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.
So what about all the people on this forum who were clamoring for Apple to add a browser to the AppleTV before the 2.0 version was announced? Now that Google did it first, the tune seems to have changed. If Apple had done it, what would people here be saying?
Quote:
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.
What decade are you living? I can't remember the last time I was in a single TV home. The "channel clicking wars" ended some time in the 90's when TV's became cheap commodity items.
So what about all the people on this forum who were clamoring for Apple to add a browser to the AppleTV before the 2.0 version was announced? Now that Google did it first, the tune seems to have changed. If Apple had done it, what would people here be saying?
What decade are you living? I can't remember the last time I was in a single TV home. The "channel clicking wars" ended some time in the 90's when TV's became cheap commodity items.
I don't recall any serious clamor for adding a browser to AppleTV. If the only connection to the Internet available in the home were the TV, then I could see the need. Rather, most homes have one or more computers which are superior for web browsing -- more personal interaction, more legible and interactive display, better navigation with integral keyboard and mouse, more robust caching, bookmarking, tabbing, etc.
What is needed, IMO, is a way to surf the web looking for content, scheduling viewing/recording of shows, getting background information (song lyrics, iMDB info, etc) while concurrent using the TV to display content. We have that in two separate devices: a Desktop, Laptop or Tablet computer and a TV. Each device is designed to excel at certain specialized actives -- Why must one device/activity encroach on the other.
There's an old Army Training lyric that says it best:
"This is my rifle, this is my gun -- this one's for shooting, the other's for fun!
The big mistake of GTV, WebTB, et al: why do we need to display our surfing activity on the TV -- full screen Pic-In-Pic, whatever. It makes no sense at all -- unless we enjoy others watching (and critiquing) our typing.
What would be useful, with something as handy and as friendly as the iPad is to use it to do the surfing, scheduling, accessing (queuing or downloading) content while, separately, the HDTV is doing Its Thing -- playing content from whatever source is currently selected.
Periodically, while surfing with the iPad, we may find something of interest to the larger audience watching the HDTV. Wouldn't it be great if we could pause * the HDTV content, interpose the content * from the iPad for all to see, then resume the paused content to HDTV when desired.
* Live content would be automatically recorded in the background
** song lyrics, iMDB profiles, subzin quotes from movies, background on star players, actors, stats, highlights, etc.
In this scenario, the iPad acts as an independent content surfer, programmer, queuer, scheduler communicating with the ATV or HDTV in the background to set content for later viewing.
Alternately, the iPad can be used, via AirPlay to provide content directly to the ATV.
A third use, would be to add IR capability to the iPad and use as an intelligent universal remote control for all components of the home theater.
So what about all the people on this forum who were clamoring for Apple to add a browser to the AppleTV before the 2.0 version was announced? Now that Google did it first, the tune seems to have changed. If Apple had done it, what would people here be saying?
What decade are you living? I can't remember the last time I was in a single TV home. The "channel clicking wars" ended some time in the 90's when TV's became cheap commodity items.
yes, i don't hear anyone proclaiming that music is best left to the ipod and it shouldn't 'encroach' on other things like a 'computer' or a 'phone'. or that people are complaining about a phone that has a lot of computer type functionality.
if the 'family' is watching a movie then of course you don't browse the web, but many times i have been watching tv and wanted to look up something on wikipedia etc and don't want to go to a computer, or find my ipad. i should be able to do it with the TV.
i guess i am one of the weird ones that has more than one tv in the house and don't see why this is such a big deal OTHER than apple fans need to find something wrong with google tv just because apple tv doesn't do it.
yes, i don't hear anyone proclaiming that music is best left to the ipod and it shouldn't 'encroach' on other things like a 'computer' or a 'phone'. or that people are complaining about a phone that has a lot of computer type functionality.
if the 'family' is watching a movie then of course you don't browse the web, but many times i have been watching tv and wanted to look up something on wikipedia etc and don't want to go to a computer, or find my ipad. i should be able to do it with the TV.
i guess i am one of the weird ones that has more than one tv in the house and don't see why this is such a big deal OTHER than apple fans need to find something wrong with google tv just because apple tv doesn't do it.
Except no one is arguing that. No one is saying "Google TV sucks because it has a browser" or "I would hate it if Apple TV had a browser." And most assuredly no one is saying "I don't like Google TV because it can do things that Apple TV can't", which is one of those lazy "ha ha look at the fan boys" formulations that make these threads such a slog at times. Really, man, make your case on the merits, not what imaginary strawman fan boys are babbling.
Google TV sucks, as it stands, because it's too expensive and too complex and they didn't get their content provider ducks in a row. Google's trying for much more than just sticking a browser on there, they're trying to integrate search and browsing and viewing habits and device control and television watching and web video and god knows what else.
It's actually pretty much what I'd expect from Google, Android being an anomaly which has lulled people into imagining that they're any good at this kind of thing. It maximizes synergies, leverages technologies, exploits the cloud, and is a veritable piñata of valuable tracking info, all without concerning itself overly much with what normal people might want to do while watching TV.
Say what you will about Apple's penchant for simplifying things by narrowing functionality, but you never get the impression that Apple expects its users to rise to their level of technological sophistication so they can bask in the glow of IT nerd mastery.
Except no one is arguing that. No one is saying "Google TV sucks because it has a browser" or "I would hate it if Apple TV had a browser." And most assuredly no one is saying "I don't like Google TV because it can do things that Apple TV can't", which is one of those lazy "ha ha look at the fan boys" formulations that make these threads such a slog at times. Really, man, make your case on the merits, not what imaginary strawman fan boys are babbling.
Google TV sucks, as it stands, because it's too expensive and too complex and they didn't get their content provider ducks in a row. Google's trying for much more than just sticking a browser on there, they're trying to integrate search and browsing and viewing habits and device control and television watching and web video and god knows what else.
It's actually pretty much what I'd expect from Google, Android being an anomaly which has lulled people into imagining that they're any good at this kind of thing. It maximizes synergies, leverages technologies, exploits the cloud, and is a veritable piñata of valuable tracking info, all without concerning itself overly much with what normal people might want to do while watching TV.
Say what you will about Apple's penchant for simplifying things by narrowing functionality, but you never get the impression that Apple expects its users to rise to their level of technological sophistication so they can bask in the glow of IT nerd mastery.
you mouth off about 'strawmen' yadda yadda and then say 'google tv sucks because its too expensive and too complex.' thanks for taking the straw out of the strawman.
sorry but i am a fan of Woz and not the technically stupid like Jobs. thats just my preference. playskool for playskoolers.
you mouth off about 'strawmen' yadda yadda and then say 'google tv sucks because its too expensive and too complex.' thanks for taking the straw out of the strawman.
sorry but i am a fan of Woz and not the technically stupid like Jobs. thats just my preference. playskool for playskoolers.
That doesn't make any sense. How is observing that Google TV is too expensive and too complex a "straw man"? Do you know what the term means?
Calling Jobs "technically stupid" and the tired old "playskool" thing makes me think you're not really interested in anything but trite Apple bashing. The "playskool" iPhone is the model for the industry, as is the toy iPad. I guess we'll see if the really smart Google TV becomes the template from which all further such devices derive.
yes, i don't hear anyone proclaiming that music is best left to the ipod and it shouldn't 'encroach' on other things like a 'computer' or a 'phone'. or that people are complaining about a phone that has a lot of computer type functionality.
if the 'family' is watching a movie then of course you don't browse the web, but many times i have been watching tv and wanted to look up something on wikipedia etc and don't want to go to a computer, or find my ipad. i should be able to do it with the TV.
i guess i am one of the weird ones that has more than one tv in the house and don't see why this is such a big deal OTHER than apple fans need to find something wrong with google tv just because apple tv doesn't do it.
When you are browsing on your TV:
-- how do you enter text into search fields and forms?
-- how do you position the cursor accurately on web pages - hover, click links, controls?
-- can you actually read the text displayed on the large screen as it is lower resolution than an LCD display?
-- would you consider creating a several-paragraph post to an AI forum?
-- especially one where you intermittently highlight text for cut/paste, bold/italic/underline/color, etc.
-- do you have to get up of the couch to actually read what you find or type?
-- do you want others reading your private emails, web history, etc?
-- do you believe there will be enough TV web surfers that web sites will be redesigned for their special requirements, ala mobile and iPad.
Personally, I take my iPad with me everywhere. When I plop down in front of the TV, I can surf without disrupting others. I can answer emails, post to forums like AI, even watch or listen to content (with earphones). Any web text activity that uses the 1008P 46" HDTV (6 feet away) is inferior to the iPad in my lap -- and I don't need a clumsy, kludgey, ginormous kb/trackpad/remote combo to enter text, click or navigate.
To quote David Pogue: "People do not want to surf the Internet on their TV screens (WebTV, AOLTV, Google TV)." I would add AppleTV to that list!
That doesn't make any sense. How is observing that Google TV is too expensive and too complex a "straw man"? Do you know what the term means?
Calling Jobs "technically stupid" and the tired old "playskool" thing makes me think you're not really interested in anything but trite Apple bashing. The "playskool" iPhone is the model for the industry, as is the toy iPad. I guess we'll see if the really smart Google TV becomes the template from which all further such devices derive.
i do know what the term means, but, i am not here to try and do some serious philosophical argumentation. you seem to think that by throwing out such a term that you are, but, when you make statements like 'too expensive and too complex' you show that you do not know what a true philosophical argument is and anyone who understands 'arguments' would see the problem with that statement. so please stop pretending, Aristotle.
i do know what the term means, but, i am not here to try and do some serious philosophical argumentation. you seem to think that by throwing out such a term that you are, but, when you make statements like 'too expensive and too complex' you show that you do not know what a true philosophical argument is and anyone who understands 'arguments' would see the problem with that statement. so please stop pretending, Aristotle.
-- how do you enter text into search fields and forms?
-- how do you position the cursor accurately on web pages - hover, click links, controls?
-- can you actually read the text displayed on the large screen as it is lower resolution than an LCD display?
-- would you consider creating a several-paragraph post to an AI forum?
-- especially one where you intermittently highlight text for cut/paste, bold/italic/underline/color, etc.
-- do you have to get up of the couch to actually read what you find or type?
-- do you want others reading your private emails, web history, etc?
-- do you believe there will be enough TV web surfers that web sites will be redesigned for their special requirements, ala mobile and iPad.
Personally, I take my iPad with me everywhere. When I plop down in front of the TV, I can surf without disrupting others. I can answer emails, post to forums like AI, even watch or listen to content (with earphones). Any web text activity that uses the 1008P 46" HDTV (6 feet away) is inferior to the iPad in my lap -- and I don't need a clumsy, kludgey, ginormous kb/trackpad/remote combo to enter text, click or navigate.
To quote David Pogue: "People do not want to surf the Internet on their TV screens (WebTV, AOLTV, Google TV)." I would add AppleTV to that list!
no one would claim that google has solved the problems that you bring up. all good questions i agree. they just took a stab at it. good for them. i am willing to take a stab at it too with their product and play around. i am not interested in apples uninteresting and 'safe' netflix box. push the boundaries a bit for christ sake!
-- how do you enter text into search fields and forms?
I believe both versions of GTV have a way to control an arrow on the screen that you can use to select the field. Then type on the keyboard as normal. This is the Chrome browser here.
Quote:
-- how do you position the cursor accurately on web pages - hover, click links, controls?
Just like the above. Logitech's keyboard has a trackpad on it. Sony's controller has an area on the top right that acts like those thumb nubs you see on laptops.
Quote:
-- can you actually read the text displayed on the large screen as it is lower resolution than an LCD display?
Lower? As far as I can tell, all LED/LCD TVs can run 1080p, which is 1920x1080 pixels. That's higher resolution than many laptop monitors and about on-par with desktop monitors. Now you might mean lower density because it's over 46" instead of 18" - 24". From the videos and demo units I've played with, I don't personally find it difficult to read text.
Quote:
-- would you consider creating a several-paragraph post to an AI forum?
There's a keyboard to type on. I don't see how it'll be any different than if you sat down in front of your laptop or desktop to type.
Quote:
-- especially one where you intermittently highlight text for cut/paste, bold/italic/underline/color, etc.
I believe the browser still recognizes the normal keyboard shortcuts. And there's the before-mentioned trackpad and thumb nub to control the selection. Not as natural as a mouse though.
Quote:
-- do you have to get up of the couch to actually read what you find or type?
You can zoom in/out on the browser.
Quote:
-- do you want others reading your private emails, web history, etc?
Depends on which TV you're doing it on. If it's on in your bedroom, then likely you won't have this issue. For a living room TV, then it'll depend on how comfortable you are with the people around you. Or just don't do it on the TV while they're there.
Quote:
-- do you believe there will be enough TV web surfers that web sites will be redesigned for their special requirements, ala mobile and iPad.
As far as I can tell, Chrome supports viewing of websites no differently than any other browser. I don't think anyone will need to do any modifications.
-- how do you enter text into search fields and forms?
-- how do you position the cursor accurately on web pages - hover, click links, controls?
To borrow a phrase, "There's an app for that." Use you iPhone or Android phone.
Quote:
-- can you actually read the text displayed on the large screen as it is lower resolution than an LCD display?
-- do you have to get up of the couch to actually read what you find or type?
I assume you meant computer display, not LCD display since my TV is an LCD display. I can read the text in my PS3's browser on my 37" 1080P TV (and it's one of the worst browsers I've ever used). Plus there's a thing called zoom which will make it easier to read text. I bet a lot of iPhone users can attest to how useful that feature is.
Quote:
-- would you consider creating a several-paragraph post to an AI forum?
-- especially one where you intermittently highlight text for cut/paste, bold/italic/underline/color, etc.
No, but I wouldn't consider doing that on an iPhone or Android phone either (and probably not the iPad either).
Quote:
-- do you want others reading your private emails, web history, etc?
Why would I pull up my private email on the TV? And, no I wouldn't care about my web history. What sites are you going to that you don't want others to see? (Let me guess, a Justin Bieber fan site.)
There are some use cases that just don't work for browsing on a TV, but there are plenty that do. Just like there are use cases for browsing that don't work on an iPhone or iPad. There's been numerous times that I've seen something on TV or a movie I was watching that had me running to my computer to look something up. Maybe a product on Amazon or looking up actor info from the IMDB.
Quote:
-- do you believe there will be enough TV web surfers that web sites will be redesigned for their special requirements, ala mobile and iPad.
Why not? If sites are being redesigned for iPads and smartphones, why not TV sets as well? What's the difference?
Why would I pull up my private email on the TV? And, no I wouldn't care about my web history. What sites are you going to that you don't want others to see? (Let me guess, a Justin Bieber fan site.)
See, there has to be a bit of common sense that needs to be applied here. The TV (unless in a bedroom) can be considered a public device, since it's shared among family/friends. If you don't want people finding out that you go to porn sites (or whatever sites you would find embarrassing), then don't do it on the living room TV. If you do and it shows up when you use GTV in front of your friends/family, then that's not the GTV's fault. That's yours.
But I would think that there's a way to clear the history anyway.
There's been numerous times that I've seen something on TV or a movie I was watching that had me running to my computer to look something up. Maybe a product on Amazon or looking up actor info from the IMDB.
If you already have your smartphone in your hand, then why......?
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.
That seems needlessly complicated to get a freebie game. Not only that, one of the comments to that story have this link is a solution that came about in response to the problem:
While that is true, consider this: an .apk has no DRM protection, once a single person performs that task they can upload the .apk to file sharing sites or to other users so that even non-rooted phones can install them. So that basically means, not only is it possible to do right from the market place, you could instead check out popular file sharing sites for the apps.
While that is true, consider this: an .apk has no DRM protection, once a single person performs that task they can upload the .apk to file sharing sites or to other users so that even non-rooted phones can install them. So that basically means, not only is it possible to do right from the market place, you could instead check out popular file sharing sites for the apps.
Comments
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.
So what about all the people on this forum who were clamoring for Apple to add a browser to the AppleTV before the 2.0 version was announced? Now that Google did it first, the tune seems to have changed. If Apple had done it, what would people here be saying?
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.
What decade are you living? I can't remember the last time I was in a single TV home. The "channel clicking wars" ended some time in the 90's when TV's became cheap commodity items.
So what about all the people on this forum who were clamoring for Apple to add a browser to the AppleTV before the 2.0 version was announced? Now that Google did it first, the tune seems to have changed. If Apple had done it, what would people here be saying?
What decade are you living? I can't remember the last time I was in a single TV home. The "channel clicking wars" ended some time in the 90's when TV's became cheap commodity items.
I don't recall any serious clamor for adding a browser to AppleTV. If the only connection to the Internet available in the home were the TV, then I could see the need. Rather, most homes have one or more computers which are superior for web browsing -- more personal interaction, more legible and interactive display, better navigation with integral keyboard and mouse, more robust caching, bookmarking, tabbing, etc.
What is needed, IMO, is a way to surf the web looking for content, scheduling viewing/recording of shows, getting background information (song lyrics, iMDB info, etc) while concurrent using the TV to display content. We have that in two separate devices: a Desktop, Laptop or Tablet computer and a TV. Each device is designed to excel at certain specialized actives -- Why must one device/activity encroach on the other.
There's an old Army Training lyric that says it best:
"This is my rifle, this is my gun -- this one's for shooting, the other's for fun!
The big mistake of GTV, WebTB, et al: why do we need to display our surfing activity on the TV -- full screen Pic-In-Pic, whatever. It makes no sense at all -- unless we enjoy others watching (and critiquing) our typing.
What would be useful, with something as handy and as friendly as the iPad is to use it to do the surfing, scheduling, accessing (queuing or downloading) content while, separately, the HDTV is doing Its Thing -- playing content from whatever source is currently selected.
Periodically, while surfing with the iPad, we may find something of interest to the larger audience watching the HDTV. Wouldn't it be great if we could pause * the HDTV content, interpose the content * from the iPad for all to see, then resume the paused content to HDTV when desired.
* Live content would be automatically recorded in the background
** song lyrics, iMDB profiles, subzin quotes from movies, background on star players, actors, stats, highlights, etc.
In this scenario, the iPad acts as an independent content surfer, programmer, queuer, scheduler communicating with the ATV or HDTV in the background to set content for later viewing.
Alternately, the iPad can be used, via AirPlay to provide content directly to the ATV.
A third use, would be to add IR capability to the iPad and use as an intelligent universal remote control for all components of the home theater.
.
So what about all the people on this forum who were clamoring for Apple to add a browser to the AppleTV before the 2.0 version was announced? Now that Google did it first, the tune seems to have changed. If Apple had done it, what would people here be saying?
What decade are you living? I can't remember the last time I was in a single TV home. The "channel clicking wars" ended some time in the 90's when TV's became cheap commodity items.
yes, i don't hear anyone proclaiming that music is best left to the ipod and it shouldn't 'encroach' on other things like a 'computer' or a 'phone'. or that people are complaining about a phone that has a lot of computer type functionality.
if the 'family' is watching a movie then of course you don't browse the web, but many times i have been watching tv and wanted to look up something on wikipedia etc and don't want to go to a computer, or find my ipad. i should be able to do it with the TV.
i guess i am one of the weird ones that has more than one tv in the house and don't see why this is such a big deal OTHER than apple fans need to find something wrong with google tv just because apple tv doesn't do it.
yes, i don't hear anyone proclaiming that music is best left to the ipod and it shouldn't 'encroach' on other things like a 'computer' or a 'phone'. or that people are complaining about a phone that has a lot of computer type functionality.
if the 'family' is watching a movie then of course you don't browse the web, but many times i have been watching tv and wanted to look up something on wikipedia etc and don't want to go to a computer, or find my ipad. i should be able to do it with the TV.
i guess i am one of the weird ones that has more than one tv in the house and don't see why this is such a big deal OTHER than apple fans need to find something wrong with google tv just because apple tv doesn't do it.
Except no one is arguing that. No one is saying "Google TV sucks because it has a browser" or "I would hate it if Apple TV had a browser." And most assuredly no one is saying "I don't like Google TV because it can do things that Apple TV can't", which is one of those lazy "ha ha look at the fan boys" formulations that make these threads such a slog at times. Really, man, make your case on the merits, not what imaginary strawman fan boys are babbling.
Google TV sucks, as it stands, because it's too expensive and too complex and they didn't get their content provider ducks in a row. Google's trying for much more than just sticking a browser on there, they're trying to integrate search and browsing and viewing habits and device control and television watching and web video and god knows what else.
It's actually pretty much what I'd expect from Google, Android being an anomaly which has lulled people into imagining that they're any good at this kind of thing. It maximizes synergies, leverages technologies, exploits the cloud, and is a veritable piñata of valuable tracking info, all without concerning itself overly much with what normal people might want to do while watching TV.
Say what you will about Apple's penchant for simplifying things by narrowing functionality, but you never get the impression that Apple expects its users to rise to their level of technological sophistication so they can bask in the glow of IT nerd mastery.
Except no one is arguing that. No one is saying "Google TV sucks because it has a browser" or "I would hate it if Apple TV had a browser." And most assuredly no one is saying "I don't like Google TV because it can do things that Apple TV can't", which is one of those lazy "ha ha look at the fan boys" formulations that make these threads such a slog at times. Really, man, make your case on the merits, not what imaginary strawman fan boys are babbling.
Google TV sucks, as it stands, because it's too expensive and too complex and they didn't get their content provider ducks in a row. Google's trying for much more than just sticking a browser on there, they're trying to integrate search and browsing and viewing habits and device control and television watching and web video and god knows what else.
It's actually pretty much what I'd expect from Google, Android being an anomaly which has lulled people into imagining that they're any good at this kind of thing. It maximizes synergies, leverages technologies, exploits the cloud, and is a veritable piñata of valuable tracking info, all without concerning itself overly much with what normal people might want to do while watching TV.
Say what you will about Apple's penchant for simplifying things by narrowing functionality, but you never get the impression that Apple expects its users to rise to their level of technological sophistication so they can bask in the glow of IT nerd mastery.
you mouth off about 'strawmen' yadda yadda and then say 'google tv sucks because its too expensive and too complex.' thanks for taking the straw out of the strawman.
sorry but i am a fan of Woz and not the technically stupid like Jobs. thats just my preference. playskool for playskoolers.
you mouth off about 'strawmen' yadda yadda and then say 'google tv sucks because its too expensive and too complex.' thanks for taking the straw out of the strawman.
sorry but i am a fan of Woz and not the technically stupid like Jobs. thats just my preference. playskool for playskoolers.
That doesn't make any sense. How is observing that Google TV is too expensive and too complex a "straw man"? Do you know what the term means?
Calling Jobs "technically stupid" and the tired old "playskool" thing makes me think you're not really interested in anything but trite Apple bashing. The "playskool" iPhone is the model for the industry, as is the toy iPad. I guess we'll see if the really smart Google TV becomes the template from which all further such devices derive.
yes, i don't hear anyone proclaiming that music is best left to the ipod and it shouldn't 'encroach' on other things like a 'computer' or a 'phone'. or that people are complaining about a phone that has a lot of computer type functionality.
if the 'family' is watching a movie then of course you don't browse the web, but many times i have been watching tv and wanted to look up something on wikipedia etc and don't want to go to a computer, or find my ipad. i should be able to do it with the TV.
i guess i am one of the weird ones that has more than one tv in the house and don't see why this is such a big deal OTHER than apple fans need to find something wrong with google tv just because apple tv doesn't do it.
When you are browsing on your TV:
-- how do you enter text into search fields and forms?
-- how do you position the cursor accurately on web pages - hover, click links, controls?
-- can you actually read the text displayed on the large screen as it is lower resolution than an LCD display?
-- would you consider creating a several-paragraph post to an AI forum?
-- especially one where you intermittently highlight text for cut/paste, bold/italic/underline/color, etc.
-- do you have to get up of the couch to actually read what you find or type?
-- do you want others reading your private emails, web history, etc?
-- do you believe there will be enough TV web surfers that web sites will be redesigned for their special requirements, ala mobile and iPad.
Personally, I take my iPad with me everywhere. When I plop down in front of the TV, I can surf without disrupting others. I can answer emails, post to forums like AI, even watch or listen to content (with earphones). Any web text activity that uses the 1008P 46" HDTV (6 feet away) is inferior to the iPad in my lap -- and I don't need a clumsy, kludgey, ginormous kb/trackpad/remote combo to enter text, click or navigate.
To quote David Pogue: "People do not want to surf the Internet on their TV screens (WebTV, AOLTV, Google TV)." I would add AppleTV to that list!
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/25/te...ewanted=2&_r=2
.
That doesn't make any sense. How is observing that Google TV is too expensive and too complex a "straw man"? Do you know what the term means?
Calling Jobs "technically stupid" and the tired old "playskool" thing makes me think you're not really interested in anything but trite Apple bashing. The "playskool" iPhone is the model for the industry, as is the toy iPad. I guess we'll see if the really smart Google TV becomes the template from which all further such devices derive.
i do know what the term means, but, i am not here to try and do some serious philosophical argumentation. you seem to think that by throwing out such a term that you are, but, when you make statements like 'too expensive and too complex' you show that you do not know what a true philosophical argument is and anyone who understands 'arguments' would see the problem with that statement. so please stop pretending, Aristotle.
i do know what the term means, but, i am not here to try and do some serious philosophical argumentation. you seem to think that by throwing out such a term that you are, but, when you make statements like 'too expensive and too complex' you show that you do not know what a true philosophical argument is and anyone who understands 'arguments' would see the problem with that statement. so please stop pretending, Aristotle.
Holy shit. (backs away slowly)
When you are browsing on your TV:
-- how do you enter text into search fields and forms?
-- how do you position the cursor accurately on web pages - hover, click links, controls?
-- can you actually read the text displayed on the large screen as it is lower resolution than an LCD display?
-- would you consider creating a several-paragraph post to an AI forum?
-- especially one where you intermittently highlight text for cut/paste, bold/italic/underline/color, etc.
-- do you have to get up of the couch to actually read what you find or type?
-- do you want others reading your private emails, web history, etc?
-- do you believe there will be enough TV web surfers that web sites will be redesigned for their special requirements, ala mobile and iPad.
Personally, I take my iPad with me everywhere. When I plop down in front of the TV, I can surf without disrupting others. I can answer emails, post to forums like AI, even watch or listen to content (with earphones). Any web text activity that uses the 1008P 46" HDTV (6 feet away) is inferior to the iPad in my lap -- and I don't need a clumsy, kludgey, ginormous kb/trackpad/remote combo to enter text, click or navigate.
To quote David Pogue: "People do not want to surf the Internet on their TV screens (WebTV, AOLTV, Google TV)." I would add AppleTV to that list!
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/25/te...ewanted=2&_r=2
.
no one would claim that google has solved the problems that you bring up. all good questions i agree. they just took a stab at it. good for them. i am willing to take a stab at it too with their product and play around. i am not interested in apples uninteresting and 'safe' netflix box. push the boundaries a bit for christ sake!
When you are browsing on your TV:
-- how do you enter text into search fields and forms?
I believe both versions of GTV have a way to control an arrow on the screen that you can use to select the field. Then type on the keyboard as normal. This is the Chrome browser here.
-- how do you position the cursor accurately on web pages - hover, click links, controls?
Just like the above. Logitech's keyboard has a trackpad on it. Sony's controller has an area on the top right that acts like those thumb nubs you see on laptops.
-- can you actually read the text displayed on the large screen as it is lower resolution than an LCD display?
Lower? As far as I can tell, all LED/LCD TVs can run 1080p, which is 1920x1080 pixels. That's higher resolution than many laptop monitors and about on-par with desktop monitors. Now you might mean lower density because it's over 46" instead of 18" - 24". From the videos and demo units I've played with, I don't personally find it difficult to read text.
-- would you consider creating a several-paragraph post to an AI forum?
There's a keyboard to type on. I don't see how it'll be any different than if you sat down in front of your laptop or desktop to type.
-- especially one where you intermittently highlight text for cut/paste, bold/italic/underline/color, etc.
I believe the browser still recognizes the normal keyboard shortcuts. And there's the before-mentioned trackpad and thumb nub to control the selection. Not as natural as a mouse though.
-- do you have to get up of the couch to actually read what you find or type?
You can zoom in/out on the browser.
-- do you want others reading your private emails, web history, etc?
Depends on which TV you're doing it on. If it's on in your bedroom, then likely you won't have this issue. For a living room TV, then it'll depend on how comfortable you are with the people around you. Or just don't do it on the TV while they're there.
-- do you believe there will be enough TV web surfers that web sites will be redesigned for their special requirements, ala mobile and iPad.
As far as I can tell, Chrome supports viewing of websites no differently than any other browser. I don't think anyone will need to do any modifications.
When you are browsing on your TV:
-- how do you enter text into search fields and forms?
-- how do you position the cursor accurately on web pages - hover, click links, controls?
To borrow a phrase, "There's an app for that." Use you iPhone or Android phone.
-- can you actually read the text displayed on the large screen as it is lower resolution than an LCD display?
-- do you have to get up of the couch to actually read what you find or type?
I assume you meant computer display, not LCD display since my TV is an LCD display. I can read the text in my PS3's browser on my 37" 1080P TV (and it's one of the worst browsers I've ever used). Plus there's a thing called zoom which will make it easier to read text. I bet a lot of iPhone users can attest to how useful that feature is.
-- would you consider creating a several-paragraph post to an AI forum?
-- especially one where you intermittently highlight text for cut/paste, bold/italic/underline/color, etc.
No, but I wouldn't consider doing that on an iPhone or Android phone either (and probably not the iPad either).
-- do you want others reading your private emails, web history, etc?
Why would I pull up my private email on the TV? And, no I wouldn't care about my web history. What sites are you going to that you don't want others to see? (Let me guess, a Justin Bieber fan site.)
There are some use cases that just don't work for browsing on a TV, but there are plenty that do. Just like there are use cases for browsing that don't work on an iPhone or iPad. There's been numerous times that I've seen something on TV or a movie I was watching that had me running to my computer to look something up. Maybe a product on Amazon or looking up actor info from the IMDB.
-- do you believe there will be enough TV web surfers that web sites will be redesigned for their special requirements, ala mobile and iPad.
Why not? If sites are being redesigned for iPads and smartphones, why not TV sets as well? What's the difference?
Why would I pull up my private email on the TV? And, no I wouldn't care about my web history. What sites are you going to that you don't want others to see? (Let me guess, a Justin Bieber fan site.)
See, there has to be a bit of common sense that needs to be applied here. The TV (unless in a bedroom) can be considered a public device, since it's shared among family/friends. If you don't want people finding out that you go to porn sites (or whatever sites you would find embarrassing), then don't do it on the living room TV. If you do and it shows up when you use GTV in front of your friends/family, then that's not the GTV's fault. That's yours.
But I would think that there's a way to clear the history anyway.
..... Use you iPhone or Android phone.
There's been numerous times that I've seen something on TV or a movie I was watching that had me running to my computer to look something up. Maybe a product on Amazon or looking up actor info from the IMDB.
If you already have your smartphone in your hand, then why......?
If you already have your smartphone in your hand, then why......?
I think it has something to do with you having a huge screen in front of you as opposed to that small one in your hand.
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/
That seems needlessly complicated to get a freebie game. Not only that, one of the comments to that story have this link is a solution that came about in response to the problem:
While that is true, consider this: an .apk has no DRM protection, once a single person performs that task they can upload the .apk to file sharing sites or to other users so that even non-rooted phones can install them. So that basically means, not only is it possible to do right from the market place, you could instead check out popular file sharing sites for the apps.
While that is true, consider this: an .apk has no DRM protection, once a single person performs that task they can upload the .apk to file sharing sites or to other users so that even non-rooted phones can install them. So that basically means, not only is it possible to do right from the market place, you could instead check out popular file sharing sites for the apps.
Whoops, that cuts a few steps right there.