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

124»

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 72
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,209member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


    +++



    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!



    That they haven't yet succeeded isn't evidence that they can't eventually hit a great hardware/software/services combo. AppleTV hasn't been up to Apple success standards either. But from reports it doesn't look like they're ready to give up on it. They just need to approach it differently. . . Just as Google does.
  • Reply 62 of 72
    shawnbshawnb Posts: 155member
    It's quite possible that Google spins off and sells the manufacturing business and keeps only the intellectual properties. Carl Icahn was pushing for MM to do this sort of split prior to the Google bid.



    SNL Kagan is forecasting long-term declines in cable/sat subscribers, with as much as 10% of subscribers going "internet only" by 2015. Cable providers are desperate to find some way to avoid becoming "dumb pipes" and losing precious revenues from content services (anyone remember the network neutrality debacle?).



    I think it's several years away, but it's quite possible that cable co's will be begging for someone like Google to give them a cut of ad revenues so they can make *something* off of internet TV.



    Impossible? That's what everyone said about US cellular providers allowing "open" platforms that compete with their proprietary services (video, music, text messaging, navigation, etc). Compelling revenue-sharing schemes can open many doors when your pie is shrinking...
  • Reply 63 of 72
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post


    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.



    Baloney. The cable companies can't really stop it - nor do they really care. If Google offers them the box for $0.50 less with a feature that phones home, the cable companies wouldn't object. If Google offers them a $1.00 discount, they'll probably even let Google put ads on the menu screens.



    Google is better than anyone at monetizing personal information. And the value that they obtain is very high.



    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 think you're missing a number of possible factors:



    1. Sell off all the unrelated businesses. Baby monitors, walkie-talkies, etc. Since it is not uncommon for divisions like that to be worth more separate than together (which is why many acquisitions are immediately broken up and sold in pieces), Google could realize a significant amount of money for the divisions they don't want.



    2. Sell the cell phone handset business to RIM with an agreement that RIM will use only Android and BlackberryOS, avoiding other OSs. For reasons I've discussed previously, this deal would have significant value to both RIM and Google. And since the handset division isn't making any money, there's little reason to keep it.



    3. Google-ize set top boxes. Adding Android is only one step. More importantly, it gives Google access to 7 hours a day (which I think is the average amount of TV time for American families) of personal data on your living room. That value is huge.-and no one does a better job of monetizing your personal information than Google. Of course, it creates a very scary scenario for society.



    4. While I know it's a lot to ask from Google, a little innovation could go a long way. Let's just take their home (landline) telephone business. What if you make home phones into smartphones? The cost would be minimal - just a few cheap internals and maybe a small touchscreen. But you now have access to the internet in your kitchen, bedroom, etc. Need to look up a phone number? It's available. Search for information? Boom. Quick email? Yep. Games? Sure. Instead of dumb home phones, you now have a smart phone.



    I think it's far too early to conclude that Google overpaid. IF THEY HANDLE THE ACQUISITION INTELLIGENTLY, it could turn out to be a winner. Heck, the ad revenue from set top box information alone could be worth billions.
  • Reply 64 of 72
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    Baloney. The cable companies can't really stop it - nor do they really care. If Google offers them the box for $0.50 less with a feature that phones home, the cable companies wouldn't object. If Google offers them a $1.00 discount, they'll probably even let Google put ads on the menu screens.



    Google is better than anyone at monetizing personal information. And the value that they obtain is very high.



    ...



    3. Google-ize set top boxes. Adding Android is only one step. More importantly, it gives Google access to 7 hours a day (which I think is the average amount of TV time for American families) of personal data on your living room. That value is huge.-and no one does a better job of monetizing your personal information than Google. Of course, it creates a very scary scenario for society.



    Really? You think the Cable companies won't mind if Google makes money off bunch their customers every month for a measly one-time discount of $0.50 or $1.00. Or even $10. The Cable companies aren't that stupid.



    Same with getting Android in the settop box. The Cable companies aren't about to let anybody else make money through 'their' box [that they provided to the customer] without taking a significant cut of the money. You don't see NetFlix support in any existing cable boxes, do you?



    Nor do the cableco's want to give out a box that enables the customer to do something else besides watch the content they provide [either live or time-delayed]. I'm sure end-users would want a box that had say, an XBox or Playstation embedded in it, or a DVD/BluRay player, just to have fewer devices to deal with, but that's never going to happen.



    For a prime example of this, how long has Tivo been around and look how hard it's been for them to get into being offered [even in a limited way] by CableCo's. Do any of the devices with even a 'Tivo' interface have Tivo's netflix support? No. And they make end-users pay through the nose for them anyway.
  • Reply 65 of 72
    Quote:

    Baloney. The cable companies can't really stop it - nor do they really care. If Google offers them the box for $0.50 less with a feature that phones home, the cable companies wouldn't object. If Google offers them a $1.00 discount, they'll probably even let Google put ads on the menu screens.



    That makes zero sense. Do you know how much money ad agencies and broadcasters pay Neilsen for it's ratings info? In fact, Neilsen was taken to court over the efficacy of its data just a couple of years ago. Why on earth would cable companies allow Google to do this (if it even could) for only a buck per box discount??? As I said before, they MIGHT allow Google to do that if the information was shared between both parties. And I won't even get into the disclosure agreements that would need to be done for end users renting the boxes.
  • Reply 66 of 72
    jetzjetz Posts: 1,293member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    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.



    I respectfully disagree. Google TV does what it says. It lets you play web content. It lets you search your EPG. etc. Yes, their content deals never took off. But the core functions of the platform they were pushing was working alright. The reason it failed, however, IMHO, is that none of this is value enough for people to add another box. Worse still, the boxes were quite expensive. However, if Google manages to convince cable providers to carry the box, or if they can convince OEMs to build in Google TV, then they could add users. This is not that far-fetched. I now have friends who do look for "Samsung Apps" when buying a TV. They just don't want another box (like say Apple TV) to be able to use Youtube.



    Personally, I only find a use for Apple TV because I don't have a gaming console. Despite all this talk of Airplay, I have a sneaking suspicion that most people use Apple TV exactly the way I do: to watch Netflix and the odd iTunes movie. If your local cableco's box came with the option to use Netflix and allowed you to rent movies from Google or Amazon, how many people would turn that down? It's added functionality and it might not cost you anything.



    However, that all depends on getting it right for the cablecos. And that's the hard part for Google. I think they'd be smarter not selling their own content on Google TV and pushing to sell the cablecos PPV offerings.
  • Reply 67 of 72
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jetz View Post


    I respectfully disagree. Google TV does what it says. It lets you play web content. It lets you search your EPG. etc. Yes, their content deals never took off. But the core functions of the platform they were pushing was working alright. The reason it failed, however, IMHO, is that none of this is value enough for people to add another box. Worse still, the boxes were quite expensive. However, if Google manages to convince cable providers to carry the box, or if they can convince OEMs to build in Google TV, then they could add users. This is not that far-fetched. I now have friends who do look for "Samsung Apps" when buying a TV. They just don't want another box (like say Apple TV) to be able to use Youtube.



    Personally, I only find a use for Apple TV because I don't have a gaming console. Despite all this talk of Airplay, I have a sneaking suspicion that most people use Apple TV exactly the way I do: to watch Netflix and the odd iTunes movie. If your local cableco's box came with the option to use Netflix and allowed you to rent movies from Google or Amazon, how many people would turn that down? It's added functionality and it might not cost you anything.



    However, that all depends on getting it right for the cablecos. And that's the hard part for Google. I think they'd be smarter not selling their own content on Google TV and pushing to sell the cablecos PPV offerings.



    I don't totally disagree with this, but I do want to add that another reason I think Google TV failed was its remote/keyboard. Way too bulky for the living room. If Google had come out with a limited featured, multitouch remote to go along with it then it would have sold a little better.



    Oh, and wasn't it integrated into a few Sony TV models?
  • Reply 68 of 72
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    Baloney. The cable companies can't really stop it - nor do they really care. If Google offers them the box for $0.50 less with a feature that phones home, the cable companies wouldn't object. If Google offers them a $1.00 discount, they'll probably even let Google put ads on the menu screens.



    I don't agree. There is no way the cable companies would allow Google to put their own Ads in the box. No way at all. They might get away with tracking users preferences in shows. The cable companies do this now, and if Google gave them a fee, they might go for that, because the users wouldn't see it.



    Quote:

    Google is better than anyone at monetizing personal information. And the value that they obtain is very high.



    That is true. 97% of their sales and profits are from selling users info to advertisers, and hosting Ads. We, the users, are their products. Most people don't understand this. All of Googles' software is really designed to extract out information from those using it. In a sense, they are really automated surveys.



    Quote:

    I think you're missing a number of possible factors:



    1. Sell off all the unrelated businesses. Baby monitors, walkie-talkies, etc. Since it is not uncommon for divisions like that to be worth more separate than together (which is why many acquisitions are immediately broken up and sold in pieces), Google could realize a significant amount of money for the divisions they don't want.



    2. Sell the cell phone handset business to RIM with an agreement that RIM will use only Android and BlackberryOS, avoiding other OSs. For reasons I've discussed previously, this deal would have significant value to both RIM and Google. And since the handset division isn't making any money, there's little reason to keep it.



    3. Google-ize set top boxes. Adding Android is only one step. More importantly, it gives Google access to 7 hours a day (which I think is the average amount of TV time for American families) of personal data on your living room. That value is huge.-and no one does a better job of monetizing your personal information than Google. Of course, it creates a very scary scenario for society.



    4. While I know it's a lot to ask from Google, a little innovation could go a long way. Let's just take their home (landline) telephone business. What if you make home phones into smartphones? The cost would be minimal - just a few cheap internals and maybe a small touchscreen. But you now have access to the internet in your kitchen, bedroom, etc. Need to look up a phone number? It's available. Search for information? Boom. Quick email? Yep. Games? Sure. Instead of dumb home phones, you now have a smart phone.



    I think it's far too early to conclude that Google overpaid. IF THEY HANDLE THE ACQUISITION INTELLIGENTLY, it could turn out to be a winner. Heck, the ad revenue from set top box information alone could be worth billions.



    I mentioned selling off the businesses. I also mentioned that they wouldn't get value for them. Two reasons. The first is that we are in a down market. The divisions wouldn't bring what they might normally be worth. Two is that Google overspent so much to buy Moto, that they would have to get more than market value for those businesses, and as I've now mentioned twice, it's a down market, and they won't even get what they should be worth in normal times.



    You can't make an assumption that RIM would have the slightest interest in buying the cell division, so that idea is a dead duck. Maybe another Android manufacturer, or maybe not at all.



    Mentioned the monitoring in my last post. google would have to pay the cable companies for the privilege, as they own that information. It might be worthwhile, but how much value for Google would there be in it after paying off the cable companies?



    The last idea is interesting, but it's also something that's not likely going to happen. People are dumping their home phones for cells already, and T-mobile has no land line service at all.



    Nah. Google made a mistake. Microsoft maneuvered them into this, even though they apparently were looking at Moto for some time. Considering that most of the Android OEMs are not going to be happy about this, it could have cost them.



    And if Google thinks that they won a large amount of great patents, they seem to be wrong. Microsoft hasn't had sleepless nights about suing Moto for infringement of their own patents, which seem to be pretty strong, as they've now gotten five Android manufacturers to pay license fees, and are working on Samsung.



    I've read an article from FOSSPatents that Moto expected Apple to sue them shortly, which is why they sued first, to get a venue they felt was friendlier to them. So it hasn't prevented Apple from suing either. I'm not so sure this is proof, rather than just a fear from Moto, but it does look likely:



    http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011...not-other.html



    Google may have spent $12.5 billion for nothing.
  • Reply 69 of 72
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jetz View Post


    I respectfully disagree. Google TV does what it says. It lets you play web content. It lets you search your EPG. etc. Yes, their content deals never took off. But the core functions of the platform they were pushing was working alright. The reason it failed, however, IMHO, is that none of this is value enough for people to add another box. Worse still, the boxes were quite expensive. However, if Google manages to convince cable providers to carry the box, or if they can convince OEMs to build in Google TV, then they could add users. This is not that far-fetched. I now have friends who do look for "Samsung Apps" when buying a TV. They just don't want another box (like say Apple TV) to be able to use Youtube.



    Personally, I only find a use for Apple TV because I don't have a gaming console. Despite all this talk of Airplay, I have a sneaking suspicion that most people use Apple TV exactly the way I do: to watch Netflix and the odd iTunes movie. If your local cableco's box came with the option to use Netflix and allowed you to rent movies from Google or Amazon, how many people would turn that down? It's added functionality and it might not cost you anything.



    However, that all depends on getting it right for the cablecos. And that's the hard part for Google. I think they'd be smarter not selling their own content on Google TV and pushing to sell the cablecos PPV offerings.



    It doesn't show nearly as much content as Google led people to believe. Three networks have banned their content from Google TV, and that's enough to kill it.



    Too many "ifs". A company can't function on "ifs". They need a definite product to sell, and Google TV isn't it. If you were right, Google TV should be selling at least fairly well, rather than being such a flop that Logitec fired their CEO over it. Selling it for $99 as they are doing now is meaningless, as that's well below the cost of manufacture, and they just want to dump what they have left.



    There is no way cable companies are going to carry Google TV. That makes no sense. It's in competition with cable Tv. We've seen the fight between Cablevision, or Comcast and Viacom over the iPad app. An app that just allows people who already subscribe, to watch the content in their own house over the iPad. Given this, how would anyone ever think that cable companies could make Google Tv available? And why would they, as it would bypass the deals they've made with content providers (as well as their own content) with free content from the Internet? Not going to happen!



    Both ATv and Google TV are deal breakers. Both will destroy cable Tv if they caught on. The cable operators know this. And both devices are being sold this way. If you rent a movie or Tv show on iTunes, you are bypassing Cable. Same thing with Netflix and Hulu. google Tv does the same thing in their own way. But Apple is smarter than Google. google tries to get everyone's IP for free, by just taking it. apple may take longer to come out with a product, but they work the deals out.
  • Reply 70 of 72
    shawnbshawnb Posts: 155member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    It doesn't show nearly as much content as Google led people to believe. Three networks have banned their content from Google TV, and that's enough to kill it.



    I agree. But if GoogleTV doesn't have much content, than how can you later argue that cable companies will never integrate with GoogleTV because of competing content?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    There is no way cable companies are going to carry Google TV. That makes no sense. It's in competition with cable Tv.



    Dish Network already sells GoogleTV with a DVR that integrates with it. Obviously Dish found some deal that made sense, even though it involved paying Logitech for a clunky additional piece of hardware. The reviews are generally positive, and complete integration would only make the experience better.



    I don't see it as AppleTV vs GoogleTV, but evolving into each platform vs the incumbents in two separate battles: AppleTV creating a new paid distribution channel to compete directly against cable companies, while GoogleTV partnering with current distribution channels against the traditional advertising world. If that turns out to be the case, this may be a smart move by Google.



    In the big picture, Google doesn't care about content, Google cares about selling ads. The most effective ads, targeted at individuals, with measurable click-through return metrics. They see television advertising, with its expensive, one-way shotgun approach with fuzzy return metrics, as a huge opportunity.



    Google needs content to sell ads. Cable/Sat has content and needs ads for additional revenues. How is that not a fit? Google has made a fortune selling better, more profitable ads. Cable co's could make up for gradual subscriber losses by adding more effective (higher paying) ads while gaining a DVR/on-demand STB that isn't cutting-edge 1990's technology. Do you think traditional TV advertisers will continue forever to pay top-dollar for ads that are largely being DVR'ed and fast-forwarded through? From the cable co's perspective, is having Google take a cut any worse than having Neilson take a cut for guestimating ratings and valuing the effectiveness of ads?



    The only way AppleTV and GoogleTV will "destroy" cable companies is if they can offer ALL of the same content at a cheaper price, and do it in a way that is completely separate from current providers. They don't. AppleTV is trying (not cheaper, but by adding value through multiple/mobile devices) but doesn't quite have enough content to sway most people to cut their pay-TV. Nor does it have enough free content to be a compelling add-on to most people with paid service.



    As for the notion of free online TV, many networks are moving towards putting less TV content online for free (and/or delaying it until it is less relevant). I'd be surprised if most "free" online TV content doesn't disappear within the next few years once networks realize that mindlessly shotgunning traditional ads into online clips yields them very little profits.
  • Reply 71 of 72
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by shawnb View Post


    I agree. But if GoogleTV doesn't have much content, than how can you later argue that cable companies will never integrate with GoogleTV because of competing content?



    Because it's the concept of what they're doing. And even a little content that's competing is too much. It also allows that concept in the door.



    Quote:

    Dish Network already sells GoogleTV with a DVR that integrates with it. Obviously Dish found some deal that made sense, even though it involved paying Logitech for a clunky additional piece of hardware. The reviews are generally positive, and complete integration would only make the experience better.



    Dish is like Sprint or T-Mobile. Always behind, always needing to offer more to get less.



    Quote:

    I don't see it as AppleTV vs GoogleTV, but evolving into each platform vs the incumbents in two separate battles: AppleTV creating a new paid distribution channel to compete directly against cable companies, while GoogleTV partnering with current distribution channels against the traditional advertising world. If that turns out to be the case, this may be a smart move by Google.



    I could agree if it were true. But while Apple is partnering with content companies, Google is playing the games it always does, and is simply taking other companies content. That's one major reason why it isn't working. Google doesn't want to pay anyone anything for anything. We see this all the time with them. That's why they're being sued by others, and their partners are being sued by others.



    Quote:

    In the big picture, Google doesn't care about content, Google cares about selling ads. The most effective ads, targeted at individuals, with measurable click-through return metrics. They see television advertising, with its expensive, one-way shotgun approach with fuzzy return metrics, as a huge opportunity.



    Exactly! And this is why the cable companies aren't interested in letting them in. This is what they do to a certain extent now, and intend to do in the future. They wont give that info to Google. They would make them pay for it, and Google doesn't like paying for anything.



    Quote:

    Google needs content to sell ads. Cable/Sat has content and needs ads for additional revenues. How is that not a fit? Google has made a fortune selling better, more profitable ads. Cable co's could make up for gradual subscriber losses by adding more effective (higher paying) ads while gaining a DVR/on-demand STB that isn't cutting-edge 1990's technology. Do you think traditional TV advertisers will continue forever to pay top-dollar for ads that are largely being DVR'ed and fast-forwarded through? From the cable co's perspective, is having Google take a cut any worse than having Neilson take a cut for guestimating ratings and valuing the effectiveness of ads?



    Cable already has Ads. Too many Ads. Almost 20 minutes out of every hour of programming now has Ads. You want to put more in? And a lot of what you are saying is something you are just saying without any evidence that it would work. It's just words.

    Quote:

    The only way AppleTV and GoogleTV will "destroy" cable companies is if they can offer ALL of the same content at a cheaper price, and do it in a way that is completely separate from current providers. They don't. AppleTV is trying (not cheaper, but by adding value through multiple/mobile devices) but doesn't quite have enough content to sway most people to cut their pay-TV. Nor does it have enough free content to be a compelling add-on to most people with paid service.



    As for the notion of free online TV, many networks are moving towards putting less TV content online for free (and/or delaying it until it is less relevant). I'd be surprised if most "free" online TV content doesn't disappear within the next few years once networks realize that mindlessly shotgunning traditional ads into online clips yields them very little profits.



    How can Google offer it more cheaply? They are trying to steal content and offer it now. It's not a proper business method. If they pay license fees, then they will have to charge whatever everyone else is charging. Their entire concept is based on getting all the content for free, and the Ad dollars going to them, and them alone. It will never work.
  • Reply 72 of 72
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,209member
    An investor report from William Blair indicates that Google is inking exclusive deals with some Hollywood studios, upwards of $200M worth, perhaps anticipating a premium Video-on-Demand service.





    http://www.homemediamagazine.com/you...l-window-25034

    http://9to5google.com/2011/09/13/goo...entertainment/
Sign In or Register to comment.