It is true that most folks do not buy an Android powered phone.
It is also true that a whole lot more people buy Android powered phones than iPhones.
Is there any explanation for that?
It's also true that phone models with Android outnumber the 4 models running iOS. Besides, how many people are deliberately buying an Android phone as opposed to the model being offered from a manufacturer they like? Is Android the brand or is the phone model?
Just a reminder: Android is the fastest growing OS.
Just barely beating one phone from one company. That was bound to happen sooner or later so? Windows was also fastest grwoing OS i just don't see how it's relevant to the quality and ease of use.
Google TV suffers because one of the major selling points in that you can catch up with shows online is being crippled by the networks. This is a complete joke and is another example of how industries hate change. It is only a matter of time until google tv is built into TV sets, then we will see how successful it really is.
Compared to apple tv at least google tv is something revolutionary. I live in the UK and there are so many services that offer the same as Apple TV without the drawbacks of the closed eco system.
Google TV suffers because one of the major selling points in that you can catch up with shows online is being crippled by the networks. This is a complete joke and is another example of how industries hate change. It is only a matter of time until google tv is built into TV sets, then we will see how successful it really is.
Compared to apple tv at least google tv is something revolutionary. I live in the UK and there are so many services that offer the same as Apple TV without the drawbacks of the closed eco system.
Right, except for some of us, a nice selling point of the AppleTV is its integration with all the other Apple products one might own...I like being able to stream music or movies from my computer in the office to my TV. The price point's pretty slick too, I didn't have a difficult time justifying it. I will agree wholeheartedly that the content catalogue is lacking, but I'm planning on it being a hackable toy. I would have agreed with you that the Google TV was revolutionary, except it has no content. Google should have planned ahead instead of letting their early adopters get screwed. Why the heck would Google TV be built into TV sets so we can 'see how successful it really is' if it's currently a flop? Maybe Google TV 2.0, with some contracts with the big networks, but who'd spend the extra money with how it is right now? Your point makes little sense.
Does the author of this article have any facts or citations to back up this statement?
.
The article I'm linking below is from June, but the system is simple. Root your phone, buy an app, back it up, hit the market for your refund, reinstall the backup. Voila, app gotten for free. This has been well documented for quite awhile now.
From the story, ALL Sony Google TVs are being heavily discounted. That's the difference.
If you read the fine print on the discounts, it says something along the lines of "offer good until November 29". As far as I can tell, it's a Black Friday sale.
Let's accept for the moment that the Google TV 1.0 implementation is seriously flawed. But that is entirely (mostly?) a software issue. What Google TV has done, though, (and many Blu Ray players and game systems) is make mainstream the notion of having a computer built into TVs - a computer in the living room. Microsoft tried this with Web TV and failed. Maybe they were too far ahead of their time (not enough broadband penetration? TVs not good enough resolution?). Maybe their implementation sucked. Probably both.
But now, many people have broadband, the cost of CPUs etc. for a viable rich-media system is low enough, and so many people have smart phones & multiple computers at home that making the TV just another node on your home network is a real thing. Roku, Apple TV, TiVO et al. are stand-alone stepping stones, but soon we'll see TVs with network connectivity built in as a "must have" rather than a "high end" option.
I hope the current Google TV has a serious UI overhaul and has the CPU power to remain viable for several years. Or, it could turn out like Android phones - manufacturers will abandon the early versions in favor of pushing new iterations of hardware. I think that is more likely. Why fix what you've already sold when you can sell a new one?
Why fix what you've already sold when you can sell a new one?
- Jasen.
That, I think, is my biggest issue with Android, and why I probably will not buy one in the near future. It's not fully Google's fault, necessarily, but I want longevity.
I'm sure it's not intentional, but Android is a gift to Apple. Apple competes with HTC, Motorola, and the other OEMs that use Android. By providing those OEMs with a half-a$$ed OS strategy, Google has sabotaged them all in the long run. Google has also managed to divert those OEMs from Microsoft, a company that could actually provide a full-a$$ed OS strategy.
Eventually the OEMs will figure out that Android is not their salvation, and they'll reluctantly go crawling back to Microsoft and learn to accept that they must either eek out a low-margin existence or no existence at all.
But in the meantime, Apple will have established a very strong position in the market. We might end up in a situation where MS and Apple more or less split the market.
'half-assed'? for the short time it has been in play android is working very well. the half assed part comes from the hardware makers who are being stupid. android 2.2 is very nice and it is going to get even better. i wouldnt' call it a 'gift' to apple....
Sony in the dark ages in some respects. That stupid remote on the sony internet tv is just horrible. I was in my local sony style a few weeks ago and messed around with it. JUST NASTY. and no one even helped me out. I hate the customer service at sony style.
Sony is on a roll these days - downhill. Their remotes generally have always been bad. I have a Sony TV and the remote is just alien. The button locations and even their names make little sense. The Xross menu system is not all that great either. The perceived greatness of Sony consumer products is now a fallacy.
... What Google TV has done, though, (and many Blu Ray players and game systems) is make mainstream the notion of having a computer built into TVs - a computer in the living room. Microsoft tried this with Web TV and failed. ...
But that's precisely the point.
There is zero indication amongst the general market that there is any interest whatsoever in turning the passive and generally shared living room experience of watching content into a computer browsing experience.
There is indeed a small segment of single geeks for whom that model may be attractive. But any family with multiple people is barely able to survive 'channel clicking wars' with a simple remote, let alone the nightmare of one person browsing as everyone else has to watch.
... Compared to apple tv at least google tv is something revolutionary. ...
The only thing revolutionary about Google TV is that now Google can track you in your living room and collect information they previously had no access to. Why anyone would buy a Google telescreen to enable this is a bit of a mystery.
There is zero indication amongst the general market that there is any interest whatsoever in turning the passive and generally shared living room experience of watching content into a computer browsing experience.
There is indeed a small segment of single geeks for whom that model may be attractive. But any family with multiple people is barely able to survive 'channel clicking wars' with a simple remote, let alone the nightmare of one person browsing as everyone else has to watch.
There is zero indication amongst the general market that there is any interest whatsoever in turning the passive and generally shared living room experience of watching content into a computer browsing experience.
There is indeed a small segment of single geeks for whom that model may be attractive. But any family with multiple people is barely able to survive 'channel clicking wars' with a simple remote, let alone the nightmare of one person browsing as everyone else has to watch.
Its a flawed model.
i thought apple was famous for not giving a damn what the general populations interest were?
the henry ford quote comes to mind too.
i agree that the general population and the apple crowd aren't ready for the complexities of dealing with tv as computer. if it ain't along the lines of a playskool toy then forget it, over their heads.
There is zero indication amongst the general market that there is any interest whatsoever in turning the passive and generally shared living room experience of watching content into a computer browsing experience.
There is indeed a small segment of single geeks for whom that model may be attractive. But any family with multiple people is barely able to survive 'channel clicking wars' with a simple remote, let alone the nightmare of one person browsing as everyone else has to watch.
Its a flawed model.
Quote:
Originally Posted by screamingfist
i thought apple was famous for not giving a damn what the general populations interest were?
the henry ford quote comes to mind too.
i agree that the general population and the apple crowd aren't ready for the complexities of dealing with tv as computer. if it ain't along the lines of a playskool toy then forget it, over their heads.
I don't think you understood his point. It's not that people are stupid, it's that there is no practical way to manage the needs of 3 or four people in one room with one computer on the TV. It's not a solvable problem.
I don't think you understood his point. It's not that people are stupid, it's that there is no practical way to manage the needs of 3 or four people in one room with one computer on the TV. It's not a solvable problem.
that makes no sense at all. if that is true then the tv would have failed long ago, yet, most manage with the remote, most buy dvd players, xbox, ps3 etc, etc, etc,
that makes no sense at all. if that is true then the tv would have failed long ago, yet, most manage with the remote, most buy dvd players, xbox, ps3 etc, etc, etc,
TV is fine - all those other things are problems. That is why many families have multiple TVs, multiple computers, multiple DVD players etc. Everyone has different needs and interests. Computing is very interactive and personal and there is no way a communal display device that is also used for movies and gaming is ever going to work in the living room. it would work if deployed in multiple rooms.
Comments
It is true that most folks do not buy an Android powered phone.
It is also true that a whole lot more people buy Android powered phones than iPhones.
Is there any explanation for that?
It's also true that phone models with Android outnumber the 4 models running iOS. Besides, how many people are deliberately buying an Android phone as opposed to the model being offered from a manufacturer they like? Is Android the brand or is the phone model?
Just a reminder: Android is the fastest growing OS.
Just barely beating one phone from one company. That was bound to happen sooner or later so? Windows was also fastest grwoing OS i just don't see how it's relevant to the quality and ease of use.
Google TV suffers because one of the major selling points in that you can catch up with shows online is being crippled by the networks. This is a complete joke and is another example of how industries hate change. It is only a matter of time until google tv is built into TV sets, then we will see how successful it really is.
Compared to apple tv at least google tv is something revolutionary. I live in the UK and there are so many services that offer the same as Apple TV without the drawbacks of the closed eco system.
Let's just get this straight:
Google TV suffers because one of the major selling points in that you can catch up with shows online is being crippled by the networks. This is a complete joke and is another example of how industries hate change. It is only a matter of time until google tv is built into TV sets, then we will see how successful it really is.
Compared to apple tv at least google tv is something revolutionary. I live in the UK and there are so many services that offer the same as Apple TV without the drawbacks of the closed eco system.
Right, except for some of us, a nice selling point of the AppleTV is its integration with all the other Apple products one might own...I like being able to stream music or movies from my computer in the office to my TV. The price point's pretty slick too, I didn't have a difficult time justifying it. I will agree wholeheartedly that the content catalogue is lacking, but I'm planning on it being a hackable toy. I would have agreed with you that the Google TV was revolutionary, except it has no content. Google should have planned ahead instead of letting their early adopters get screwed. Why the heck would Google TV be built into TV sets so we can 'see how successful it really is' if it's currently a flop? Maybe Google TV 2.0, with some contracts with the big networks, but who'd spend the extra money with how it is right now? Your point makes little sense.
Compared to apple tv at least google tv is something revolutionary.
Oh come on.
Emphasis mine!
Does the author of this article have any facts or citations to back up this statement?
.
The article I'm linking below is from June, but the system is simple. Root your phone, buy an app, back it up, hit the market for your refund, reinstall the backup. Voila, app gotten for free. This has been well documented for quite awhile now.
http://kbeezie.com/view/steal-market-app/
From the story, ALL Sony Google TVs are being heavily discounted. That's the difference.
If you read the fine print on the discounts, it says something along the lines of "offer good until November 29". As far as I can tell, it's a Black Friday sale.
But now, many people have broadband, the cost of CPUs etc. for a viable rich-media system is low enough, and so many people have smart phones & multiple computers at home that making the TV just another node on your home network is a real thing. Roku, Apple TV, TiVO et al. are stand-alone stepping stones, but soon we'll see TVs with network connectivity built in as a "must have" rather than a "high end" option.
I hope the current Google TV has a serious UI overhaul and has the CPU power to remain viable for several years. Or, it could turn out like Android phones - manufacturers will abandon the early versions in favor of pushing new iterations of hardware. I think that is more likely. Why fix what you've already sold when you can sell a new one?
- Jasen.
Why fix what you've already sold when you can sell a new one?
- Jasen.
That, I think, is my biggest issue with Android, and why I probably will not buy one in the near future. It's not fully Google's fault, necessarily, but I want longevity.
Oh come on.
constructive thanks
I'm sure it's not intentional, but Android is a gift to Apple. Apple competes with HTC, Motorola, and the other OEMs that use Android. By providing those OEMs with a half-a$$ed OS strategy, Google has sabotaged them all in the long run. Google has also managed to divert those OEMs from Microsoft, a company that could actually provide a full-a$$ed OS strategy.
Eventually the OEMs will figure out that Android is not their salvation, and they'll reluctantly go crawling back to Microsoft and learn to accept that they must either eek out a low-margin existence or no existence at all.
But in the meantime, Apple will have established a very strong position in the market. We might end up in a situation where MS and Apple more or less split the market.
'half-assed'? for the short time it has been in play android is working very well. the half assed part comes from the hardware makers who are being stupid. android 2.2 is very nice and it is going to get even better. i wouldnt' call it a 'gift' to apple....
Sony in the dark ages in some respects. That stupid remote on the sony internet tv is just horrible. I was in my local sony style a few weeks ago and messed around with it. JUST NASTY. and no one even helped me out. I hate the customer service at sony style.
Sony is on a roll these days - downhill. Their remotes generally have always been bad. I have a Sony TV and the remote is just alien. The button locations and even their names make little sense. The Xross menu system is not all that great either. The perceived greatness of Sony consumer products is now a fallacy.
... What Google TV has done, though, (and many Blu Ray players and game systems) is make mainstream the notion of having a computer built into TVs - a computer in the living room. Microsoft tried this with Web TV and failed. ...
But that's precisely the point.
There is zero indication amongst the general market that there is any interest whatsoever in turning the passive and generally shared living room experience of watching content into a computer browsing experience.
There is indeed a small segment of single geeks for whom that model may be attractive. But any family with multiple people is barely able to survive 'channel clicking wars' with a simple remote, let alone the nightmare of one person browsing as everyone else has to watch.
Its a flawed model.
... Compared to apple tv at least google tv is something revolutionary. ...
The only thing revolutionary about Google TV is that now Google can track you in your living room and collect information they previously had no access to. Why anyone would buy a Google telescreen to enable this is a bit of a mystery.
I only buy products that are suitable for use by elderly people.
蘋果蘋果蘋果 = Apple Apple Apple
or...appl
or... bill-G
or... steve-J
Therefore, just the return of a sad troll.
But that's precisely the point.
There is zero indication amongst the general market that there is any interest whatsoever in turning the passive and generally shared living room experience of watching content into a computer browsing experience.
There is indeed a small segment of single geeks for whom that model may be attractive. But any family with multiple people is barely able to survive 'channel clicking wars' with a simple remote, let alone the nightmare of one person browsing as everyone else has to watch.
Its a flawed model.
Spot on.
But that's precisely the point.
There is zero indication amongst the general market that there is any interest whatsoever in turning the passive and generally shared living room experience of watching content into a computer browsing experience.
There is indeed a small segment of single geeks for whom that model may be attractive. But any family with multiple people is barely able to survive 'channel clicking wars' with a simple remote, let alone the nightmare of one person browsing as everyone else has to watch.
Its a flawed model.
i thought apple was famous for not giving a damn what the general populations interest were?
the henry ford quote comes to mind too.
i agree that the general population and the apple crowd aren't ready for the complexities of dealing with tv as computer. if it ain't along the lines of a playskool toy then forget it, over their heads.
But that's precisely the point.
There is zero indication amongst the general market that there is any interest whatsoever in turning the passive and generally shared living room experience of watching content into a computer browsing experience.
There is indeed a small segment of single geeks for whom that model may be attractive. But any family with multiple people is barely able to survive 'channel clicking wars' with a simple remote, let alone the nightmare of one person browsing as everyone else has to watch.
Its a flawed model.
i thought apple was famous for not giving a damn what the general populations interest were?
the henry ford quote comes to mind too.
i agree that the general population and the apple crowd aren't ready for the complexities of dealing with tv as computer. if it ain't along the lines of a playskool toy then forget it, over their heads.
I don't think you understood his point. It's not that people are stupid, it's that there is no practical way to manage the needs of 3 or four people in one room with one computer on the TV. It's not a solvable problem.
I don't think you understood his point. It's not that people are stupid, it's that there is no practical way to manage the needs of 3 or four people in one room with one computer on the TV. It's not a solvable problem.
that makes no sense at all. if that is true then the tv would have failed long ago, yet, most manage with the remote, most buy dvd players, xbox, ps3 etc, etc, etc,
that makes no sense at all. if that is true then the tv would have failed long ago, yet, most manage with the remote, most buy dvd players, xbox, ps3 etc, etc, etc,
TV is fine - all those other things are problems. That is why many families have multiple TVs, multiple computers, multiple DVD players etc. Everyone has different needs and interests. Computing is very interactive and personal and there is no way a communal display device that is also used for movies and gaming is ever going to work in the living room. it would work if deployed in multiple rooms.