The only thing revolutionary about Google TV is that now Google can track you in your living room and collect information they previously had no access to. Why anyone would buy a Google telescreen to enable this is a bit of a mystery.
Your tv provider also collects information about your viewing habits, as will the security services about every other aspect of your life. Get over it. Not buying google does not mean that you are not having information on every aspect of your life tracked. Who cares if google know what you watch on TV seriousllllly??!?!!???
First, I think it needs to be said that $399 for Google TV / Blu-Ray player combo device is needlessly expensive. The price reduction brings it down to a non-ridiculous level.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSquirrel
The article I'm linking below is from June, but the system is simple. Root your phone, buy an app, back it up, hit the market for your refund, reinstall the backup. Voila, app gotten for free. This has been well documented for quite awhile now.
That seems needlessly complicated to get a freebie game. Not only that, one of the comments to that story have this link is a solution that came about in response to the problem:
that makes no sense at all. if that is true then the tv would have failed long ago, yet, most manage with the remote, most buy dvd players, xbox, ps3 etc, etc, etc,
I think I might be stepping on a slightly different conversation, but a lot of remotes are needlessly complicated. I bet most people learn the ten buttons out if sixty that they need, and the other 50 never get used.
Console boxes are fine for the most part, the controller has a lot fewer buttons than a remote, and most of those buttons are justifiable. There's always some room for improvement, but I don't think they're part of the problem.
For example, I don't know if anyone ever uses the number pad on a DVD player remote. Maybe for entering the DVD region unlock code, once that's done, it's set and the owner never needs to touch the number keys again.
A lot of set top box user interfaces are unnecessarily complicated too. My satellite tuner / DVR has such a roundabout method to access the timers that it's not funny. I don't think they did a quality check on the UI at all.
Your tv provider also collects information about your viewing habits, as will the security services about every other aspect of your life. Get over it. Not buying google does not mean that you are not having information on every aspect of your life tracked. Who cares if google know what you watch on TV seriousllllly??!?!!???
i agree, and if it means i will get ads targeted to my likes then all the better. i would much rather sit through those ads than stuff i could care less about.
First, I think it needs to be said that $399 for Google TV / Blu-Ray player combo device is needlessly expensive. The price reduction brings it down to a non-ridiculous level.
That seems needlessly complicated to get a freebie game. Not only that, one of the comments to that story have this link is a solution that came about in response to the problem:
I think I might be stepping on a slightly different conversation, but a lot of remotes are needlessly complicated. I bet most people learn the ten buttons out if sixty that they need, and the other 50 never get used.
Console boxes are fine for the most part, the controller has a lot fewer buttons than a remote, and most of those buttons are justifiable.
For example, I don't know if anyone ever uses the number pad on a DVD player remote. Maybe for entering the DVD region unlock code, once that's done, it's set and the owner never needs to touch the number keys again.
A lot of set top box user interfaces are unnecessarily complicated too. My satellite tuner / DVR has such a roundabout method to access the timers that it's not funny. I don't think they did a quality check on the UI at all.
i think that kinect is the way to go (or that type technology) it isn't there yet but soon. i think that is why apple wanted to license it. it is the obvious choice for screens out of reach.
Let's accept for the moment that the Google TV 1.0 implementation is seriously flawed. But that is entirely (mostly?) a software issue.
I agree that the user experience is seriously flawed but what is the real downfall is the networks blocking the content. If it's UI thats the problem, you get a small market of geeks who will purchase it, play with it, and in the end drive innovations to the product. If you can't get content then who does this appeal to at $300 (or less with discount)??
I was really interested in how well it was received, it looked a bit awkward and the price kept me from picking one up at launch (unlike the atv) but with the networks blocking the content, I don't have any interest until they work it out. Otherwise I end up with a premium priced, goofy looking blu ray. Really sad...
Google TV seems to be a DUD. It's just not what the cunsumer is looking for. While APPLE seems to have gotten onto the right track it also has a long way to go.
For now this remains a field ofconsumer interest and testing without and real Winners around.
That seems needlessly complicated to get a freebie game. Not only that, one of the comments to that story have this link is a solution that came about in response to the problem:
Eh I didn't think that was all that complex, but yeah I'm sure not everyone did it. I hadn't heard the info from that link you posted before. Guess it managed to sneak by under the radar as I would have thought that would deserve a wider distribution. Glad to see that loophole closed tho
TV is fine - all those other things are problems. That is why many families have multiple TVs, multiple computers, multiple DVD players etc. Everyone has different needs and interests. Computing is very interactive and personal and there is no way a communal display device that is also used for movies and gaming is ever going to work in the living room. it would work if deployed in multiple rooms.
This is where the iPad comes into play.
With some streaming apps like NetFlix, StreamToMe, etc. the iPad becomes a "Personal TV" for watching movies:
-- several people can be in the same room (with earplugs) watching different movies.
-- same as above in the family room with different content being watched by others on the HDTV.
-- several kids watching a movie an iPad (due to the iPad's large screen and wide viewing angle)
-- several people moving to different rooms or outside while watching movies
-- viewus interruptus - where you walk into the kitchen, interrupt your movie for a recipe, then resume the movie.
-- each family member has an iPad instead of his own TV, Computer, etc.
The only thing missing from this scenario is the recording/streaming of Live TV. (And different-colored cases for the iPads -- so you can tell which is whose).
When AT&T U-Verse, Comcast and the like finally wake up, they will offer an iPad app for streaming of live TV.
Google TV seems to be a DUD. It's just not what the cunsumer is looking for. While APPLE seems to have gotten onto the right track it also has a long way to go.
For now this remains a field ofconsumer interest and testing without and real Winners around.
When you think about it and consider the way GTV was announced/presented, it the difference apparent.
GTV is designed for Googles benefit -- to extend their ad, search, and data gathering services. Benefit to the user/consumer is secondary.
ATV is designed to enhance the consumer experience in managing and presenting personal content (Home Movies, Music, Videos, Photos) as well as streaming (NetFlix) and rental/purchase (iTunes Store).
Google TV seems to be a DUD. It's just not what the cunsumer is looking for. While APPLE seems to have gotten onto the right track it also has a long way to go.
For now this remains a field ofconsumer interest and testing without and real Winners around.
That's not saying much because Apple TV is still a "hobby".
When you think about it and consider the way GTV was announced/presented, it the difference apparent.
GTV is designed for Googles benefit -- to extend their ad, search, and data gathering services. ...
ATV is designed to enhance the consumer experience ...
ATV is about adding a revenue stream to iTunes. The only way you could argue it's to "enhance the consumer experience" is the work Apple put into revamping ATV for v2, and in the end that was to put more devices to consumers. The reason for the price point and the addition of Netflix is to sell devices. Devices that are tied to iTunes.
If I check my crystal ball, I see iAds integration with network content and genius recommendations for shows based on viewing habits. Don't get me wrong I love my Apple products, but to say they're fighting for the customer vs fighting for the customers dollar is pure poppycock.
Your tv provider also collects information about your viewing habits, as will the security services about every other aspect of your life. Get over it. Not buying google does not mean that you are not having information on every aspect of your life tracked. Who cares if google know what you watch on TV seriousllllly??!?!!???
It's just another piece of the Big Brother profile Google is accumulating on every man, woman and child everywhere they can. As for "the security services" it would be illegal for them to do so in the U.S., and that's exactly the reason why Congress axed the TIA program. Why should we allow a private company able and willing to share (and probably already sharing) information with "the security services" to get away with the same thing, as an actual or potential government proxy, we decided the government ought not be doing. Google represents a threat to an open and free society.
It's just another piece of the Big Brother profile Google is accumulating on every man, woman and child everywhere they can. As for "the security services" it would be illegal for them to do so in the U.S., and that's exactly the reason why Congress axed the TIA program. Why should we allow a private company able and willing to share (and probably already sharing) information with "the security services" to get away with the same thing, as an actual or potential government proxy, we decided the government ought not be doing. Google represents a threat to an open and free society.
I'm sorry, but after reading that rant, this image came to mind:
When you think about it and consider the way GTV was announced/presented, it the difference apparent.
GTV is designed for Googles benefit -- to extend their ad, search, and data gathering services. Benefit to the user/consumer is secondary.
ATV is designed to enhance the consumer experience in managing and presenting personal content (Home Movies, Music, Videos, Photos) as well as streaming (NetFlix) and rental/purchase (iTunes Store).
Wow, so GTV is all about extending their brand, but ATV has nothing to do with extending Apple's iTunes brand? Apple is just trying to do a service to the world, without thinking about the bottom line? You must be on the extra strength koolaid...
The only thing revolutionary about Google TV is that now Google can track you in your living room and collect information they previously had no access to. Why anyone would buy a Google telescreen to enable this is a bit of a mystery.
I cannot not agree more. I do not want Google in every aspect of my life. Google search is the only product from google that I use.
Your tv provider also collects information about your viewing habits, as will the security services about every other aspect of your life. Get over it. Not buying google does not mean that you are not having information on every aspect of your life tracked. Who cares if google know what you watch on TV seriousllllly??!?!!???
my tv provider does not know what I watch. Where would it pull the info? The air?
ATV is about adding a revenue stream to iTunes. The only way you could argue it's to "enhance the consumer experience" is the work Apple put into revamping ATV for v2, and in the end that was to put more devices to consumers. The reason for the price point and the addition of Netflix is to sell devices. Devices that are tied to iTunes.
If I check my crystal ball, I see iAds integration with network content and genius recommendations for shows based on viewing habits. Don't get me wrong I love my Apple products, but to say they're fighting for the customer vs fighting for the customers dollar is pure poppycock.
Nobody claimed that Apple was doing it out of charity or good will. Apple's approach is to put themselves in the place of the costumer to determine what they need and see if they can make a profit by satisfying that need.
Comments
The only thing revolutionary about Google TV is that now Google can track you in your living room and collect information they previously had no access to. Why anyone would buy a Google telescreen to enable this is a bit of a mystery.
Your tv provider also collects information about your viewing habits, as will the security services about every other aspect of your life. Get over it. Not buying google does not mean that you are not having information on every aspect of your life tracked. Who cares if google know what you watch on TV seriousllllly??!?!!???
The article I'm linking below is from June, but the system is simple. Root your phone, buy an app, back it up, hit the market for your refund, reinstall the backup. Voila, app gotten for free. This has been well documented for quite awhile now.
http://kbeezie.com/view/steal-market-app/
That seems needlessly complicated to get a freebie game. Not only that, one of the comments to that story have this link is a solution that came about in response to the problem:
http://downloadsquad.switched.com/20...nsing-servers/
that makes no sense at all. if that is true then the tv would have failed long ago, yet, most manage with the remote, most buy dvd players, xbox, ps3 etc, etc, etc,
I think I might be stepping on a slightly different conversation, but a lot of remotes are needlessly complicated. I bet most people learn the ten buttons out if sixty that they need, and the other 50 never get used.
Console boxes are fine for the most part, the controller has a lot fewer buttons than a remote, and most of those buttons are justifiable. There's always some room for improvement, but I don't think they're part of the problem.
For example, I don't know if anyone ever uses the number pad on a DVD player remote. Maybe for entering the DVD region unlock code, once that's done, it's set and the owner never needs to touch the number keys again.
A lot of set top box user interfaces are unnecessarily complicated too. My satellite tuner / DVR has such a roundabout method to access the timers that it's not funny. I don't think they did a quality check on the UI at all.
Your tv provider also collects information about your viewing habits, as will the security services about every other aspect of your life. Get over it. Not buying google does not mean that you are not having information on every aspect of your life tracked. Who cares if google know what you watch on TV seriousllllly??!?!!???
i agree, and if it means i will get ads targeted to my likes then all the better. i would much rather sit through those ads than stuff i could care less about.
First, I think it needs to be said that $399 for Google TV / Blu-Ray player combo device is needlessly expensive. The price reduction brings it down to a non-ridiculous level.
That seems needlessly complicated to get a freebie game. Not only that, one of the comments to that story have this link is a solution that came about in response to the problem:
http://downloadsquad.switched.com/20...nsing-servers/
I think I might be stepping on a slightly different conversation, but a lot of remotes are needlessly complicated. I bet most people learn the ten buttons out if sixty that they need, and the other 50 never get used.
Console boxes are fine for the most part, the controller has a lot fewer buttons than a remote, and most of those buttons are justifiable.
For example, I don't know if anyone ever uses the number pad on a DVD player remote. Maybe for entering the DVD region unlock code, once that's done, it's set and the owner never needs to touch the number keys again.
A lot of set top box user interfaces are unnecessarily complicated too. My satellite tuner / DVR has such a roundabout method to access the timers that it's not funny. I don't think they did a quality check on the UI at all.
i think that kinect is the way to go (or that type technology) it isn't there yet but soon. i think that is why apple wanted to license it. it is the obvious choice for screens out of reach.
Let's accept for the moment that the Google TV 1.0 implementation is seriously flawed. But that is entirely (mostly?) a software issue.
I agree that the user experience is seriously flawed but what is the real downfall is the networks blocking the content. If it's UI thats the problem, you get a small market of geeks who will purchase it, play with it, and in the end drive innovations to the product. If you can't get content then who does this appeal to at $300 (or less with discount)??
I was really interested in how well it was received, it looked a bit awkward and the price kept me from picking one up at launch (unlike the atv) but with the networks blocking the content, I don't have any interest until they work it out. Otherwise I end up with a premium priced, goofy looking blu ray. Really sad...
For now this remains a field ofconsumer interest and testing without and real Winners around.
That seems needlessly complicated to get a freebie game. Not only that, one of the comments to that story have this link is a solution that came about in response to the problem:
http://downloadsquad.switched.com/20...nsing-servers/
Eh I didn't think that was all that complex, but yeah I'm sure not everyone did it. I hadn't heard the info from that link you posted before. Guess it managed to sneak by under the radar as I would have thought that would deserve a wider distribution. Glad to see that loophole closed tho
TV is fine - all those other things are problems. That is why many families have multiple TVs, multiple computers, multiple DVD players etc. Everyone has different needs and interests. Computing is very interactive and personal and there is no way a communal display device that is also used for movies and gaming is ever going to work in the living room. it would work if deployed in multiple rooms.
This is where the iPad comes into play.
With some streaming apps like NetFlix, StreamToMe, etc. the iPad becomes a "Personal TV" for watching movies:
-- several people can be in the same room (with earplugs) watching different movies.
-- same as above in the family room with different content being watched by others on the HDTV.
-- several kids watching a movie an iPad (due to the iPad's large screen and wide viewing angle)
-- several people moving to different rooms or outside while watching movies
-- viewus interruptus - where you walk into the kitchen, interrupt your movie for a recipe, then resume the movie.
-- each family member has an iPad instead of his own TV, Computer, etc.
The only thing missing from this scenario is the recording/streaming of Live TV. (And different-colored cases for the iPads -- so you can tell which is whose).
When AT&T U-Verse, Comcast and the like finally wake up, they will offer an iPad app for streaming of live TV.
.
Google TV seems to be a DUD. It's just not what the cunsumer is looking for. While APPLE seems to have gotten onto the right track it also has a long way to go.
For now this remains a field ofconsumer interest and testing without and real Winners around.
When you think about it and consider the way GTV was announced/presented, it the difference apparent.
GTV is designed for Googles benefit -- to extend their ad, search, and data gathering services. Benefit to the user/consumer is secondary.
ATV is designed to enhance the consumer experience in managing and presenting personal content (Home Movies, Music, Videos, Photos) as well as streaming (NetFlix) and rental/purchase (iTunes Store).
Just a reminder: Android is the fastest growing OS.
Indeed it is...
Google TV seems to be a DUD. It's just not what the cunsumer is looking for. While APPLE seems to have gotten onto the right track it also has a long way to go.
For now this remains a field ofconsumer interest and testing without and real Winners around.
That's not saying much because Apple TV is still a "hobby".
When you think about it and consider the way GTV was announced/presented, it the difference apparent.
GTV is designed for Googles benefit -- to extend their ad, search, and data gathering services. ...
ATV is designed to enhance the consumer experience ...
ATV is about adding a revenue stream to iTunes. The only way you could argue it's to "enhance the consumer experience" is the work Apple put into revamping ATV for v2, and in the end that was to put more devices to consumers. The reason for the price point and the addition of Netflix is to sell devices. Devices that are tied to iTunes.
If I check my crystal ball, I see iAds integration with network content and genius recommendations for shows based on viewing habits. Don't get me wrong I love my Apple products, but to say they're fighting for the customer vs fighting for the customers dollar is pure poppycock.
Your tv provider also collects information about your viewing habits, as will the security services about every other aspect of your life. Get over it. Not buying google does not mean that you are not having information on every aspect of your life tracked. Who cares if google know what you watch on TV seriousllllly??!?!!???
It's just another piece of the Big Brother profile Google is accumulating on every man, woman and child everywhere they can. As for "the security services" it would be illegal for them to do so in the U.S., and that's exactly the reason why Congress axed the TIA program. Why should we allow a private company able and willing to share (and probably already sharing) information with "the security services" to get away with the same thing, as an actual or potential government proxy, we decided the government ought not be doing. Google represents a threat to an open and free society.
It's just another piece of the Big Brother profile Google is accumulating on every man, woman and child everywhere they can. As for "the security services" it would be illegal for them to do so in the U.S., and that's exactly the reason why Congress axed the TIA program. Why should we allow a private company able and willing to share (and probably already sharing) information with "the security services" to get away with the same thing, as an actual or potential government proxy, we decided the government ought not be doing. Google represents a threat to an open and free society.
I'm sorry, but after reading that rant, this image came to mind:
When you think about it and consider the way GTV was announced/presented, it the difference apparent.
GTV is designed for Googles benefit -- to extend their ad, search, and data gathering services. Benefit to the user/consumer is secondary.
ATV is designed to enhance the consumer experience in managing and presenting personal content (Home Movies, Music, Videos, Photos) as well as streaming (NetFlix) and rental/purchase (iTunes Store).
Wow, so GTV is all about extending their brand, but ATV has nothing to do with extending Apple's iTunes brand? Apple is just trying to do a service to the world, without thinking about the bottom line? You must be on the extra strength koolaid...
The only thing revolutionary about Google TV is that now Google can track you in your living room and collect information they previously had no access to. Why anyone would buy a Google telescreen to enable this is a bit of a mystery.
I cannot not agree more. I do not want Google in every aspect of my life. Google search is the only product from google that I use.
Your tv provider also collects information about your viewing habits, as will the security services about every other aspect of your life. Get over it. Not buying google does not mean that you are not having information on every aspect of your life tracked. Who cares if google know what you watch on TV seriousllllly??!?!!???
my tv provider does not know what I watch. Where would it pull the info? The air?
ATV is about adding a revenue stream to iTunes. The only way you could argue it's to "enhance the consumer experience" is the work Apple put into revamping ATV for v2, and in the end that was to put more devices to consumers. The reason for the price point and the addition of Netflix is to sell devices. Devices that are tied to iTunes.
If I check my crystal ball, I see iAds integration with network content and genius recommendations for shows based on viewing habits. Don't get me wrong I love my Apple products, but to say they're fighting for the customer vs fighting for the customers dollar is pure poppycock.
Nobody claimed that Apple was doing it out of charity or good will. Apple's approach is to put themselves in the place of the costumer to determine what they need and see if they can make a profit by satisfying that need.