On a somewhat related note Android 4.3, also officially unveiled yesterday, offers new support for 4K TV's. :???: Maybe something under the radar going on.
I purchased one of these yesterday, the youtube/netflix apps on IOS work fine with it. The mirroring feature on my old pc with chrome is not very satisfying, alot of stutter on video and audio was out of sync. I have the same issue with air parrot on my pc trying to stream content from hulu.com to my apple tv2, the pc hardware is just to old to do it properly and I have ethernet running from the pc to the apple tv. I am sure a newer pc/mac this would work alot better. I bought this thing mainly due to the low price minus the netflix discount so $11 for what it does I am good with it. It is definitly a apple tv killer just a cheap way for now to get netflix/youtube on any hdmi tv.
You made some pretty big assumptions that just because people don't like a product it's because they are unhappy with a different brand. That's not true, but I digress.
I do wish Apple TV would work with other devices. That's a big reason I won't get one. I've been in the Apple ecosystem. I bought a Macbook Pro, used it for three months then gave it away. I do enjoy my iPod, though. I'm not brand loyal. I choose the best product regardless of brand.
That being said, Apple TV does have my attention and it's a serious product. But iPhones and iPads aren't the best in my opinion so I can't get an Apple TV. Which is unfortunate because I was actually excited about that device.
Personally, I wouldn't have an Google/Android anything, MS/Windows product anywhere in my home, car, office, or pocket. They are just sub-par copies with a few "fartsy" differences. And, overall, the build quality of the HW and SW sucks.
P.S. I also don't have any Samsung products in my home, either. Just as a matter of principle.
Its hilarious how many people are looking for Apple to fail, or searching for that cheaper Apple-like alternative.
...
If loving Apple products makes me a fanboy, so be it. Its better than being a hateboy and living my life putting other peoples products down.
This is a pretty ironic post. This thread was started by an Apple 'fanboy' (using your turn) and bashing a Google product. Yet somehow you are claiming that the people bashing Apple (presumably Apple TV) need to go away. My question is where are they in the first place? Where on this thread is there a Google fanboy bashing Apple TV and claiming Googles dongle is better? 90% of the 'Android fans bashing Apple' posts on this site aren't from Android fans at all. They are from Apple fans saying 'Why do all the Android fans come here posting this blah blah' and everyone decides to collectively believe that is true. You can occasionally find one or two, but you really have to hunt for them.
I think Apple TV is a terrific product, especially if you are bought in to the Apple ecosystem. If you choose to use an iPhone, Mac, etc etc then it is a no brainer. Where Apple to me fails to be appealing is if you use multiple platforms. Apple works great with Apple, most other 'inferior' systems- not so much. I've owned both Apple and Android phones and currently find Android superior for my needs based mostly on screen size and widgets. There are plenty of other things about Apple iPhones that are superior to Android, but those two- for me- outweigh them. Because I don't use an iPhone or Mac, Apple TV isn't appealing to me even though I think its a great product.
I think the funniest thing is that Chromecast is its own product that does its own thing and everyone is trying to make it into something else. Its a $35 dongle that lets you stream stuff you start on your phone directly through your TV, and it doesn't use your phones resources to do it. Super! I'll buy one just so on a business trip to Asia or Europe I can plug it in and watch English shows off the web instead of the two english speaking news channels you often get. It is not going to replace Apple TV any time soon, nor is it even going to replace or supercede Google TV. It is its own little product that does what it does. If you want to compare it to a DVD/Blu Ray player or roku thats fine but I wouldn't buy those for the same portability.
You made some pretty big assumptions that just because people don't like a product it's because they are unhappy with a different brand. That's not true, but I digress.
I do wish Apple TV would work with other devices. That's a big reason I won't get one. I've been in the Apple ecosystem. I bought a Macbook Pro, used it for three months then gave it away. I do enjoy my iPod, though. I'm not brand loyal. I choose the best product regardless of brand.
That being said, Apple TV does have my attention and it's a serious product. But iPhones and iPads aren't the best in my opinion so I can't get an Apple TV. Which is unfortunate because I was actually excited about that device.
$35. And goes into my HDMI slot. Can't be beat. And you can use any device. Reports out say that you can just drag any content locally onto your Chrome browser on any OS (Windows or Mac) and it'll display/play on the TV.
For $35, that's a great deal. Cheaper than buying another Apple TV.
There is a lot of misinformation about this Google product all over the net. It's because people know about Apple Airplay and assume this Google thing is the same but cheaper. There is only streaming content from the web, but I wonder if what happened to Google TV might happen to Chromecast; the content providers shut it down. I buy AppleTV because of the mirroring, and ability to stream content on my disk, and the content Apple provides. Google could provide such hardware, but they won't because they are a cloud company. And they want people to gush over how cheap they can provide their hardware compared to the competition (Apple); the same with the Nexus 7 and what Amazon does with their Kindle Fire.
Wrong. Lots of early testers are now reporting you can send local content from your PC/Mac to the device simply by dragging it onto a Chrome browser window.
Fully functional as Apple TV? Probably not.
But to fling some content around and watch Netflix and control it from my iPad or Android phone? Totally worthwhile at $35.
More like Google giving free treats in exchange for Google using people and their informations and works to make money. I find it funny when people credit Google for their free services and advocating open source as if Google is giving the world a favor when in fact Google is just thinking of getting more money as much as Apple does. The difference is, Apple is getting money from your pocket while Google uses you and your information through their services to earn money.
Edit: typo
I enjoy the Apple producsts I have for different reasons (build quality, ease of use, support, etc.). But I find it utterly absurd to harbour such disdain for Google, simply because they employ a different business model that actually enables mass market adoption of technologies. If the mass market used the Apple model, it's likely that the number of people that use computers and smartphones would be half (or less) of what it is today. At the end of the day, companies like Microsoft (during the PC wars) and Google today have done the masses a service by lowering the barriers to entry into the personal tech game.
Lots of people here will laugh about $100 Androids. If I was poor and lived in a developing country, I wouldn't be laughing much. I'd be far more grateful for Google making that $100 Android phone possible than some $600 iPhone that I may never be able to afford in my lifetime. The more I read tech forums, the more I realize, how much most of the complaints are simply first-world problems. And now that there's a billion smartphones out there, it gets interesting, because the growth market isn't the first world any more....
I think the funniest thing is that Chromecast is its own product that does its own thing and everyone is trying to make it into something else. Its a $35 dongle that lets you stream stuff you start on your phone directly through your TV, and it doesn't use your phones resources to do it. Super! I'll buy one just so on a business trip to Asia or Europe I can plug it in and watch English shows off the web instead of the two english speaking news channels you often get. It is not going to replace Apple TV any time soon, nor is it even going to replace or supercede Google TV. It is its own little product that does what it does. If you want to compare it to a DVD/Blu Ray player or roku thats fine but I wouldn't buy those for the same portability.
Excellent point. Actually, the first thing I was struck by was the size/portability. It's what I want. Any hotel room, anywhere. I'd never consider packing an Apple TV for the road. But this thing? Could become part of the standard luggage kit at $35.
It'll be interesting to see what Google will do with this. And whether they develop the platform....or quit it like Nexus Q. There's potential to be sure. Add a BT keyboard and mouse, and you basically have a Chrombox running on your TV. You could use Google Docs and Drive to now do business presentations. Add a camera on the TV and you can do Hangouts with the whole family. Enable touch/gesture controls and sync on iPhones and Android phones and you now have a Wii competitor. There is potential here. It'll be interesting to see if Google can capitalize on this.
Why waste $35 on the Chromecast when you can get the Roku LT for only $15 more?
The Roku LT does much much more than Chromecast.
You don't need additional hardware to use the Roku. You don't need to have a smartphone to use the Roku. You don't need to whip out your smartphone every time you want to watch TV on the Roku.
After a while, having to find and whip out your smart phone just to watch TV will become a pain on Chromecast.
This would certainly be an easy to way watch Hulu content on your TV without paying the monthly fee. Also the network sites like ABC, NBC, etc..that stream full episodes. I use a PS3 for Netflix and also Plex to stream content from my Mac but for streaming website content directly I simply connected my Mac directly to my TV with an HDMI cable. So for me at least this seems like a very cheap and easy way to remove a little cable clutter and not need to have my Mac running if I want to watch online content. I can see it appealing to a lot of other console owner who want that final missing piece of direct web content for just $35. With a PS3 I really don't need an Apple TV since it duplicates the functionality and I wouldn't use Airplay. I can see this selling very well but acknowledge it is a far inferior product to the Apple TV but I think it does fill an important niche for web content and I can even see people with an Apple TV also buying this to use along with the ATV.
This is just as ridiculous as the nexus q! ..only masked by the cheap price (relative to the q, that is). But it's ok, it doesn't mean that google makes crappy products; they're "experimenters," which means they can put out poorly thought out and poorly implemented products, one after another, because they are 'learning experiences.' But after so many failed experiments, it appears that googlers are pretty slow learners.
I just bought an Apple TV a couple of weeks ago, and this chromestick is nothing like an Apple TV. The Apple TV is super smooth and has an elegant interface. I was watching some Netflix content on it, and it was very high quality.
So, this POS chromestick stutters and has choppy playback and out of sync audio?
I guess that it will appeal to Fandroids and other cheapskates who do not have very high standards.
To their credit -- Chromestick would be pretty neat and advanced if you are stuck with Windows (by choice or not) as nothing like AirPlay exists for Windows / 'droid.
Then again, these are likely the same people that have dismissed the tech when it was first introduced. (likely dismiss Apple out of hand / dismissed iPod / iPhone / iPad, etc..) And now they want us to give Google an "atta boy" ? To admit someone has out done Apple?
I saw a demo of there streaming and the video didn't play at all especially at full screen. Something which you can do easily with Airplay and the Apple TV. Also Chromecast requires a very high speed internet connection and the latest top of the line hardware to get anything close to Airplay streaming especially if you want full screen which I think most people would want. Why display it on your big screen TV if you can only use a small square of the display? Not for me thanks. Wouldn't waste my money on this especially for another $55 you could have an Apple TV which can display full screen with ease and you don't need the high end stuff to do it with. Plus content is added via software updates so what you have now could be a lot more later with a few updates. IOS7 is coming and I think Apple TV will get even better features with that.
Apple has been very innovative with their products and interoperability. Apple has a history of having a good consumer product and then enhancing it with developer support. It makes it a very compelling. However, Apple does not play well with others requiring all Apple products and software for seamless features and functionality. This is a great business strategy for controlling profits and end-user experiences, but leaves out consumer choice.
Google tends to distribute through various Google Partners beta products that are not good consumer products to begin with. They rely heavily on developer support to make it a full consumer product with regular bug fix updates. Google embraces openness to allow consumer choice.
This article misses the point of Google's new Chromecast dongle. It is not meant to compete with the Apple TV device. It is more made to compete with the widely popular Roku, but not at its present state. It will, like other Google products, rely completely on developers to make it a success or fail. It works on the principle of apps adding casting abilities which turns your tablet/phone into a remote for internet content which is a far more effective way than using a traditional remote control. You use the touchscreen to browse content and then send what you are selecting to the Chromecast dongle. Plex will come on-board as they already allow that ability from their web/app which will take care of local network content.
Google priced this to sell as many as they can. This will drive developer support. If more apps like Hulu+, Amazon Prime, Plex, Pandora, and HBO-Go, add support, then this will be a success. It then will help drive sales for the GoogleTV boxes and devices as Google has already announced Chromecast coming to those devices.
It is the new generation GoogleTV devices with the new updates coming this summer which puts it on the same OS as the phone/tablets that will compete with the Apple TV. The GoogleTV devices already offer DNLA support and will support Miracast with this summer's OS update. Also with the new update, will open up app support which will just require a few lines of code to make an existing app compatible with GoogleTV devices. Add in the Chromecast ability, allowing any device running a Chrome browser (Apple, Microsoft, Android) to interact with it, and you have a very innovative device with consumer choice on both the interaction side and the display side.
I enjoy the Apple producsts I have for different reasons (build quality, ease of use, support, etc.). But I find it utterly absurd to harbour such disdain for Google, simply because they employ a different business model that actually enables mass market adoption of technologies. If the mass market used the Apple model, it's likely that the number of people that use computers and smartphones would be half (or less) of what it is today. At the end of the day, companies like Microsoft (during the PC wars) and Google today have done the masses a service by lowering the barriers to entry into the personal tech game.
Lots of people here will laugh about $100 Androids. If I was poor and lived in a developing country, I wouldn't be laughing much. I'd be far more grateful for Google making that $100 Android phone possible than some $600 iPhone that I may never be able to afford in my lifetime. The more I read tech forums, the more I realize, how much most of the complaints are simply first-world problems. And now that there's a billion smartphones out there, it gets interesting, because the growth market isn't the first world any more....
Hey, Google have every right to exist. I am not a Google fan. I hate their business model and I avoid using Google services wherever I can. That's my choice. If you are fine with selling your personal info for free services, that's your right. I wouldn't even try to talk you out of it. Whatever blows your hair back man. I simply think it's important that people understand that these free or nearly free services aren't free at all. In fact there is a price.
The big question is how does Google plan to stream advertising to you on one of these things, They can not continue to give away hardware and not have some sort of revenue stream to make up the loss. Maybe this is hobby like Apple TV was for many years, But I do not believe Apple ever gave away hardware and hopes to make up the loss somewhere else.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3Eleven
It does in my opinion. But if you have a newer TV with HDMI 1.4 it powers this thing just fine apparently.
Many websites say that. But is it in Google's spec?
Quote:
Originally Posted by OllieWallieWhiskers
doesn't a power cord defeat the purpose of a dongle?
It makes it less appealing. But the "purpose" of a dongle is not to be cordless. It is typically a feature, an advantage but not the the "purpose".
I bought this thing mainly due to the low price minus the netflix discount so $11 for what it does I am good with it.
It is definitly a apple tv killer just a cheap way for now to get netflix/youtube on any hdmi tv.
You made some pretty big assumptions that just because people don't like a product it's because they are unhappy with a different brand. That's not true, but I digress.
I do wish Apple TV would work with other devices. That's a big reason I won't get one. I've been in the Apple ecosystem. I bought a Macbook Pro, used it for three months then gave it away. I do enjoy my iPod, though. I'm not brand loyal. I choose the best product regardless of brand.
That being said, Apple TV does have my attention and it's a serious product. But iPhones and iPads aren't the best in my opinion so I can't get an Apple TV. Which is unfortunate because I was actually excited about that device.
Personally, I wouldn't have an Google/Android anything, MS/Windows product anywhere in my home, car, office, or pocket. They are just sub-par copies with a few "fartsy" differences. And, overall, the build quality of the HW and SW sucks.
P.S. I also don't have any Samsung products in my home, either. Just as a matter of principle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnL
Its hilarious how many people are looking for Apple to fail, or searching for that cheaper Apple-like alternative.
...
If loving Apple products makes me a fanboy, so be it. Its better than being a hateboy and living my life putting other peoples products down.
This is a pretty ironic post. This thread was started by an Apple 'fanboy' (using your turn) and bashing a Google product. Yet somehow you are claiming that the people bashing Apple (presumably Apple TV) need to go away. My question is where are they in the first place? Where on this thread is there a Google fanboy bashing Apple TV and claiming Googles dongle is better? 90% of the 'Android fans bashing Apple' posts on this site aren't from Android fans at all. They are from Apple fans saying 'Why do all the Android fans come here posting this blah blah' and everyone decides to collectively believe that is true. You can occasionally find one or two, but you really have to hunt for them.
I think Apple TV is a terrific product, especially if you are bought in to the Apple ecosystem. If you choose to use an iPhone, Mac, etc etc then it is a no brainer. Where Apple to me fails to be appealing is if you use multiple platforms. Apple works great with Apple, most other 'inferior' systems- not so much. I've owned both Apple and Android phones and currently find Android superior for my needs based mostly on screen size and widgets. There are plenty of other things about Apple iPhones that are superior to Android, but those two- for me- outweigh them. Because I don't use an iPhone or Mac, Apple TV isn't appealing to me even though I think its a great product.
I think the funniest thing is that Chromecast is its own product that does its own thing and everyone is trying to make it into something else. Its a $35 dongle that lets you stream stuff you start on your phone directly through your TV, and it doesn't use your phones resources to do it. Super! I'll buy one just so on a business trip to Asia or Europe I can plug it in and watch English shows off the web instead of the two english speaking news channels you often get. It is not going to replace Apple TV any time soon, nor is it even going to replace or supercede Google TV. It is its own little product that does what it does. If you want to compare it to a DVD/Blu Ray player or roku thats fine but I wouldn't buy those for the same portability.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GloriousUnseen
You made some pretty big assumptions that just because people don't like a product it's because they are unhappy with a different brand. That's not true, but I digress.
I do wish Apple TV would work with other devices. That's a big reason I won't get one. I've been in the Apple ecosystem. I bought a Macbook Pro, used it for three months then gave it away. I do enjoy my iPod, though. I'm not brand loyal. I choose the best product regardless of brand.
That being said, Apple TV does have my attention and it's a serious product. But iPhones and iPads aren't the best in my opinion so I can't get an Apple TV. Which is unfortunate because I was actually excited about that device.
You lost me at, "I gave my MBP away..."
$35. And goes into my HDMI slot. Can't be beat. And you can use any device. Reports out say that you can just drag any content locally onto your Chrome browser on any OS (Windows or Mac) and it'll display/play on the TV.
For $35, that's a great deal. Cheaper than buying another Apple TV.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John F.
There is a lot of misinformation about this Google product all over the net. It's because people know about Apple Airplay and assume this Google thing is the same but cheaper. There is only streaming content from the web, but I wonder if what happened to Google TV might happen to Chromecast; the content providers shut it down. I buy AppleTV because of the mirroring, and ability to stream content on my disk, and the content Apple provides. Google could provide such hardware, but they won't because they are a cloud company. And they want people to gush over how cheap they can provide their hardware compared to the competition (Apple); the same with the Nexus 7 and what Amazon does with their Kindle Fire.
Wrong. Lots of early testers are now reporting you can send local content from your PC/Mac to the device simply by dragging it onto a Chrome browser window.
Fully functional as Apple TV? Probably not.
But to fling some content around and watch Netflix and control it from my iPad or Android phone? Totally worthwhile at $35.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daredevil
More like Google giving free treats in exchange for Google using people and their informations and works to make money. I find it funny when people credit Google for their free services and advocating open source as if Google is giving the world a favor when in fact Google is just thinking of getting more money as much as Apple does. The difference is, Apple is getting money from your pocket while Google uses you and your information through their services to earn money.
Edit: typo
I enjoy the Apple producsts I have for different reasons (build quality, ease of use, support, etc.). But I find it utterly absurd to harbour such disdain for Google, simply because they employ a different business model that actually enables mass market adoption of technologies. If the mass market used the Apple model, it's likely that the number of people that use computers and smartphones would be half (or less) of what it is today. At the end of the day, companies like Microsoft (during the PC wars) and Google today have done the masses a service by lowering the barriers to entry into the personal tech game.
Lots of people here will laugh about $100 Androids. If I was poor and lived in a developing country, I wouldn't be laughing much. I'd be far more grateful for Google making that $100 Android phone possible than some $600 iPhone that I may never be able to afford in my lifetime. The more I read tech forums, the more I realize, how much most of the complaints are simply first-world problems. And now that there's a billion smartphones out there, it gets interesting, because the growth market isn't the first world any more....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood
I think the funniest thing is that Chromecast is its own product that does its own thing and everyone is trying to make it into something else. Its a $35 dongle that lets you stream stuff you start on your phone directly through your TV, and it doesn't use your phones resources to do it. Super! I'll buy one just so on a business trip to Asia or Europe I can plug it in and watch English shows off the web instead of the two english speaking news channels you often get. It is not going to replace Apple TV any time soon, nor is it even going to replace or supercede Google TV. It is its own little product that does what it does. If you want to compare it to a DVD/Blu Ray player or roku thats fine but I wouldn't buy those for the same portability.
Excellent point. Actually, the first thing I was struck by was the size/portability. It's what I want. Any hotel room, anywhere. I'd never consider packing an Apple TV for the road. But this thing? Could become part of the standard luggage kit at $35.
It'll be interesting to see what Google will do with this. And whether they develop the platform....or quit it like Nexus Q. There's potential to be sure. Add a BT keyboard and mouse, and you basically have a Chrombox running on your TV. You could use Google Docs and Drive to now do business presentations. Add a camera on the TV and you can do Hangouts with the whole family. Enable touch/gesture controls and sync on iPhones and Android phones and you now have a Wii competitor. There is potential here. It'll be interesting to see if Google can capitalize on this.
And where/when has Apple "whined" about the competition?
The Roku LT does much much more than Chromecast.
You don't need additional hardware to use the Roku. You don't need to have a smartphone to use the Roku. You don't need to whip out your smartphone every time you want to watch TV on the Roku.
After a while, having to find and whip out your smart phone just to watch TV will become a pain on Chromecast.
This would certainly be an easy to way watch Hulu content on your TV without paying the monthly fee. Also the network sites like ABC, NBC, etc..that stream full episodes. I use a PS3 for Netflix and also Plex to stream content from my Mac but for streaming website content directly I simply connected my Mac directly to my TV with an HDMI cable. So for me at least this seems like a very cheap and easy way to remove a little cable clutter and not need to have my Mac running if I want to watch online content. I can see it appealing to a lot of other console owner who want that final missing piece of direct web content for just $35. With a PS3 I really don't need an Apple TV since it duplicates the functionality and I wouldn't use Airplay. I can see this selling very well but acknowledge it is a far inferior product to the Apple TV but I think it does fill an important niche for web content and I can even see people with an Apple TV also buying this to use along with the ATV.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
I just bought an Apple TV a couple of weeks ago, and this chromestick is nothing like an Apple TV. The Apple TV is super smooth and has an elegant interface. I was watching some Netflix content on it, and it was very high quality.
So, this POS chromestick stutters and has choppy playback and out of sync audio?
I guess that it will appeal to Fandroids and other cheapskates who do not have very high standards.
To their credit -- Chromestick would be pretty neat and advanced if you are stuck with Windows (by choice or not) as nothing like AirPlay exists for Windows / 'droid.
Then again, these are likely the same people that have dismissed the tech when it was first introduced. (likely dismiss Apple out of hand / dismissed iPod / iPhone / iPad, etc..) And now they want us to give Google an "atta boy" ? To admit someone has out done Apple?
Also Chromecast requires a very high speed internet connection and the latest top of the line hardware to get anything close to Airplay streaming especially if you want full screen which I think most people would want. Why display it on your big screen TV if you can only use a small square of the display?
Not for me thanks.
Wouldn't waste my money on this especially for another $55 you could have an Apple TV which can display full screen with ease and you don't need the high end stuff to do it with.
Plus content is added via software updates so what you have now could be a lot more later with a few updates. IOS7 is coming and I think Apple TV will get even better features with that.
Apple has been very innovative with their products and interoperability. Apple has a history of having a good consumer product and then enhancing it with developer support. It makes it a very compelling. However, Apple does not play well with others requiring all Apple products and software for seamless features and functionality. This is a great business strategy for controlling profits and end-user experiences, but leaves out consumer choice.
Google tends to distribute through various Google Partners beta products that are not good consumer products to begin with. They rely heavily on developer support to make it a full consumer product with regular bug fix updates. Google embraces openness to allow consumer choice.
This article misses the point of Google's new Chromecast dongle. It is not meant to compete with the Apple TV device. It is more made to compete with the widely popular Roku, but not at its present state. It will, like other Google products, rely completely on developers to make it a success or fail. It works on the principle of apps adding casting abilities which turns your tablet/phone into a remote for internet content which is a far more effective way than using a traditional remote control. You use the touchscreen to browse content and then send what you are selecting to the Chromecast dongle. Plex will come on-board as they already allow that ability from their web/app which will take care of local network content.
Google priced this to sell as many as they can. This will drive developer support. If more apps like Hulu+, Amazon Prime, Plex, Pandora, and HBO-Go, add support, then this will be a success. It then will help drive sales for the GoogleTV boxes and devices as Google has already announced Chromecast coming to those devices.
It is the new generation GoogleTV devices with the new updates coming this summer which puts it on the same OS as the phone/tablets that will compete with the Apple TV. The GoogleTV devices already offer DNLA support and will support Miracast with this summer's OS update. Also with the new update, will open up app support which will just require a few lines of code to make an existing app compatible with GoogleTV devices. Add in the Chromecast ability, allowing any device running a Chrome browser (Apple, Microsoft, Android) to interact with it, and you have a very innovative device with consumer choice on both the interaction side and the display side.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetz
I enjoy the Apple producsts I have for different reasons (build quality, ease of use, support, etc.). But I find it utterly absurd to harbour such disdain for Google, simply because they employ a different business model that actually enables mass market adoption of technologies. If the mass market used the Apple model, it's likely that the number of people that use computers and smartphones would be half (or less) of what it is today. At the end of the day, companies like Microsoft (during the PC wars) and Google today have done the masses a service by lowering the barriers to entry into the personal tech game.
Lots of people here will laugh about $100 Androids. If I was poor and lived in a developing country, I wouldn't be laughing much. I'd be far more grateful for Google making that $100 Android phone possible than some $600 iPhone that I may never be able to afford in my lifetime. The more I read tech forums, the more I realize, how much most of the complaints are simply first-world problems. And now that there's a billion smartphones out there, it gets interesting, because the growth market isn't the first world any more....
Hey, Google have every right to exist. I am not a Google fan. I hate their business model and I avoid using Google services wherever I can. That's my choice. If you are fine with selling your personal info for free services, that's your right. I wouldn't even try to talk you out of it. Whatever blows your hair back man. I simply think it's important that people understand that these free or nearly free services aren't free at all. In fact there is a price.
The big question is how does Google plan to stream advertising to you on one of these things, They can not continue to give away hardware and not have some sort of revenue stream to make up the loss. Maybe this is hobby like Apple TV was for many years, But I do not believe Apple ever gave away hardware and hopes to make up the loss somewhere else.