LOL I'm in Asia at the moment so I get away with being 30+ and living with my parents.
My neighbour has his nuclear family plus his dad, mother in law and sister in law in the same house. Our houses are not big, but I'm not talking the slums here. They like cramming families together in this part of the world...
Good for you...I wish I had never moved out! I miss my Mom! The only woman I would ever trust!
(Disclaimer: I haven?t read a single comment on this thread so my apologizes if this has been covered already)
I think Google?s maneuvering here is better than Apple?s. Apple?s vision has alway been to create OS/SW and services to sell HW, which is great for the premium Mac, iPhone and iPod lines that make those products that dominate the profits of the PC, handset and PMP markets, respectively.
But Apple has only a cheap piece of HW for AppleTV. Even if they have a decent profit margin they?d have to sell a lot of them to make it more than a hobby, but the setup doesn?t really lead to it being possible. But it?s not all their fault. They really are at the mercy of the content providers on this one. An App Store will help, but I don?t think it will make it a break away product on that along even if it does skyrocket the sales.
For these reasons I think Google?s plan is better as they will try to get this in TVs, Blu-ray players, PVRs, and everything else in between, and they will probably do it.
Whenever I hear Schmidt's conception of privacy and civil liberties, I am literally petrified.
I am pretty sure that you can only be petrified once. Or, I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Quote:
His opinions sounds like some evil offspring of the dark ages and some hellish futuristic dystopia. His apparent (at least to me) ignorance and idiocy become extremely alarming because of the sheer extent of power over the globe this guy exerts. It's no joke that never before has humanity "entrusted" so much of their private lives and knowledge to single all powerful entity such as google. The fact that this reversal in terms of years of progress and struggles for civil liberties is spearhead by a pretence of "do no evil" and "a free open source mobile os" and the legions who've swallowed this makes it all the more grotesquely ironic.
I feel it's safe to say at this moment that Orwell's big brother in 1984 has never before found a better real life counterpart than that of what google is, and particularly of what it can be. It's chilling to hear this Schmidt guy talk about privacy, "if you don't want people knowing about something, you shouldn't be doing it in the first place".
Perhaps he's the only one with courage enough to say it like it is. People have been gathering information about you for all time. How else do you expect to function in this society? Corporations, when they gather information about you, aren't doing it to be nice. They might be nice to get the information, but I'll leave the purpose for gathering the information to you.
Here's why you need apps - so content providers can add their own content without having to go through Apple. In the US Apple have integrated Netflix, well that's great for US customers, but for everyone else, about as useful as a chocolate teapot.
If the Apple TV supported apps we could get a BBC iPlayer app, a Channel 4 On Demand app, a LoveFilm app (poor UK equivalent of Netflix), and so on. Instead we get absolutely nothing.
Beyond simple streaming apps you could add the likes of VLC to play non-Apple video formats (it's already on the iPad), Last FM, Spotify, Pandora, etc. Then you could add web site apps reformatted for the TV screen - Engadget, IGN, The Guardian, BBC NEWS etc.
Then you throw in Twitter and Facebook.
So I can see a very good case for Apps on the TV, and I think many others will too.
You are right and that is exactly why it is wrong. We will end up with a complex interface with dozens of apps (need player x to view y). Sounds like 'channels' all over again! This is exactly what Google tries to fix: the complex nature of the television.
Here's why you need apps - so content providers can add their own content without having to go through Apple. In the US Apple have integrated Netflix, well that's great for US customers, but for everyone else, about as useful as a chocolate teapot.
If the Apple TV supported apps we could get a BBC iPlayer app, a Channel 4 On Demand app, a LoveFilm app (poor UK equivalent of Netflix), and so on. Instead we get absolutely nothing.
Beyond simple streaming apps you could add the likes of VLC to play non-Apple video formats (it's already on the iPad), Last FM, Spotify, Pandora, etc. Then you could add web site apps reformatted for the TV screen - Engadget, IGN, The Guardian, BBC NEWS etc.
Then you throw in Twitter and Facebook.
So I can see a very good case for Apps on the TV, and I think many others will too.
If Apple can integrate Netflix without using "apps", then iPlayer, hulu etc. integration is just around the corner, once content providers and studios get on board. This doesn't need an app store, it needs an integrated, consistent interface across each app/channel - the last I thing I want is for each 'channel' to have a completely different UI - that would be a horrible user experience.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dacloo
You are right and that is exactly why it is wrong. We will end up with a complex interface with dozens of apps (need player x to view y). Sounds like 'channels' all over again! This is exactly what Google tries to fix: the complex nature of the television.
What google are doing is allowing anyone to stream to their device using any UI/practice they see fit. It's nothing more than glorified web browsing for video. Nothing new in this. I want a unified UI. Search for a programme or film - all matching content from all of your 'channel's displayed because of tight integration. I hope this is what Apple is aiming for. Not a mismatch of different sites streamed into the box in some messy free-for-all.
What google are doing is allowing anyone to stream to their device using any UI/practice they see fit. It's nothing more than glorified web browsing for video. Nothing new in this. I want a unified UI. Search for a programme or film - all matching content from all of your 'channel's displayed because of tight integration. I hope this is what Apple is aiming for. Not a mismatch of different sites streamed into the box in some messy free-for-all.
Exactly! I'd rather have a simple unified interface over apps/features.
People seem to be jumping the gun here in calling a winner.
Google's offering is as crippled as Apple's. Where is ABC? Sorry, but CBS isn't much of a partner in our household.
I am sure that Google will have all sorts of new features and strategies as this evolves, but it's early days still and there is no winner yet.
Regarding Apple, I think one would be wise to wait for AirPlay to roll out before evaluating AppleTV. We still don't know exactly what it will and won't do, and whether it is indeed the Trojan Horse as some have speculated.
It will also be interesting to see if Disney is willing to play hardball against competitors in support of Apple.
I am pretty sure that you can only be petrified once. Or, I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Perhaps he's the only one with courage enough to say it like it is. People have been gathering information about you for all time. How else do you expect to function in this society? Corporations, when they gather information about you, aren't doing it to be nice. They might be nice to get the information, but I'll leave the purpose for gathering the information to you.
I don't think said word means what you think it means. My usage is very common.
Courage to say what? His big brotherish vision of privacy and civil liberties? Are you joking?
The gathering of information is unavoidable, it's how this is gathered and used. That's they almost all major western governments have passed strict privacy legislation, as well as legislating the rights and obligations of the information gatherer. Get along with the times. This guys vision that "you shouldn't be doing in the first place what you don't want people to know" is not only simplistic and moronic, it's also counter to a few hundreds of years of western cultural evolution.
This guys vision that "you shouldn't be doing in the first place what you don't want people to know" is not only simplistic and moronic, it's also counter to a few hundreds of years of western cultural evolution.
I don't think said word means what you think it means. My usage is very common.
..and stupid.
Of course it means what I think it means. Your assertion that your usage is common doesn't make it any less stupid.
Quote:
Courage to say what? His big brotherish vision of privacy and civil liberties? Are you joking?
The gathering of information is unavoidable, it's how this is gathered and used. That's they almost all major western governments have passed strict privacy legislation, as well as legislating the rights and obligations of the information gatherer. Get along with the times. This guys vision that "you shouldn't be doing in the first place what you don't want people to know" is not only simplistic and moronic, it's also counter to a few hundreds of years of western cultural evolution.
He simply said there's a line and there's a policy to go as close to it as one can without crossing it. I think the facts are that this legislation doesn't go as far as you'd like it to, and google is exploiting that.
Remember that public policy sets the line. I don't like it, but what he's saying is right and an inevitable incident of the ability to gather and shuttle around huge amounts of data. If you feel so strongly about it, I am sure your local member (or whatever you call your local representative) will carry the baton for you.
It looks pretty good -- but like the PlayBook video, it was all mockup.
I have a Mini attached to my Sony Bravia 46" TV. The screen size is set as either 1080P TV, 1600 x 900 0r 1344 x 756.
The display when used as a computer works best at 1080P or 1600 x 900.
However, it is very difficult to read as a computer screen -- especially web sites.
My 24" iMac has a resolution of 1920 x 1200.
There is no comparison viewing a web site on the TV vs the Computer -- no matter how near or far away, the TV pales in comparison.
.
If Apple released their next OS with true resolution independence, this issue would be eliminated and using a computer attached to a TV would be fantastic, even at large distances because all the text would scale up while the pixel output would remain native to the display.
I have the same setup and typically use 720P to make the text big enough to view. It's annoying though cause I am wasting most of the resolution of the TV.
I really do not want to go on the internet on my tv. period. Apps that do tv content might be interesting but honestly I can't think of other apps that I would want on my tv if I have a laptop or an ipad. The tv is the place where people want to do as little work as possible. Youtube is worth it because the content is worth the work. For the average person I do not see a reason got gtv and therefore I do not see this being the huge tech people want it to be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mgl323
Can?t TV just be for watching TV? I mean, if I wanted to check stocks, game scores, play music through the TV, why not just check your smartphone to see those updates? Why not just plug (or use bluetooth) in your mp3 or smartphone directly into the surround sound system? The only good option that I see is the amazon movie market and netflix.
Exactly the point here, these are neat tricks and great that it can be done and probably great for the sole techno geek sitting in a room by themselves, however, these people are a small % of the market. I can tell there are 4 people in our house and it tough enough to get everyone to agree on watch one show without channel surfing. Imagine how many divorces that will happen over this.
In our house, we watch movies and TV shows on our TV and if want to search the net or do other activities everyone does it on the computer or smart phone.
MS is trying to turn their Xbox into a Set Top Box/DVR and I can tell you right now it will not happen in our house. Imagine having to fight with your kids over whether to watch TV or pay xbox games. The Xbox & Wii in our house are connected to their own TV without Cable connected to it, period, not got to fight with the kid to watch tv when I want.
Convergence is good to a point, at some point it just does not work well.
Everyone seems to have noticed how easy it seems to be to JailBreak the ATV. I believe that it was made like that on purpose.
Once this starts to happen, and all the JailBreaks lets loose of Medusa's Box and all the Content
starts flowing out for free. .
Truth be told, as much as I've been anti Jailbreak on iPhone (because its linked into a broader network of devices), I think I'll probably be happy to experiment with JB for my ATV2. Worst that happens is I have to reset it, no potential harm to anyone else. (Although I guess there's still the chance of becoming an attack vector.)
Am looking forward to google TV. Honestly I think it will take off a lot more then TV. I will definitely be looking into buying one from what I have seen so far.
All I am waiting for is if SHAtter will allow for apps to be installed. If it does I might go with apple, if not is Google TV.
I want apple to succeed in this space, but currently they are not offering me what I want.
As with its Android smartphones, Google TV hardware will not be made by the search giant. Instead, hardware partners and HDTV makers will create devices that will run the company's flavor of Android for TVs.
...Google's plan was to funnel most of that available web video content to TV watchers through a proprietary interface, which would meld its own search technology with a version of its Chrome Web browser, rather than strike individual content deals with providers like Apple does.
...Google TV-optimized websites that will allow those partners to "personalize, monetize and distribute their content in new ways," affording them more flexibility over revenue generation.
...Turner Broadcasting has been hard at work optimizing some of their most popular websites for viewing on Google TV, including TBS, TNT, CNN, Cartoon Network and Adult Swim, available anytime through Google TV.
...NBC Universal ... CNBC Real-Time, ... CNBC directly on the TV screen.
...HBO will bring access to hundreds of hours of programming to Google TV with HBO GO.
...access all of their favorite HBO content on-demand in an enhanced website for Google TV.
...NBA has built NBA Game Time,
...Amazon Video On Demand, for example, will offer access to over 75,000 titles for rental or purchase, and Netflix will offer the ability to instantly watch unlimited movies and TV shows, anytime, streaming directly to the TV.
...The New York Times and USA Today; music sites like VEVO, Pandora and Napster; information networks like Twitter; and online networks like blip.tv.
...Sony (Internet TV and Blu-ray Player)
...Logitech (companion box),
This sounds friggin' GREAT!! Wow. You've got to hand it to Google - they innovate like nobody else.
And seemingly, they have been able to line up lots and lots and lots of premium partners before the launch date, rather than having public pissing contests post-launch. That makes a lot of sense to me.
Competition is good for everybody, and seemingly, Google has really stepped up to the plate this time. It will improve everybody's products once they try to catch up.
If Apple can integrate Netflix without using "apps", then iPlayer, hulu etc. integration is just around the corner, once content providers and studios get on board. This doesn't need an app store, it needs an integrated, consistent interface across each app/channel - the last I thing I want is for each 'channel' to have a completely different UI - that would be a horrible user experience.
Weird how before the new AppleTV was introduced one of the "killer" features many people on this site were hoping for was support for apps. But now that Google is on the verge of launching a competing product that does support apps, the tune is "We don't need no stinkin' apps on our TV." Make up your minds, people...
Comments
LOL I'm in Asia at the moment so I get away with being 30+ and living with my parents.
My neighbour has his nuclear family plus his dad, mother in law and sister in law in the same house. Our houses are not big, but I'm not talking the slums here. They like cramming families together in this part of the world...
Good for you...I wish I had never moved out! I miss my Mom! The only woman I would ever trust!
Best of luck to you!
I think Google?s maneuvering here is better than Apple?s. Apple?s vision has alway been to create OS/SW and services to sell HW, which is great for the premium Mac, iPhone and iPod lines that make those products that dominate the profits of the PC, handset and PMP markets, respectively.
But Apple has only a cheap piece of HW for AppleTV. Even if they have a decent profit margin they?d have to sell a lot of them to make it more than a hobby, but the setup doesn?t really lead to it being possible. But it?s not all their fault. They really are at the mercy of the content providers on this one. An App Store will help, but I don?t think it will make it a break away product on that along even if it does skyrocket the sales.
For these reasons I think Google?s plan is better as they will try to get this in TVs, Blu-ray players, PVRs, and everything else in between, and they will probably do it.
Whenever I hear Schmidt's conception of privacy and civil liberties, I am literally petrified.
I am pretty sure that you can only be petrified once. Or, I don't think that word means what you think it means.
His opinions sounds like some evil offspring of the dark ages and some hellish futuristic dystopia. His apparent (at least to me) ignorance and idiocy become extremely alarming because of the sheer extent of power over the globe this guy exerts. It's no joke that never before has humanity "entrusted" so much of their private lives and knowledge to single all powerful entity such as google. The fact that this reversal in terms of years of progress and struggles for civil liberties is spearhead by a pretence of "do no evil" and "a free open source mobile os" and the legions who've swallowed this makes it all the more grotesquely ironic.
I feel it's safe to say at this moment that Orwell's big brother in 1984 has never before found a better real life counterpart than that of what google is, and particularly of what it can be. It's chilling to hear this Schmidt guy talk about privacy, "if you don't want people knowing about something, you shouldn't be doing it in the first place".
Perhaps he's the only one with courage enough to say it like it is. People have been gathering information about you for all time. How else do you expect to function in this society? Corporations, when they gather information about you, aren't doing it to be nice. They might be nice to get the information, but I'll leave the purpose for gathering the information to you.
Here's why you need apps - so content providers can add their own content without having to go through Apple. In the US Apple have integrated Netflix, well that's great for US customers, but for everyone else, about as useful as a chocolate teapot.
If the Apple TV supported apps we could get a BBC iPlayer app, a Channel 4 On Demand app, a LoveFilm app (poor UK equivalent of Netflix), and so on. Instead we get absolutely nothing.
Beyond simple streaming apps you could add the likes of VLC to play non-Apple video formats (it's already on the iPad), Last FM, Spotify, Pandora, etc. Then you could add web site apps reformatted for the TV screen - Engadget, IGN, The Guardian, BBC NEWS etc.
Then you throw in Twitter and Facebook.
So I can see a very good case for Apps on the TV, and I think many others will too.
You are right and that is exactly why it is wrong. We will end up with a complex interface with dozens of apps (need player x to view y). Sounds like 'channels' all over again! This is exactly what Google tries to fix: the complex nature of the television.
Here's why you need apps - so content providers can add their own content without having to go through Apple. In the US Apple have integrated Netflix, well that's great for US customers, but for everyone else, about as useful as a chocolate teapot.
If the Apple TV supported apps we could get a BBC iPlayer app, a Channel 4 On Demand app, a LoveFilm app (poor UK equivalent of Netflix), and so on. Instead we get absolutely nothing.
Beyond simple streaming apps you could add the likes of VLC to play non-Apple video formats (it's already on the iPad), Last FM, Spotify, Pandora, etc. Then you could add web site apps reformatted for the TV screen - Engadget, IGN, The Guardian, BBC NEWS etc.
Then you throw in Twitter and Facebook.
So I can see a very good case for Apps on the TV, and I think many others will too.
If Apple can integrate Netflix without using "apps", then iPlayer, hulu etc. integration is just around the corner, once content providers and studios get on board. This doesn't need an app store, it needs an integrated, consistent interface across each app/channel - the last I thing I want is for each 'channel' to have a completely different UI - that would be a horrible user experience.
You are right and that is exactly why it is wrong. We will end up with a complex interface with dozens of apps (need player x to view y). Sounds like 'channels' all over again! This is exactly what Google tries to fix: the complex nature of the television.
What google are doing is allowing anyone to stream to their device using any UI/practice they see fit. It's nothing more than glorified web browsing for video. Nothing new in this. I want a unified UI. Search for a programme or film - all matching content from all of your 'channel's displayed because of tight integration. I hope this is what Apple is aiming for. Not a mismatch of different sites streamed into the box in some messy free-for-all.
What google are doing is allowing anyone to stream to their device using any UI/practice they see fit. It's nothing more than glorified web browsing for video. Nothing new in this. I want a unified UI. Search for a programme or film - all matching content from all of your 'channel's displayed because of tight integration. I hope this is what Apple is aiming for. Not a mismatch of different sites streamed into the box in some messy free-for-all.
Exactly! I'd rather have a simple unified interface over apps/features.
Google's offering is as crippled as Apple's. Where is ABC? Sorry, but CBS isn't much of a partner in our household.
I am sure that Google will have all sorts of new features and strategies as this evolves, but it's early days still and there is no winner yet.
Regarding Apple, I think one would be wise to wait for AirPlay to roll out before evaluating AppleTV. We still don't know exactly what it will and won't do, and whether it is indeed the Trojan Horse as some have speculated.
It will also be interesting to see if Disney is willing to play hardball against competitors in support of Apple.
I am pretty sure that you can only be petrified once. Or, I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Perhaps he's the only one with courage enough to say it like it is. People have been gathering information about you for all time. How else do you expect to function in this society? Corporations, when they gather information about you, aren't doing it to be nice. They might be nice to get the information, but I'll leave the purpose for gathering the information to you.
I don't think said word means what you think it means. My usage is very common.
Courage to say what? His big brotherish vision of privacy and civil liberties? Are you joking?
The gathering of information is unavoidable, it's how this is gathered and used. That's they almost all major western governments have passed strict privacy legislation, as well as legislating the rights and obligations of the information gatherer. Get along with the times. This guys vision that "you shouldn't be doing in the first place what you don't want people to know" is not only simplistic and moronic, it's also counter to a few hundreds of years of western cultural evolution.
This guys vision that "you shouldn't be doing in the first place what you don't want people to know" is not only simplistic and moronic, it's also counter to a few hundreds of years of western cultural evolution.
It's also evil.
I don't think said word means what you think it means. My usage is very common.
..and stupid.
Of course it means what I think it means. Your assertion that your usage is common doesn't make it any less stupid.
Courage to say what? His big brotherish vision of privacy and civil liberties? Are you joking?
The gathering of information is unavoidable, it's how this is gathered and used. That's they almost all major western governments have passed strict privacy legislation, as well as legislating the rights and obligations of the information gatherer. Get along with the times. This guys vision that "you shouldn't be doing in the first place what you don't want people to know" is not only simplistic and moronic, it's also counter to a few hundreds of years of western cultural evolution.
He simply said there's a line and there's a policy to go as close to it as one can without crossing it. I think the facts are that this legislation doesn't go as far as you'd like it to, and google is exploiting that.
Remember that public policy sets the line. I don't like it, but what he's saying is right and an inevitable incident of the ability to gather and shuttle around huge amounts of data. If you feel so strongly about it, I am sure your local member (or whatever you call your local representative) will carry the baton for you.
.
It looks pretty good -- but like the PlayBook video, it was all mockup.
I have a Mini attached to my Sony Bravia 46" TV. The screen size is set as either 1080P TV, 1600 x 900 0r 1344 x 756.
The display when used as a computer works best at 1080P or 1600 x 900.
However, it is very difficult to read as a computer screen -- especially web sites.
My 24" iMac has a resolution of 1920 x 1200.
There is no comparison viewing a web site on the TV vs the Computer -- no matter how near or far away, the TV pales in comparison.
.
If Apple released their next OS with true resolution independence, this issue would be eliminated and using a computer attached to a TV would be fantastic, even at large distances because all the text would scale up while the pixel output would remain native to the display.
I have the same setup and typically use 720P to make the text big enough to view. It's annoying though cause I am wasting most of the resolution of the TV.
How about:
.. by previewing a portion of the content arsenal it's building ...
I really do not want to go on the internet on my tv. period. Apps that do tv content might be interesting but honestly I can't think of other apps that I would want on my tv if I have a laptop or an ipad. The tv is the place where people want to do as little work as possible. Youtube is worth it because the content is worth the work. For the average person I do not see a reason got gtv and therefore I do not see this being the huge tech people want it to be.
Can?t TV just be for watching TV? I mean, if I wanted to check stocks, game scores, play music through the TV, why not just check your smartphone to see those updates? Why not just plug (or use bluetooth) in your mp3 or smartphone directly into the surround sound system? The only good option that I see is the amazon movie market and netflix.
Exactly the point here, these are neat tricks and great that it can be done and probably great for the sole techno geek sitting in a room by themselves, however, these people are a small % of the market. I can tell there are 4 people in our house and it tough enough to get everyone to agree on watch one show without channel surfing. Imagine how many divorces that will happen over this.
In our house, we watch movies and TV shows on our TV and if want to search the net or do other activities everyone does it on the computer or smart phone.
MS is trying to turn their Xbox into a Set Top Box/DVR and I can tell you right now it will not happen in our house. Imagine having to fight with your kids over whether to watch TV or pay xbox games. The Xbox & Wii in our house are connected to their own TV without Cable connected to it, period, not got to fight with the kid to watch tv when I want.
Convergence is good to a point, at some point it just does not work well.
Everything Apple does, Google responds with an identical product, what gives?
Except the Google product spies on you. If you're a Google fanboi, that's a feature!
T
As far as the Content. No one really trusts Apple. They are so afraid that they will do to T.V. con-
tent the same as they did for Music...
And that would be 'save the industry from itself'?
Everyone seems to have noticed how easy it seems to be to JailBreak the ATV. I believe that it was made like that on purpose.
Once this starts to happen, and all the JailBreaks lets loose of Medusa's Box and all the Content
starts flowing out for free. .
Truth be told, as much as I've been anti Jailbreak on iPhone (because its linked into a broader network of devices), I think I'll probably be happy to experiment with JB for my ATV2. Worst that happens is I have to reset it, no potential harm to anyone else. (Although I guess there's still the chance of becoming an attack vector.)
All I am waiting for is if SHAtter will allow for apps to be installed. If it does I might go with apple, if not is Google TV.
I want apple to succeed in this space, but currently they are not offering me what I want.
As with its Android smartphones, Google TV hardware will not be made by the search giant. Instead, hardware partners and HDTV makers will create devices that will run the company's flavor of Android for TVs.
...Google's plan was to funnel most of that available web video content to TV watchers through a proprietary interface, which would meld its own search technology with a version of its Chrome Web browser, rather than strike individual content deals with providers like Apple does.
...Google TV-optimized websites that will allow those partners to "personalize, monetize and distribute their content in new ways," affording them more flexibility over revenue generation.
...Turner Broadcasting has been hard at work optimizing some of their most popular websites for viewing on Google TV, including TBS, TNT, CNN, Cartoon Network and Adult Swim, available anytime through Google TV.
...NBC Universal ... CNBC Real-Time, ... CNBC directly on the TV screen.
...HBO will bring access to hundreds of hours of programming to Google TV with HBO GO.
...access all of their favorite HBO content on-demand in an enhanced website for Google TV.
...NBA has built NBA Game Time,
...Amazon Video On Demand, for example, will offer access to over 75,000 titles for rental or purchase, and Netflix will offer the ability to instantly watch unlimited movies and TV shows, anytime, streaming directly to the TV.
...The New York Times and USA Today; music sites like VEVO, Pandora and Napster; information networks like Twitter; and online networks like blip.tv.
...Sony (Internet TV and Blu-ray Player)
...Logitech (companion box),
This sounds friggin' GREAT!! Wow. You've got to hand it to Google - they innovate like nobody else.
And seemingly, they have been able to line up lots and lots and lots of premium partners before the launch date, rather than having public pissing contests post-launch. That makes a lot of sense to me.
Competition is good for everybody, and seemingly, Google has really stepped up to the plate this time. It will improve everybody's products once they try to catch up.
If Apple can integrate Netflix without using "apps", then iPlayer, hulu etc. integration is just around the corner, once content providers and studios get on board. This doesn't need an app store, it needs an integrated, consistent interface across each app/channel - the last I thing I want is for each 'channel' to have a completely different UI - that would be a horrible user experience.
Weird how before the new AppleTV was introduced one of the "killer" features many people on this site were hoping for was support for apps. But now that Google is on the verge of launching a competing product that does support apps, the tune is "We don't need no stinkin' apps on our TV." Make up your minds, people...