Motorola purchase may bolster Google TV in bid to unseat Apple TV

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 72
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ahmlco View Post


    That may be the case, but they still need to get the cableco's to sign up for the deal.



    Says who?



    Google can easily monitor your viewing habits without the permission of the cable companies.
  • Reply 42 of 72
    801801 Posts: 271member
    I know that Apple TV is a hobby, because the market is ill defined, but aren't we hearing rumbles about an Apple TV set in the pipeline? This market needs a redefinition to become a profit generator and apple is up to the task. Google is not. Or has not proven itself to be yet.
  • Reply 43 of 72
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    Says who?



    Google can easily monitor your viewing habits without the permission of the cable companies.



    Technically or legally? I don't see cable companies being too keen on that (at least without sharing that info) and I definitely see a vocal minority of people who would make a big stink over it in the media.
  • Reply 44 of 72
    ash471ash471 Posts: 705member
    I don't think Google would spend $12.5 billion to compete with an "Apple hobby." Google may be dumb, but they aren't that dumb. That's more like a Steve Ballmer kind of dumb.
  • Reply 45 of 72
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ash471 View Post


    I don't think Google would spend $12.5 billion to compete with an "Apple hobby." Google may be dumb, but they aren't that dumb. That's more like a Steve Ballmer kind of dumb.



    The potential to deliver ads (or charge for services) to millions of tablet and phone devices, on a recurring basis -- can recover that $multi-billion investment is not insignificant...



    It would be stupid to ignore that opportunity -- even though it may take several years to deliver a solution.
  • Reply 46 of 72
    godriflegodrifle Posts: 267member
    That makes total sense. Why? Because Motorola's set top boxes for cable are an absolute disaster. I *HATE* mine. Passionately.
  • Reply 47 of 72
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,425member
    Google is truly a clueless company.



    Other than fantastic search capabilities that have degraded over time to the point of my personal frustration with trying to find anything on the net that hasn't been SEO'd to death I find they aren't a very innovative company outside of the search realm.



    Google TV was a failure and buying Moto isn't going to do squat. Consumer want to get RID of the cable box. CableCard was supposed to do this but the inept US Gov can't seem to do anything correctly when they try to mediate.



    I'm not doing anymore STB. Period. They use too much power and clutter up the back of the TV. Expect Google to try...yet crash and burn on integrating Google TV into cable STB whilst Apple moves to a more elegant "All in One" approach.
  • Reply 48 of 72
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jetz View Post


    This is a moronic viewpoint. Even for AI.



    First off, Apple TV (and I own one), is nothing all that great. It's a box that let's you play your iTunes content and Netflix. I turn it on once a week, maybe. I watch TV far more often. And I watch DVR'ed content far more often.



    Google TV was a far more ambitious project. And one that is sorely needed. Anything is better than the useless cableco STBs you get today (particularly the archaic ones we get up here in Canada).



    Google TV didn't just fail because of a lack of content deals. It failed because of a fundamental flaw in the concept: people don't want yet another box in the house. However, if Google TV were to be offered by the cableco, you can bet there's lots of people who would embrace it. After all, if the option at your cable store is between a plain old box and a Google TV DVR, what would you pick?



    The problem for Google is getting cablecos to embrace Google TV. And Google may yet be able to do it. Indeed, the fact that they don't have content deals might turn out to be a blessing in disguise. They can offer to help make cableco content more visible through search. They get the data they want, the cablecos get visibility for their content.



    It's a risky play. But Google will now have a shot at negotiating directly working with cablecos. It's a once-in-a-lifetime shot, just as all the cablecos are transitioning to IPTV. Google will have to come up with a pitch where the cablecos benefit too. If they can do it, expect to see Google TV STBs and DVRs becoming quite normal in living rooms worldwide.



    A good product isn't just one that has what one might think as a good idea behind it. The company also has to pull it off. So far, Google hasn't pulled it off. The aTv does what Apple says it will do, and the Google Tv doesn't. It's really that simple.



    So it failed for more than one reason. One the failed content deals. Yes, the most important part of Google TV is the content deals. No content, no use. Two, the set-up is a pain. Not good. And three, is the hardware. The controller is a monster, and confusing.



    All in all, not a well thought out concept.
  • Reply 49 of 72
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bigdaddyguido View Post


    Simple question for clarification: Why are motorola's set top boxes part of their mobility line? Shouldn't they be part of standard motorola, the part google isn't trying to buy?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    That's just the way Moto spun off the two companies.



    Motorola Mobility has products that are either directly for the consumer, such as phones, or interface directly with the consumer in the home, such as set-top boxes.



    Motorola Solutions has products for government or enterprise use that doesn't interface directly with the consumer in the home.
  • Reply 50 of 72
    rasimorasimo Posts: 61member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


    Bingo!









    IMO, this is a very big deal!



    If the cable STB can rebroadcast, say, 5 concurrent channels -- then everyone in the extended home has a personal TV in his iPad -- along with all the other goodies.



    I don't know if Moogle will be strong enough to exclude * the iPad and other competitive devices.



    Moogle executives should take great care what they say in public -- or in private documents.



    I have the Time Warner Cable TV app on my iPads and it's exactly how you described. I can watch 50+ channels and more are being added all the time. Add the Netflix and ESPN apps, it's like having a portable TV everywhere in the house.



    What would be really cool is if Apple added the ability to stream content from my iTunes library on my Mac directly to my iPad without syncing. I could then access all my media on my iPad, which is a whole lot more then 64GB.
  • Reply 51 of 72
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ash471 View Post


    I don't think Google would spend $12.5 billion to compete with an "Apple hobby." Google may be dumb, but they aren't that dumb. That's more like a Steve Ballmer kind of dumb.



    Google was snookered. While Dan Lyons seems to think that Apple and MS were snookered by Google in the Nortel deal, and that this is what Google wanted all along, that's clearly wrong.



    The guys running Google are sneaky and possibly dishonest, but they make mistakes all the time. This is their biggest so far, at least when it comes down to direct cost. Motorola wasn't worth more than $9 billion, and possibly, not more than $8 billion. Will Google get $12.5 billion of value out of this. No way! And when costs involving the integration of the two companies is finally counted, they will have added another billion or so.



    Paige says that while this will be completely owned by Google, it will be run as a separate company. That's not really possible, because now Google has to count this in the bottom line, and Moto isn't doing that well. this will bring Googles' margins and profits down. And there goes the stock price.



    They have a large number of products that have nothing to do with what Google does as a company. Some are doing well, and some are doing poorly. Will they sell these businesses off? if so, they won't get value for them now. If not, then they will compete for R&D, support and marketing. Does Google really want to make walkie-talkies?



    What will they do with the large set-top business? The only thing they can do is to remove the OS and install Android. Not a bad thing, as these set-top OSs' are pretty dreadful. But that's all they can do, because it's the cable companies who decide which features will be offered.



    I strongly believe that unless Google is so wedded to the idea of Google TV, even though there doesn't look as though there's much of a chance of it succeeding, they will likely have to let it go in favor of Moto's successful set-top business (even though some here seem to hate the product).



    Still, I think Google made a mistake here.
  • Reply 52 of 72
    alfiejralfiejr Posts: 1,524member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rasimo View Post


    I have the Time Warner Cable TV app on my iPads and it's exactly how you described. I can watch 50+ channels and more are being added all the time. Add the Netflix and ESPN apps, it's like having a portable TV everywhere in the house.



    What would be really cool is if Apple added the ability to stream content from my iTunes library on my Mac directly to my iPad without syncing. I could then access all my media on my iPad, which is a whole lot more then 64GB.



    you can do that today with AirPlay at home. just turn on Home Sharing. i do it all the time. the only constraint is your Mac has to be turned on and awake, you have to be logged in, and iTunes has to be open and running. i'd like Apple to have an iTunes access app running in the background so i wouldn't have to remember to do all that (the "server" function). but apparently iCloud is going to provide this ability another way, anyplace you are at home or away.
  • Reply 53 of 72
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rasimo View Post


    I have the Time Warner Cable TV app on my iPads and it's exactly how you described. I can watch 50+ channels and more are being added all the time. Add the Netflix and ESPN apps, it's like having a portable TV everywhere in the house.



    What would be really cool is if Apple added the ability to stream content from my iTunes library on my Mac directly to my iPad without syncing. I could then access all my media on my iPad, which is a whole lot more then 64GB.



    It is called StreamToMe (iPad) and ServeToMe (Free Mac) -- on every Mac... works over 3G in the middle of a soccer field.



    We don't get Time Warner in the SF Bay area....
  • Reply 54 of 72
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post


    Technically or legally? I don't see cable companies being too keen on that (at least without sharing that info) and I definitely see a vocal minority of people who would make a big stink over it in the media.



    Technically AND legally. Google sells a set-top box to the cable company. Cable company rents it to you. There's nothing that prevents Google from tracking what channels you're watching and then sending the list back to Google via the Internet.



    There might be some technical issues (if you don't have internet access, they might only be able to do this if you have an android phone, for example), but they could easily harvest viewing information from millions of households - and add it to the other troves of information they have on nearly everyone.
  • Reply 55 of 72
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    Google was snookered. While Dan Lyons seems to think that Apple and MS were snookered by Google in the Nortel deal, and that this is what Google wanted all along, that's clearly wrong.



    The guys running Google are sneaky and possibly dishonest, but they make mistakes all the time. This is their biggest so far, at least when it comes down to direct cost. Motorola wasn't worth more than $9 billion, and possibly, not more than $8 billion. Will Google get $12.5 billion of value out of this. No way! And when costs involving the integration of the two companies is finally counted, they will have added another billion or so.



    Paige says that while this will be completely owned by Google, it will be run as a separate company. That's not really possible, because now Google has to count this in the bottom line, and Moto isn't doing that well. this will bring Googles' margins and profits down. And there goes the stock price.



    They have a large number of products that have nothing to do with what Google does as a company. Some are doing well, and some are doing poorly. Will they sell these businesses off? if so, they won't get value for them now. If not, then they will compete for R&D, support and marketing. Does Google really want to make walkie-talkies?



    What will they do with the large set-top business? The only thing they can do is to remove the OS and install Android. Not a bad thing, as these set-top OSs' are pretty dreadful. But that's all they can do, because it's the cable companies who decide which features will be offered.



    I strongly believe that unless Google is so wedded to the idea of Google TV, even though there doesn't look as though there's much of a chance of it succeeding, they will likely have to let it go in favor of Moto's successful set-top business (even though some here seem to hate the product).



    Still, I think Google made a mistake here.



    +++



    I have to keep reminding myself that this article is about the renaissance of GoogleTV.



    GoogleTV is dead!



    It was dead when they brought out the kb at Google IO and made a room full of viewers watch... while someone made typing mistakes while initiating ineffective searches for things nobody wanted to see... (and couldn't find them).



    That's the GoogleTV Tri-Fecta -- and it was demonstrated with unanticipated brilliance!
  • Reply 56 of 72
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    Technically AND legally. Google sells a set-top box to the cable company. Cable company rents it to you. There's nothing that prevents Google from tracking what channels you're watching and then sending the list back to Google via the Internet.



    There might be some technical issues (if you don't have internet access, they might only be able to do this if you have an android phone, for example), but they could easily harvest viewing information from millions of households - and add it to the other troves of information they have on nearly everyone.



    Technically, Google could do this.



    However, the cable companies get to determine what capabilities these boxes have. They will simply not buy boxes with this 'feature' unless there is something in it for them. And that something is cash. Every month. From Google.



    And then there will be some general opposition by the public to anybody tracking what channels they watch [as this wouldn't be the first time somebody wanted to gather this info, as it would be rather valuable to cableco's and advertising agencies]. There's a reason why Nielson had people [until fairly recently] manually write down in notebooks what channels/shows they watch and when [and these are the rating that pretty much EVERYBODY uses to value TV shows and advertising rates].
  • Reply 57 of 72
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Alfiejr View Post


    you can do that today with AirPlay at home. just turn on Home Sharing. i do it all the time. the only constraint is your Mac has to be turned on and awake, you have to be logged in, and iTunes has to be open and running. i'd like Apple to have an iTunes access app running in the background so i wouldn't have to remember to do all that (the "server" function). but apparently iCloud is going to provide this ability another way, anyplace you are at home or away.



    How do you get it to output to the iPad? In the Remote app, I'm only able to output to my Mac or my Apple TV.
  • Reply 58 of 72
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by c4rlob View Post


    I so wish they traded stocks for the failure of a venture –*I would buy that stock against Google TV + Motorola in a heartbeat!



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jetz View Post


    It's called shorting a stock. You can make such trades.



    Or even simpler, more direct, and with lower transaction cost, you can buy long-dated Google put options.
  • Reply 59 of 72
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    Google was snookered. While Dan Lyons seems to think that Apple and MS were snookered by Google in the Nortel deal, and that this is what Google wanted all along, that's clearly wrong.



    The guys running Google are sneaky and possibly dishonest, but they make mistakes all the time. This is their biggest so far, at least when it comes down to direct cost. Motorola wasn't worth more than $9 billion, and possibly, not more than $8 billion. Will Google get $12.5 billion of value out of this. No way! And when costs involving the integration of the two companies is finally counted, they will have added another billion or so.



    Paige says that while this will be completely owned by Google, it will be run as a separate company. That's not really possible, because now Google has to count this in the bottom line, and Moto isn't doing that well. this will bring Googles' margins and profits down. And there goes the stock price.



    They have a large number of products that have nothing to do with what Google does as a company. Some are doing well, and some are doing poorly. Will they sell these businesses off? if so, they won't get value for them now. If not, then they will compete for R&D, support and marketing. Does Google really want to make walkie-talkies?



    What will they do with the large set-top business? The only thing they can do is to remove the OS and install Android. Not a bad thing, as these set-top OSs' are pretty dreadful. But that's all they can do, because it's the cable companies who decide which features will be offered.



    I strongly believe that unless Google is so wedded to the idea of Google TV, even though there doesn't look as though there's much of a chance of it succeeding, they will likely have to let it go in favor of Moto's successful set-top business (even though some here seem to hate the product).



    Still, I think Google made a mistake here.



    For all the gazillions of words written about it, this is quite possibly the most cogent set comments I've read about this deal.
  • Reply 60 of 72
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by whatisgoingon View Post


    Technically, Google could do this.



    However, the cable companies get to determine what capabilities these boxes have. They will simply not buy boxes with this 'feature' unless there is something in it for them. And that something is cash. Every month. From Google.



    And then there will be some general opposition by the public to anybody tracking what channels they watch [as this wouldn't be the first time somebody wanted to gather this info, as it would be rather valuable to cableco's and advertising agencies]. There's a reason why Nielson had people [until fairly recently] manually write down in notebooks what channels/shows they watch and when [and these are the rating that pretty much EVERYBODY uses to value TV shows and advertising rates].



    See, that's what I was thinking. There is NO way cable companies would allow Google to do that for free much less PAY Google for the "privilege.". Also, Neilsen has boxes now, but the HH still has to volunteer to have it in their homes and they get paid a token $10 for their troubles.
Sign In or Register to comment.