the hand!"
From a sign on the wall at the "Bull 'n the Bush" restaurant (across from the Ambassador Hotel), Los Angeles.
.
Can?t TV just be for watching TV? I mean, if I wanted to check stocks, game scores, play music through the TV, why not just check your smartphone to see those updates? Why not just plug (or use bluetooth) in your mp3 or smartphone directly into the surround sound system? The only good option that I see is the amazon movie market and netflix.
All google is doing is allowing people to get content in one place. Seems like a smart idea to me and one i bet Apple will do in the near future. why watch hulu and youtube on a computer when you can on a TV?. Why should i have to view stock, game scores etc on a tiny screen if i can on a bigger screen. The question is not why google tv exist but why are these things on a phone?.. why does your phone allow you to watch video?.. you can ask the same dumb question.. shouldn't a phone just make calls?. Dude, this is not 1990. I know, i know.. it's hard to keep up with tech advances.. if you have grandkids, invite them over and let them educate you on new tech.
That device says failure all over it, but what Jetz and I are referring to is Google?s plan, not how some goofy vendors are going to implement it. If this gets into HDTVs, cable boxes, sat boxes, blu-ray players, DVRs, etc. without increasing the cost much if at all for devices you already buy or rent, then Google will have brought internet to the living room WITHOUT having to break apart the very way things are currently done.
And that?s a big deal and hard nut to crack for Apple because this system is very stable, very profitable and very closed. Eventually the current paradigm will collapse but so far it looks pretty solid and not one that wants Apple if they are bringing their own ball.
I always thought Apple?s ticket in would be to make their set top box that works with cable companies across the US, but in an interview Steve Job was asked about this idea and he dismissed it saying that there are too many ?standards? and CableCards aren?t very good that it would essentially be more trouble than it?s worth.
Ahh....
Lets look at that, then, from several perspectives:
1) While it may be desireable to have the Internet in The living room, does it mean we want to see it on the big screen. Seriously, the mechanics of surfing and searching, entering userids and passwords, seeing gaudy, disruptive and distracting ads; while looking for content that also includes commercials... That's not very appealing.
2) Yes, you want the content found on the web -- but you can access it easier, faster and more pleasntly through aggregators like. NetFlix.
3) If you want background info, stats, etc., an app could do that and hide the drudgery of retrieving it. Or, you could do that offline (on a tablet) and stream the resutls as an overlay to the TV.
4) I just can't see surfing and watching on the same screen.
5) From a cost standpoint, each component will have to contain a CPU, RAM, NAND, WiFi, etc. And software. The AppleTV, purportedly, cost $62 in parts. Let's say that GTV can do it for $30 and so it would add, say, $50 to each component.
6) Will consumers buy a new $3050 HDTV just to get GTV... No!
7) Will the consumer buy a new, say, DVR or whatever component at $50 added over device cost, just to Get GTV... No!
8) Maybe, they'll come up with some marketing scheme and put a little sticker on each new component that says "GoogleTV Ready"... we all know what that means -- Nothing!
So, we're back to square one -- an additional, expensive, box that does a half-assed job.
I just don't see it!
.
Can't resist...
..."And, a push in the bush is worth two in the hand!"
From a sign on the wall at the "Bull 'n the Bush" restaurant (across from the Ambassador Hotel), Los Angeles.
.
I always (intentionally) goof up the adage, saying "A hand in the bush is better than two birds".
Anyway, with regard to "surfing" the web on the TV, I have had that capability for several years, ever since I hooked up an extra Mac Mini to my big screen via HDMI. It was really cool when I hooked it up. I watched a lot of iTunes movies that way, and I surfed the web a couple of times, just to show off. Then, I never surfed the web on it again.
Thompson
Ahh....
Lets look at that, then, from several perspectives:
1) While it may be desireable to have the Internet in The living room, does it mean we want to see it on the big screen. Seriously, the mechanics of surfing and searching, entering userids and passwords, seeing gaudy, disruptive and distracting ads; while looking for content that also includes commercials... That's not very appealing.
2) Yes, you want the content found on the web -- but you can access it easier, faster and more pleasntly through aggregators like. NetFlix.
3) If you want background info, stats, etc., an app could do that and hide the drudgery of retrieving it. Or, you could do that offline (on a tablet) and stream the resutls as an overlay to the TV.
4) I just can't see surfing and watching on the same screen.
5) From a cost standpoint, each component will have to contain a CPU, RAM, NAND, WiFi, etc. And software. The AppleTV, purportedly, cost $62 in parts. Let's say that GTV can do it for $30 and so it would add, say, $50 to each component.
6) Will consumers buy a new $3050 HDTV just to get GTV... No!
7) Will the consumer buy a new, say, DVR or whatever component at $50 added over device cost, just to Get GTV... No!
8) Maybe, they'll come up with some marketing scheme and put a little sticker on each new component that says "GoogleTV Ready"... we all know what that means -- Nothing!
So, we're back to square one -- an additional, expensive, box that does a half-assed job.
I just don't see it!
.
Yeah, this. If MS had gotten manufacturers to include WebTV on varying boxes, would that have helped?
So I get "Google TV" built into my next TV. Does the TV come with a keyboard? If so, doesn't that make the average consumer feel sort of tired? They can barely access the settings menu, your'e going to make them try to operate it as a computer?
And I've got a Samsung Blu-ray player with "internet apps", it's fucking horrible. The UI is horrible, the performance is horrible, I use it for one thing only, to get to the Netflix streaming icon, the implementation of which is horrible.
Throwing your software out there to 3rd party box makers is way more fraught in TV/box land than it is in phone land. Phones are reasonably constrained devices, and there's some fair agreement on what they ought to do and how they ought to work.
A "TV operating system" without any clear demarcation as to where it leaves off and the other devices take over is just a recipe for a user experience ranging from hopelessly complex to merely terrible.
1) While it may be desireable to have the Internet in The living room, does it mean we want to see it on the big screen. Seriously, the mechanics of surfing and searching, entering userids and passwords, seeing gaudy, disruptive and distracting ads; while looking for content that also includes commercials... That's not very appealing.
The same types of arguments could be made for the internet on phones, yet that seems to be doing quite well
2) Yes, you want the content found on the web -- but you can access it easier, faster and more pleasntly through aggregators like. NetFlix.
NetFlix isn't a content aggregator. Ironically, that's what GoogleTV is intended to be.
3) If you want background info, stats, etc., an app could do that and hide the drudgery of retrieving it. Or, you could do that offline (on a tablet) and stream the resutls as an overlay to the TV.
Great, so your solution is bring another expensive device into the mix. How is searching for it on a tablet going to do anything to "hide the drudgery of retrieving it" ?
4) I just can't see surfing and watching on the same screen.
How is this different that using a computer and for example surfing the web than hopping over to YouTube to watch a video? Same screen there.
5) From a cost standpoint, each component will have to contain a CPU, RAM, NAND, WiFi, etc. And software. The AppleTV, purportedly, cost $62 in parts. Let's say that GTV can do it for $30 and so it would add, say, $50 to each component.
6) Will consumers buy a new $3050 HDTV just to get GTV... No!
7) Will the consumer buy a new, say, DVR or whatever component at $50 added over device cost, just to Get GTV... No!
More and more electronic devices (TVs, DVRs, game consoles, Blu-Ray players, etc.) are including some level of internet access built in. Which means many of them will already have most of the components necessary for GoogleTV (or be able to switch their existing components to ones that support GTV). Thus, that $50 price increase is pretty much non-existent. Nor is it like there's going to be the near exact same models sitting next to each other, one without GTV and one with it for $50 more.
All GoogleTV would be doing is standardizing the internet access these devices are already providing. A consistent user experience, that's something Mac fans clamor for all the time. And Google is trying to deliver it.
8) Maybe, they'll come up with some marketing scheme and put a little sticker on each new component that says "GoogleTV Ready"... we all know what that means -- Nothing!
Right, we all know what that means on a product that hasn't even actually launched.
What really pisses me off about the GoogleTV discussions is the hypocrisy. Most of what GTV is offering is stuff that people here were hoping the revised AppleTV would deliver: Netflix, Hulu, web browsing, apps, etc. Now that a competitor to Apple is ready to deliver all that, everyone is crapping all over those ideas.
lousy interface, oh and because its a browser without virus protection , popup blocking etc
your family is exposed to all that is bad in the internet
now i don't have to buy anything else for my new basement entertainment room, i don't have to get that bluray with netflix, pandora, i'll have atv, and a cable hookup with no box. now all i have to find a led tv that can power external speakers and a subwoofer (i was planning on a bluray all in one to play discs, AND run my speakers
ATV is just fine for me, sure i would like it to integrate with my dvr and be like slingblade to view any of my content from anywhere (may happen) works great just for the picture viewing is worth it to my family
i was tying just a few months ago to kluge up some way to view my pictures on the tv, included a new sd card reader hooked to rca output (my tv has no usb) and well what a mess then i read about atv and bingo sold
google tv is going backwards IMO, for me and my family i don't want my 7 and 9 year old to open pandora's box the price is also insane, and all those peripherals a waste, more junk around the already crowded living room, simple simple simple
the fact that i can take my regular remote and make it control the atc was cherry on top of a wonderful sundae
here is a simple question except for us geeks that understand a download from a webpage
how do you explain it to my mom or grandma
that's why i had to pull the webtv project years ago
$99 is an impulse buy, makes it simple and integrates all my macs
my wife loves it
BUT the real killer app= airplay that is the explosive catalyst for apple in the "everyroom"
Full current features here:
http://www.google.com/tv/features.html
... and a recent announcement http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/12/s...ails-revealed/