I'll say it once again for those who obviously are slow to the facts.
Google does NOT make the hardware, just the software, and it's probably a free service to the companies who make the dumb boxes, just like Windows OS is to Dell. So if you want to criticize a company, call out the right one for goodness sakes already!
Quote:
Originally Posted by SinisterJoe
I'm surprised Google didn't learn from Apple's free market research. $250+ is just too expensive for a standalone IPTV box. The TV integrated stuff has a better chance just because consumers won't know exactly how much extra they're paying for it. The TV will be more expensive but they will attribute that to it being a "better" model than the non-GoogleTV device next to it. I'm just not convinced people want an updated WebTV experience. Not convinced they want the scaled back $99 Apple TV experience either but it's probably a bit closer to expectations
If you are a Dish Network subscriber, you're set: the Revue fully supports and integrates your DVR into the smooth, intuitive user interface. If you use any other cable network, you should still be able to access your cable by using the Harmony remote capabilities built-in to the Revue, but the DVR search and programming won't be part of the user interface. Bottom line: This is a win for Dish Network subscribers but a let-down for the rest of us?it seems unlikely this partnership won't remain exclusive for quite awhile.
I sense a little doubt But I'll bite and tell you want I think?
My questions were mainly rhetorical to get you and others to think about it a little more thoroughly. It makes no sense for Apple to do this on so many levels.
Would it be cool for us? Sure. It would be cool if Apple also made a car, medical devices, and kitchen appliances, too, but I don?t think any of these are practical.
It sounds like the other poster allowed himself to become locked in.
The Logitech box will do everything that his current panoply of devices will do, and more.
"Without better search technology, it's not immediately clear whether Apple can transform Apple TV from a living room add-on to a living room nexus. What's more, the company's power as the gatekeeper of iTunes may have made potential partners wary.
Apple TV does have one significant advantage over the early round of Google TV products: price."
The same article says that Sony will announce a new series of TV sets with Google TV built in. Next week.
It sounds like Google had all these partnerships lined up, and has sandbagged Apple. My understanding is that Apple can't get the content partnerships it needs to make the iTV a viable product. Apple TV is unlikely to make any permanent inroads in this market, given Google's better solution.
Coming? When? People keep saying Apps are coming but when? And how will the UI work?Yes, and DishNet is going to provide the Boxes for Google TV now too. So I'd say the Average Dish customer, which there are many more than ATV owners now, will probably opt for GTV.
Next year's model by Apple will always beat anything that Apple's competitors come up with this year. Twas always thus.
Next year, the iPhone will have a big screen and video content will be more available for it. Next year, iTV will have more capabilities. Next year, we will get cut and paste. Oops! Next year, we will beat Google...
[*] Why would Apple make a TV that will be hard to impossible to profit from when they could partner with current TV makers
They can't partner with existing TV makers because Google beat them to it.
Apple has not been terribly successful in attracting partners lately. Indeed, it seems that the do everything they can to drove them away. Even long-time partners that have been instrumental in Apple's niche successes, like Adobe.
Agreed, Apple should have partnered with ATT's Uverse to make an integrated DVR/ATV device. That way the Apple UI could be integrated into the Uverse ecosystem. Then they would really have something. I'd switch from my cable to Uverse if this happened. I hate Charter cable, and the DVR's they provide are pretty crappy. Granted the Motorola Moxi DVR does have a pretty adequate UI I must say, but if it were an ATV, I'd switch in a second.
Quote:
Originally Posted by appl
They can't partner with existing TV makers because Google beat them to it.
Apple has not been terribly successful in attracting partners lately. Indeed, it seems that the do everything they can to drove them away. Even long-time partners that have been instrumental in Apple's niche successes, like Adobe.
One good thing about the article is that it fairly presents both the good points and the bad points of the product. Too many other information sources choose sides and present biased reports.
Everyone is comparing ATV to GTV, but no one's mentioned Boxee. For me, I could care less about Google anything. I own an ATV and like it, but I'm not going to mary it yet or have it bear my children.
The reason I may still get a Boxee Box is because I'm not interested in rentals. I have my media library on disk. But ATV doesn't offer automatic things like embedding movie info and adding subtitles. And I can deal with having both for the price of one GTV.
My questions were mainly rhetorical to get you and others to think about it a little more thoroughly. It makes no sense for Apple to do this on so many levels.
There were many people who thought introducing the iPod was a bad idea too. After all, it was so big and expensive and most people already had lots of CDs and discmans.
There were many people who thought building the iphone was a bad idea. After all, who was Apple to challenge the big dogs like Motorola or Nokia?
There are lots of good reasons not to do just about anything. I prefer to look at it from another angle: Does it make sense for Apple to ignore the living room? If not, is the Apple TV enough to win the living room? These are the questions that lead me to believe more is coming.
There were many people who thought introducing the iPod was a bad idea too. After all, it was so big and expensive and most people already had lots of CDs and discmans.
There were many people who thought building the iphone was a bad idea. After all, who was Apple to challenge the big dogs like Motorola or Nokia?
There are lots of good reasons not to do just about anything. I prefer to look at it from another angle: Does it make sense for Apple to ignore the living room? If not, is the Apple TV enough to win the living room? These are the questions that lead me to believe more is coming.
Some people will always see good ideas as bad, just as there will always be people that think bad ideas are good.
If you look at the questions I asked you should see that the handheld market and TV markets are very, very different. and thinking Apple can do no wrong and turn lead into gold whenever it wants is silly. They made their products work by specifically choosing which ones will be profitable.
If it only ran apps. Maybe it'll do soon, using the iPod touch, iPhone or iPad as input.
Or at least Apps that would benefit from the screen size of HDTV sets - I suppose when app versions or updates developed to take advantage of the iPhone 4 retina display start to proliferate, things will get very interesting in combination with the upcoming AirPlay.
Now everyone who keeps praising Apple for totally "re-inventing" the way we live our digital lives are totally ripping on a competitor (Google/Logitech/Dish Network and others) that's doing exactly what Apple always does, but got to it first this time. What a bunch of hypocrites we have on these forums.
Google TV is centered around cable programing. It's a half step. They are trying to revolutionize how we use cable, but at the end of the day, we are still using cable.
The ultimate motivation behind Apple TV is to remove the cable box from the living room. Yes, right now it is a "hobby" and can only supplement cable. However, it costs a third of the price of the Revue and will get into the hands of a lot more people and introduce them to streaming television, leaving them wanting more.
We can talk about how big Netflix is, but the truth of the matter is that it has 15 million subscribers, a mere fraction of the total American cable subscriber base. Netflix being supported on an inexpensive and well recognized Apple device should expand on those numbers.
Yes Google TV has Netflix, app support and hulu is coming, but the products are not priced for mass market adoption. If they want their platform to take hold, they should be trying to get it into subsidized cable boxes, but even so, it would just be a half step because of its cable support.
A $99 Apple TV, with rentals, Netflix, Airplay and future apps has the greater potential to be complete game changer. Steve Jobs said it best when he said that people don't want another expensive set top box. Right now, that's exactly what Google TV is.
Apple's $99 set top box has the potential to replace the cable box if more content became available. That would be game changing.
Google TV/Revue are competitors, but at the same time they are not. There is a fundamental difference in the approach taken by Google/Logitech and Apple.
Apple: Apple TV is an add-on to your existing home theatre. It brings additional content and/or viewing options. The add-on concept is familiar to consumers as they are used to adding bluray players, game boxes, etc.
Google TV/Logitech Revue: Complete restructuring of your home theatre. Rather than being an add-on, it is trying to be the new heart of your system. It will require users to completely rewire/setup their systems and get used to a new way of doing things. The TV or receiver is no longer the center of the system. This is a radical concept that consumers won't be used to. How can something that isn't a receiver/tuner/tv be the heart of the system?
Apple's approach has far broader appeal both because of price and the ability of an average consumer to understand what it is/does. They are taking a seed/harvest approach. Apple TV has basic functionality now, but AirPlay, apps and additional content providers will make it into a super powerful device. Integration with the Apple ecosystem takes it even further. And then they'll take all that functionality and cram it into their own TV and take the market by storm.
I think it really comes down to one thing. Can you explain what these products do to an average consumer in one or two sentences? If not, you've lost them. I think this is where Google's strategy will hinder its success. Its just too complicated for consumers to understand why they need it or how they would use it.
I agree 'simpler is better', but the efficiency of the free market (insomuch as there really is one) will decide which is the winning approach.
Not when Google TV is installed into your Dish Network DVR it won't, which is just one of the major players in GTV. Then it's just part of the Cable Ecosystem then. Like the TVGuide Channel Guide is integrated into just about every basic cable box.
I am a subscriber to DishNetwork and got their email announcement today. There was no mention of GoogleTV being integrated into their DVRs. Instead they talked about how the LogicTech device can control certain of their receivers via an ethernet connection. Unfortunately they did not provide a list of compatible receivers.
I don't think we're going to see an AppleTV AppStore that mirrors what the iPhone/iPad have. And I don't think we're going to see any apps that require an iPhone/iPad to control them. My guess is that the AppleTV AppStore will be much more controlled and focused than for the other devices, and it will contain additional "channel apps" that provide access to new content sources. All these apps will be carefully crafted by Apple and the content provider in concert to maintain the AppleTV user experience, and will be restricted to using the existing 7/15 button interface.
I don't think Apple is going to seriously pursue games on the AppleTV. If they do, they will need a new Bluetooth controller for the product. They will not be able to compete with the existing game consoles (Wii, PS3, XBox360) and therefore they will remain a hobby on top of a hobby. This just isn't an interesting business model.
If you are a Dish Network subscriber, you're set: the Revue fully supports and integrates your DVR into the smooth, intuitive user interface. If you use any other cable network, you should still be able to access your cable by using the Harmony remote capabilities built-in to the Revue, but the DVR search and programming won't be part of the user interface. Bottom line: This is a win for Dish Network subscribers but a let-down for the rest of us—it seems unlikely this partnership won't remain exclusive for quite awhile.
Read that again. What it does is that it can control your existing Dish DVR using the Google TV GUI.
Comments
And what do you get for that, that's better than ATV???
1. Full internet browser with FLASH
2. Apps
3. DVR
I'd say that's worth the extra cash. Maybe not $199 more than ATV but certainly more than $99.
What DVR? There's no DVR in the Revue.
Google does NOT make the hardware, just the software, and it's probably a free service to the companies who make the dumb boxes, just like Windows OS is to Dell. So if you want to criticize a company, call out the right one for goodness sakes already!
I'm surprised Google didn't learn from Apple's free market research. $250+ is just too expensive for a standalone IPTV box. The TV integrated stuff has a better chance just because consumers won't know exactly how much extra they're paying for it. The TV will be more expensive but they will attribute that to it being a "better" model than the non-GoogleTV device next to it. I'm just not convinced people want an updated WebTV experience. Not convinced they want the scaled back $99 Apple TV experience either but it's probably a bit closer to expectations
If you are a Dish Network subscriber, you're set: the Revue fully supports and integrates your DVR into the smooth, intuitive user interface. If you use any other cable network, you should still be able to access your cable by using the Harmony remote capabilities built-in to the Revue, but the DVR search and programming won't be part of the user interface. Bottom line: This is a win for Dish Network subscribers but a let-down for the rest of us?it seems unlikely this partnership won't remain exclusive for quite awhile.
What DVR? There's no DVR in the Revue.
I sense a little doubt
My questions were mainly rhetorical to get you and others to think about it a little more thoroughly. It makes no sense for Apple to do this on so many levels.
Would it be cool for us? Sure. It would be cool if Apple also made a car, medical devices, and kitchen appliances, too, but I don?t think any of these are practical.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2370366,00.asp
It sounds like the other poster allowed himself to become locked in.
The Logitech box will do everything that his current panoply of devices will do, and more.
"Without better search technology, it's not immediately clear whether Apple can transform Apple TV from a living room add-on to a living room nexus. What's more, the company's power as the gatekeeper of iTunes may have made potential partners wary.
Apple TV does have one significant advantage over the early round of Google TV products: price."
The same article says that Sony will announce a new series of TV sets with Google TV built in. Next week.
It sounds like Google had all these partnerships lined up, and has sandbagged Apple. My understanding is that Apple can't get the content partnerships it needs to make the iTV a viable product. Apple TV is unlikely to make any permanent inroads in this market, given Google's better solution.
Coming? When? People keep saying Apps are coming but when? And how will the UI work?Yes, and DishNet is going to provide the Boxes for Google TV now too. So I'd say the Average Dish customer, which there are many more than ATV owners now, will probably opt for GTV.
Next year's model by Apple will always beat anything that Apple's competitors come up with this year. Twas always thus.
Next year, the iPhone will have a big screen and video content will be more available for it. Next year, iTV will have more capabilities. Next year, we will get cut and paste. Oops! Next year, we will beat Google...
[*] Why would Apple make a TV that will be hard to impossible to profit from when they could partner with current TV makers
They can't partner with existing TV makers because Google beat them to it.
Apple has not been terribly successful in attracting partners lately. Indeed, it seems that the do everything they can to drove them away. Even long-time partners that have been instrumental in Apple's niche successes, like Adobe.
They can't partner with existing TV makers because Google beat them to it.
Apple has not been terribly successful in attracting partners lately. Indeed, it seems that the do everything they can to drove them away. Even long-time partners that have been instrumental in Apple's niche successes, like Adobe.
Here's a pretty good article that I quoted in my last post about GTV:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2370366,00.asp
One good thing about the article is that it fairly presents both the good points and the bad points of the product. Too many other information sources choose sides and present biased reports.
The reason I may still get a Boxee Box is because I'm not interested in rentals. I have my media library on disk. But ATV doesn't offer automatic things like embedding movie info and adding subtitles. And I can deal with having both for the price of one GTV.
My questions were mainly rhetorical to get you and others to think about it a little more thoroughly. It makes no sense for Apple to do this on so many levels.
There were many people who thought introducing the iPod was a bad idea too. After all, it was so big and expensive and most people already had lots of CDs and discmans.
There were many people who thought building the iphone was a bad idea. After all, who was Apple to challenge the big dogs like Motorola or Nokia?
There are lots of good reasons not to do just about anything. I prefer to look at it from another angle: Does it make sense for Apple to ignore the living room? If not, is the Apple TV enough to win the living room? These are the questions that lead me to believe more is coming.
There were many people who thought introducing the iPod was a bad idea too. After all, it was so big and expensive and most people already had lots of CDs and discmans.
There were many people who thought building the iphone was a bad idea. After all, who was Apple to challenge the big dogs like Motorola or Nokia?
There are lots of good reasons not to do just about anything. I prefer to look at it from another angle: Does it make sense for Apple to ignore the living room? If not, is the Apple TV enough to win the living room? These are the questions that lead me to believe more is coming.
Some people will always see good ideas as bad, just as there will always be people that think bad ideas are good.
If you look at the questions I asked you should see that the handheld market and TV markets are very, very different. and thinking Apple can do no wrong and turn lead into gold whenever it wants is silly. They made their products work by specifically choosing which ones will be profitable.
If it only ran apps. Maybe it'll do soon, using the iPod touch, iPhone or iPad as input.
Or at least Apps that would benefit from the screen size of HDTV sets - I suppose when app versions or updates developed to take advantage of the iPhone 4 retina display start to proliferate, things will get very interesting in combination with the upcoming AirPlay.
Hold on to your hats!
Yes!!!
Now everyone who keeps praising Apple for totally "re-inventing" the way we live our digital lives are totally ripping on a competitor (Google/Logitech/Dish Network and others) that's doing exactly what Apple always does, but got to it first this time. What a bunch of hypocrites we have on these forums.
Google TV is centered around cable programing. It's a half step. They are trying to revolutionize how we use cable, but at the end of the day, we are still using cable.
The ultimate motivation behind Apple TV is to remove the cable box from the living room. Yes, right now it is a "hobby" and can only supplement cable. However, it costs a third of the price of the Revue and will get into the hands of a lot more people and introduce them to streaming television, leaving them wanting more.
We can talk about how big Netflix is, but the truth of the matter is that it has 15 million subscribers, a mere fraction of the total American cable subscriber base. Netflix being supported on an inexpensive and well recognized Apple device should expand on those numbers.
Yes Google TV has Netflix, app support and hulu is coming, but the products are not priced for mass market adoption. If they want their platform to take hold, they should be trying to get it into subsidized cable boxes, but even so, it would just be a half step because of its cable support.
A $99 Apple TV, with rentals, Netflix, Airplay and future apps has the greater potential to be complete game changer. Steve Jobs said it best when he said that people don't want another expensive set top box. Right now, that's exactly what Google TV is.
Apple's $99 set top box has the potential to replace the cable box if more content became available. That would be game changing.
Google TV/Revue are competitors, but at the same time they are not. There is a fundamental difference in the approach taken by Google/Logitech and Apple.
Apple: Apple TV is an add-on to your existing home theatre. It brings additional content and/or viewing options. The add-on concept is familiar to consumers as they are used to adding bluray players, game boxes, etc.
Google TV/Logitech Revue: Complete restructuring of your home theatre. Rather than being an add-on, it is trying to be the new heart of your system. It will require users to completely rewire/setup their systems and get used to a new way of doing things. The TV or receiver is no longer the center of the system. This is a radical concept that consumers won't be used to. How can something that isn't a receiver/tuner/tv be the heart of the system?
Apple's approach has far broader appeal both because of price and the ability of an average consumer to understand what it is/does. They are taking a seed/harvest approach. Apple TV has basic functionality now, but AirPlay, apps and additional content providers will make it into a super powerful device. Integration with the Apple ecosystem takes it even further. And then they'll take all that functionality and cram it into their own TV and take the market by storm.
I think it really comes down to one thing. Can you explain what these products do to an average consumer in one or two sentences? If not, you've lost them. I think this is where Google's strategy will hinder its success. Its just too complicated for consumers to understand why they need it or how they would use it.
I agree 'simpler is better', but the efficiency of the free market (insomuch as there really is one) will decide which is the winning approach.
Coming? When? People keep saying Apps are coming but when?
I suspect Apple has an app store for apple TV before Google's app store for google TV actually launches.
Not when Google TV is installed into your Dish Network DVR it won't, which is just one of the major players in GTV. Then it's just part of the Cable Ecosystem then. Like the TVGuide Channel Guide is integrated into just about every basic cable box.
I am a subscriber to DishNetwork and got their email announcement today. There was no mention of GoogleTV being integrated into their DVRs. Instead they talked about how the LogicTech device can control certain of their receivers via an ethernet connection. Unfortunately they did not provide a list of compatible receivers.
I don't think Apple is going to seriously pursue games on the AppleTV. If they do, they will need a new Bluetooth controller for the product. They will not be able to compete with the existing game consoles (Wii, PS3, XBox360) and therefore they will remain a hobby on top of a hobby. This just isn't an interesting business model.
As Quoted by PC Mag:
If you are a Dish Network subscriber, you're set: the Revue fully supports and integrates your DVR into the smooth, intuitive user interface. If you use any other cable network, you should still be able to access your cable by using the Harmony remote capabilities built-in to the Revue, but the DVR search and programming won't be part of the user interface. Bottom line: This is a win for Dish Network subscribers but a let-down for the rest of us—it seems unlikely this partnership won't remain exclusive for quite awhile.
Read that again. What it does is that it can control your existing Dish DVR using the Google TV GUI.
There is no DVR in the Revue.
Now explain to me again why Apple can't build a TV?