1) I called this a year ago but I thought it would be Chrome OS, not Android.
2) These will likely all be very shitty implementations for a long time to come. Just look at current internet-ready TVs. However, it's even more imperative that Apple get a viable media extender appliance to market.
Google Video failed too. I liked it for uploads but they shut it down in favor of YouTube. As a place to buy video it was ugly.
Apple TV connects to the largest online TV/Music/Movie media store in the world and where users can buy content direct. Your Apple TV can replace your cable subscription.
Google TV, if I understand correctly, connects to the internet and to a cable box, and does not sell any content to users. You can consume A) free web content or content from your cable subscription. This does not, in any way, replace your cable subscription.
They compete in name only.
Google's critique actually seems to be against the user interface of DVR/Cable set-top-boxes. To solve that, they would need Motorola and other set-top box hardware/software manufacturers to adopt this TV-flavored Android. Then, of course, Comcast etc. would have to adopt those boxes.
In short, I can be flooded with advertisements from Google or from my cable provider.
For all of you who think Google TV competes with ATV, here's a couple things to consider.
ATV streams music, video and puchased items directly to your TV from you computer, It's not a stand alone system, just an accessory. It has Itunes Store built in and that's about it. It has no interface with your TV programming.
GTV is basically the Android Phone OS scaled to a TV, with a UI Twist + a dash of traditional TV interface as well. It has the capability of integrating your existing TV programming to enhance your living room entertainment.
When you look at what each actually does, you'll see how different these two ideas are. So can we all take a break from the name calling and accusations of stealing ideas please?
now for my other thoughts...
Google TV
I think what Google has come up with is very interesting. We've already seen what Android has done for the Phone industry, which is practically save the smartphone business from being totally monopolized by Apple. This is not a critique but an observation. I'm an iPhone User and loving it BTW...
Anyway, i think GTV will be very successful if they start opening it up to more manufacturers and hold to the standards they propose to the OS. My only fear is that it will be dominated by Crap Apps and will make the end user suffer by Google's "open-ness". There is something to be appreciated with Apple's closed system for apps.
Many bloggers here are right by saying it should go further and become a DVR/Cable box replacement rather than an accessory integraged OS.
Apple TV
As stated above, i don't think this compares at all (in strategy) with GTV. ATV is about 50% of what it should be (buy most people's ideas). If they just took the iPad OS (which it basically the iPhone/Touch OS) and combined that with the current ATV OS, you'd really have a product that is so compelling that it would explode the Market (which is basically dominated by Cable/SATV companies and TiVo). That (IMO) would put the ATV at about 90% there.
I think the major problem Apple has by doing this, is the fact that putting a web browser in the ATV would essential negate the necessity of the iTunes Store completely. Why purchase content on iTunes when you have a web browser that can go to ABC.com and watch LOST free Streaming?
So, in a way if Apple did this they would be shooting themselves in the foot. Therefore, What Google is doing now is what Apple (IMO) cannot do now, which is open the Apple TV to the web, because they would be taking money out of thier own pockets. But now, with GTV coming out, they almost are forced to do this to keep the ATV as a viable alternate accessory device for Living Room entertainment.
Now, with the advent of the iPad, this may open the door to updates for ATV. Apple seems to take it's time developing products. And when they release them, there is a huge compelling reason for consumers to purchase one. As a side note, i think the iPad might have come too soon, because it's not quite what it should be (IMO). Even though sales are going well, people will realized that they are not quite as conviented as an alternative to the netbook as everyone states. They work very well as an alternative to the Nook or Kindle, but the average Kindle/Nook User still prefurs the light weight, long battery and most importantly the eInk Screen of those devices. But that's a different blog. Back to the topic, if you look at the history of the mobile OS Apple has produced over the years, you'll see that it grew quite gradually. And i think the ATV will be then next big thing, but not for a couple more years. I think SJ's swansong before final retirement will the Apple TV in a phoenix-like resurection the next time you see it on the main page of the Apple Store website.
Pfttt. There are a few tens of millions of ATV owners, vs. something like 100 million iPhone/iTouch owners. Disproof by example.
A nice thought, but I doubt the overlap or convenience would be high enough. Apple will need an Android controller app, as well, to reach as broad a market this way.
Is this how Apple sells it? "Oh, and by the way, the web browser in our ATV actually becomes useful--better than the GTV!--if you already own an iPhone/touch or double the price to get one." "When you're on a phone call and want to change channels, just put the caller on hold, open the ATV app and search for your content; then go back to your call. It's that simple!"
Actually the iphone does a great job solving keyboard needs ... apple sells a remote app that connects nicely with appleTV.
Nothing could be further from the truth - the Remote app is practically useless. All it does is start or stop media that you already have. You cannot, or I'm too stupid to figure it out, search in YouTube for instance. Of particular annoyance is the inability to find movies in the iTunes Store.
Nothing could be further from the truth - the Remote app is practically useless. All it does is start or stop media that you already have. You cannot, or I'm too stupid to figure it out, search in YouTube for instance. Of particular annoyance is the inability to find movies in the iTunes Store.
Maury
I use it to search for utube all the time. works great. comes with the iphone keyboard and you just type it right in. When you navigate to youtube click on the search field on top of the remote. It opens up the apple keyboard.
Nothing could be further from the truth - the Remote app is practically useless. All it does is start or stop media that you already have. You cannot, or I'm too stupid to figure it out, search in YouTube for instance. Of particular annoyance is the inability to find movies in the iTunes Store.
Maury
I also use the app to type in my password for itunes purchasing and finding apple movies. Give it another chance it's a good clean application.
The issue really isn't that simple. Hulu will eventually block this because they want users to watch it live for ratings. Watching a couple of clips is cool but there really isn't a solution here. Most will use YouTube which is already available on the AppleTV. The ultimate goal has been to move TV to the web where it should be. Windows Media Center still is another alternative that ha been around for awhile now (with more features).
The only box that I'd purchase is the Roku player for watching Netflix. The AppleTV is still not there nor is the product from Google. I can just hook up my MBP, use Boxee and get the same kind of experience (with the Apple Remote).
Why would Hulu block it? The viewing experience is the same as in your web browser on your desktop or laptop. Google TV has Chrome seamlessly integrated, allowing you to access all the sites you would on your computer.
Roku and Boxee set top can compete with the Google TV. It's way ahead of them. Since Google is open-sourcing it, some of their partners at the Keynote already mentioned how they will be using it. They mentioned direct integration into some Sony tvs, some Blu-Ray players, and set-top manufacturers could build their own devices with it.
Apple has the pieces the make Apple TV a very strong competitor though.
I was probably being too mean, but I disagree with this comparison.
WebOS has a distinct, well-thought out UI in my opinion. Chrome OS might be more than a browser, but it has no UI distinct from a browser. It acts, looks, and works like a browser, whereas WebOS doesn't work or look anything like a web browser.
That's by design. It was designed to work with traditional PCs and people as a whole don't understand computers, but they have a basic idea of what a web browser is and how to use it. The entire point of Chrome OS was to give people a simple OS that did exactly what they needed it to do.
It's potentially a great idea for the future of low cost computing that a standard Linux distro can't compete with. Google saying it's for netbooks is really the first step and red herring, IMO, for Google to capitalize on the emerging markets that Microsoft has dominated for decades. While MS might give away their OS to emerging markets there is a still a certain level of HW requirements that will be well above Windows.
If Apple can do just three things on top of what @tv currently does: (i) Make @tv stream anything that is on my desktop/laptop/iPad screen on my TV screen; (ii) Allow for @tv to record programs from cable on to its hard drive (in HD); (iii) Come with a built-in disc player (preferably Blu-Ray), it will blow away just about everything else in the home entertainment media market, let alone this vaporware Google product.
It's so simple, Apple; c'mon, you can do it.
Don't need web browsing on my TV. Thanks.
Google TV isn't vaporware. If you watched the keynote you would see them using it live on stage. They said it will be coming out this fall since they already have partners who are building it into their technologies. Specifically they mentioned Sony Bravia TVs, a Blu-Ray player and a set-top box.
This seems more of a play like Boxee. It runs on PVRs and/or hardware devices. Boxee is trys to have streaming media as well have the ability to play your downloads. Boxee is also a platform that people create widgets/apps for.
Why would Hulu block it? The viewing experience is the same as in your web browser on your desktop or laptop. Google TV has Chrome seamlessly integrated, allowing you to access all the sites you would on your computer.
Roku and Boxee set top can compete with the Google TV. It's way ahead of them. Since Google is open-sourcing it, some of their partners at the Keynote already mentioned how they will be using it. They mentioned direct integration into some Sony tvs, some Blu-Ray players, and set-top manufacturers could build their own devices with it.
Apple has the pieces the make Apple TV a very strong competitor though.
Hulu will block it because that box directly competes with the networks own viewership ratings. This is why they blocked Boxee (because of the AppleTV).
Who cares if open-sourcing it? They are open sourcing a software that is viewing proprietary content. Viacom will do the same with their content. It is more important to these companies that their content is viewed on cable/OTA than it it is over the net.
Google is doing this for the ad revenues(100% btw) and those companies are doing the same. The only difference is the networks get paid more.
The only potential play here so far is iAds (not fanboy comment). Because they are charging so much for ads, it can potentially replace the network solution. Google is trying to do an end-around and bypass network ad revenue by using the web.
EDIT: The networks already knew what Google was attempting to do. They already blocked a more rewarding situation with Apple. There is no way in he'll that these networks will allow their content to be displayed over a TV screen without their approval.
I have an Apple TV, with the latest software and it is very good.
I agree with this but apparently apple does not. It used to be upper right product photo on the apple store. Now it is a tiny text link for, of all things, buried under an iPod enhancement? Go check it out. Apple totally doesn't care about merchandising the current device. Sales must be crap.
AppleTV is a "hobby" because Apple chose to not integrate DVR functionality. End of story.
If AppleTV had a built in DVR, they would sell millions of them. Instead, you have to kludge it into your hometheater setup and juggle inputs between the TiVo and the AppleTV. It's just confusing to many TV watchers (not you or me or others on this forum, but it's difficult for your mother in law or grandmother).
It's not too late for Apple to add DVR. The extra hardware sales will offset the incremental loss in iTunes downloads for TV Shows.
Well, as someone who loves his Apple TV I have to say, this looks like it could well beat it.
I don't understand the need for a browser on the TV (my PS3's got that and I never use it), but something that would pull everything together into one nice, unified interface would be great.
The stance Apple have taken with Apple TV seems a bit odd to me. It's fine to call it a hobby, but when I take on a project as a hobby I tend to be continually evolving it and changing it, but Apple TV seems to be the same now as it was when they first introduced movie rentals on it (with a couple of UI tweaks). I do think it could be a lot more, but it would be enough if they could figure out a way to have "rental" of individual TV episodes, either backed by advertising or something that you pay a sensible amount to watch something once. I don't want to have to buy a TV episode (unlike films, I'm never going to watch a TV episode more than once), so some form of rental would make Apple TV a much more useful proposition, for me at least.
The one thing that bothers me about the Google TV is that I've found a lot of what they have done, excluding their search, seems a little "half-baked" somehow. I'm not sure exactly what makes me think that, but it's a nagging issue.......
Comments
1) I called this a year ago but I thought it would be Chrome OS, not Android.
2) These will likely all be very shitty implementations for a long time to come. Just look at current internet-ready TVs. However, it's even more imperative that Apple get a viable media extender appliance to market.
Google Video failed too. I liked it for uploads but they shut it down in favor of YouTube. As a place to buy video it was ugly.
Is this competition for Apple TV?
Apple TV connects to the largest online TV/Music/Movie media store in the world and where users can buy content direct. Your Apple TV can replace your cable subscription.
Google TV, if I understand correctly, connects to the internet and to a cable box, and does not sell any content to users. You can consume A) free web content or
They compete in name only.
Google's critique actually seems to be against the user interface of DVR/Cable set-top-boxes. To solve that, they would need Motorola and other set-top box hardware/software manufacturers to adopt this TV-flavored Android. Then, of course, Comcast etc. would have to adopt those boxes.
In short, I can be flooded with advertisements from Google or from my cable provider.
Wow!
- ATV streams music, video and puchased items directly to your TV from you computer, It's not a stand alone system, just an accessory. It has Itunes Store built in and that's about it. It has no interface with your TV programming.
- GTV is basically the Android Phone OS scaled to a TV, with a UI Twist + a dash of traditional TV interface as well. It has the capability of integrating your existing TV programming to enhance your living room entertainment.
When you look at what each actually does, you'll see how different these two ideas are. So can we all take a break from the name calling and accusations of stealing ideas please?now for my other thoughts...
Google TV
I think what Google has come up with is very interesting. We've already seen what Android has done for the Phone industry, which is practically save the smartphone business from being totally monopolized by Apple. This is not a critique but an observation. I'm an iPhone User and loving it BTW...
Anyway, i think GTV will be very successful if they start opening it up to more manufacturers and hold to the standards they propose to the OS. My only fear is that it will be dominated by Crap Apps and will make the end user suffer by Google's "open-ness". There is something to be appreciated with Apple's closed system for apps.
Many bloggers here are right by saying it should go further and become a DVR/Cable box replacement rather than an accessory integraged OS.
Apple TV
As stated above, i don't think this compares at all (in strategy) with GTV. ATV is about 50% of what it should be (buy most people's ideas). If they just took the iPad OS (which it basically the iPhone/Touch OS) and combined that with the current ATV OS, you'd really have a product that is so compelling that it would explode the Market (which is basically dominated by Cable/SATV companies and TiVo). That (IMO) would put the ATV at about 90% there.
I think the major problem Apple has by doing this, is the fact that putting a web browser in the ATV would essential negate the necessity of the iTunes Store completely. Why purchase content on iTunes when you have a web browser that can go to ABC.com and watch LOST free Streaming?
So, in a way if Apple did this they would be shooting themselves in the foot. Therefore, What Google is doing now is what Apple (IMO) cannot do now, which is open the Apple TV to the web, because they would be taking money out of thier own pockets. But now, with GTV coming out, they almost are forced to do this to keep the ATV as a viable alternate accessory device for Living Room entertainment.
Now, with the advent of the iPad, this may open the door to updates for ATV. Apple seems to take it's time developing products. And when they release them, there is a huge compelling reason for consumers to purchase one. As a side note, i think the iPad might have come too soon, because it's not quite what it should be (IMO). Even though sales are going well, people will realized that they are not quite as conviented as an alternative to the netbook as everyone states. They work very well as an alternative to the Nook or Kindle, but the average Kindle/Nook User still prefurs the light weight, long battery and most importantly the eInk Screen of those devices. But that's a different blog. Back to the topic, if you look at the history of the mobile OS Apple has produced over the years, you'll see that it grew quite gradually. And i think the ATV will be then next big thing, but not for a couple more years. I think SJ's swansong before final retirement will the Apple TV in a phoenix-like resurection the next time you see it on the main page of the Apple Store website.
Thoughts?
Pfttt. There are a few tens of millions of ATV owners, vs. something like 100 million iPhone/iTouch owners. Disproof by example.
A nice thought, but I doubt the overlap or convenience would be high enough. Apple will need an Android controller app, as well, to reach as broad a market this way.
Is this how Apple sells it? "Oh, and by the way, the web browser in our ATV actually becomes useful--better than the GTV!--if you already own an iPhone/touch or double the price to get one." "When you're on a phone call and want to change channels, just put the caller on hold, open the ATV app and search for your content; then go back to your call. It's that simple!"
Actually the iphone does a great job solving keyboard needs ... apple sells a remote app that connects nicely with appleTV.
Nothing could be further from the truth - the Remote app is practically useless. All it does is start or stop media that you already have. You cannot, or I'm too stupid to figure it out, search in YouTube for instance. Of particular annoyance is the inability to find movies in the iTunes Store.
Maury
Nothing could be further from the truth - the Remote app is practically useless. All it does is start or stop media that you already have. You cannot, or I'm too stupid to figure it out, search in YouTube for instance. Of particular annoyance is the inability to find movies in the iTunes Store.
Maury
I use it to search for utube all the time. works great. comes with the iphone keyboard and you just type it right in. When you navigate to youtube click on the search field on top of the remote. It opens up the apple keyboard.
Nothing could be further from the truth - the Remote app is practically useless. All it does is start or stop media that you already have. You cannot, or I'm too stupid to figure it out, search in YouTube for instance. Of particular annoyance is the inability to find movies in the iTunes Store.
Maury
I also use the app to type in my password for itunes purchasing and finding apple movies. Give it another chance it's a good clean application.
The issue really isn't that simple. Hulu will eventually block this because they want users to watch it live for ratings. Watching a couple of clips is cool but there really isn't a solution here. Most will use YouTube which is already available on the AppleTV. The ultimate goal has been to move TV to the web where it should be. Windows Media Center still is another alternative that ha been around for awhile now (with more features).
The only box that I'd purchase is the Roku player for watching Netflix. The AppleTV is still not there nor is the product from Google. I can just hook up my MBP, use Boxee and get the same kind of experience (with the Apple Remote).
Why would Hulu block it? The viewing experience is the same as in your web browser on your desktop or laptop. Google TV has Chrome seamlessly integrated, allowing you to access all the sites you would on your computer.
Roku and Boxee set top can compete with the Google TV. It's way ahead of them. Since Google is open-sourcing it, some of their partners at the Keynote already mentioned how they will be using it. They mentioned direct integration into some Sony tvs, some Blu-Ray players, and set-top manufacturers could build their own devices with it.
Apple has the pieces the make Apple TV a very strong competitor though.
I was probably being too mean, but I disagree with this comparison.
WebOS has a distinct, well-thought out UI in my opinion. Chrome OS might be more than a browser, but it has no UI distinct from a browser. It acts, looks, and works like a browser, whereas WebOS doesn't work or look anything like a web browser.
That's by design. It was designed to work with traditional PCs and people as a whole don't understand computers, but they have a basic idea of what a web browser is and how to use it. The entire point of Chrome OS was to give people a simple OS that did exactly what they needed it to do.
It's potentially a great idea for the future of low cost computing that a standard Linux distro can't compete with. Google saying it's for netbooks is really the first step and red herring, IMO, for Google to capitalize on the emerging markets that Microsoft has dominated for decades. While MS might give away their OS to emerging markets there is a still a certain level of HW requirements that will be well above Windows.
I really don't want or need Google on my HDTV and home theater.
Don't want it? Don't buy it. It's simple
That my friends is an enormous typo
Why would Hulu block it?
because studios and networks are making them
If Apple can do just three things on top of what @tv currently does: (i) Make @tv stream anything that is on my desktop/laptop/iPad screen on my TV screen; (ii) Allow for @tv to record programs from cable on to its hard drive (in HD); (iii) Come with a built-in disc player (preferably Blu-Ray), it will blow away just about everything else in the home entertainment media market, let alone this vaporware Google product.
It's so simple, Apple; c'mon, you can do it.
Don't need web browsing on my TV. Thanks.
Google TV isn't vaporware. If you watched the keynote you would see them using it live on stage. They said it will be coming out this fall since they already have partners who are building it into their technologies. Specifically they mentioned Sony Bravia TVs, a Blu-Ray player and a set-top box.
As well as buying/renting TV, Movies and Music from ITunes you can :-
- play music , see photos etc etc from your own network
- access any photo account at Flickr
- listen to many radio stations (but not BBC that needs a Real player)
- watch YouTube
all wirelessly on your HDMI TV with a simple and elegant remote.
It would be even better if it allowed competitive content like Hulu and other
internet sites but seems unlikely. Still a very solid product at a pretty good price. ($200)
If you want everything via your TV right now you could consider buying a MAC MIni.
its a real computer in a small box. Unfortunately its over twice the price.
Still having some competition from Google can only be a good thing over time.
My guess is Apple will be taking this market seriously very soon and produce a single unit
with a HD TV and an in-built Apple TV or Mac Mini. I want one when they do.
Why would Hulu block it? The viewing experience is the same as in your web browser on your desktop or laptop. Google TV has Chrome seamlessly integrated, allowing you to access all the sites you would on your computer.
Roku and Boxee set top can compete with the Google TV. It's way ahead of them. Since Google is open-sourcing it, some of their partners at the Keynote already mentioned how they will be using it. They mentioned direct integration into some Sony tvs, some Blu-Ray players, and set-top manufacturers could build their own devices with it.
Apple has the pieces the make Apple TV a very strong competitor though.
Hulu will block it because that box directly competes with the networks own viewership ratings. This is why they blocked Boxee (because of the AppleTV).
Who cares if open-sourcing it? They are open sourcing a software that is viewing proprietary content. Viacom will do the same with their content. It is more important to these companies that their content is viewed on cable/OTA than it it is over the net.
Google is doing this for the ad revenues(100% btw) and those companies are doing the same. The only difference is the networks get paid more.
The only potential play here so far is iAds (not fanboy comment). Because they are charging so much for ads, it can potentially replace the network solution. Google is trying to do an end-around and bypass network ad revenue by using the web.
EDIT: The networks already knew what Google was attempting to do. They already blocked a more rewarding situation with Apple. There is no way in he'll that these networks will allow their content to be displayed over a TV screen without their approval.
I have an Apple TV, with the latest software and it is very good.
I agree with this but apparently apple does not. It used to be upper right product photo on the apple store. Now it is a tiny text link for, of all things, buried under an iPod enhancement? Go check it out. Apple totally doesn't care about merchandising the current device. Sales must be crap.
If AppleTV had a built in DVR, they would sell millions of them. Instead, you have to kludge it into your hometheater setup and juggle inputs between the TiVo and the AppleTV. It's just confusing to many TV watchers (not you or me or others on this forum, but it's difficult for your mother in law or grandmother).
It's not too late for Apple to add DVR. The extra hardware sales will offset the incremental loss in iTunes downloads for TV Shows.
I don't understand the need for a browser on the TV (my PS3's got that and I never use it), but something that would pull everything together into one nice, unified interface would be great.
The stance Apple have taken with Apple TV seems a bit odd to me. It's fine to call it a hobby, but when I take on a project as a hobby I tend to be continually evolving it and changing it, but Apple TV seems to be the same now as it was when they first introduced movie rentals on it (with a couple of UI tweaks). I do think it could be a lot more, but it would be enough if they could figure out a way to have "rental" of individual TV episodes, either backed by advertising or something that you pay a sensible amount to watch something once. I don't want to have to buy a TV episode (unlike films, I'm never going to watch a TV episode more than once), so some form of rental would make Apple TV a much more useful proposition, for me at least.
The one thing that bothers me about the Google TV is that I've found a lot of what they have done, excluding their search, seems a little "half-baked" somehow. I'm not sure exactly what makes me think that, but it's a nagging issue.......