Oh, not an Intel Atom CE again! Google better get their partners to release some cheaper (under $150) ARM based Google TV's this fall. That ridiculous $300 price was probably the main reason Google TV failed last year.
I was also hoping for Tegra 3 in some of the TV's or set top boxes, and that Google would take advantage of this to try to turn Google TV at least a little bit into a gaming console platform.
Developers are already starting to port their PC or PS3 games to Android phones or tablets, and Honeycomb 3.1 is getting gamepad support. I think it would be a good idea to have some nice console like games in the Android Market for Google TV. But it needs Tegra 3 to really push this console idea, because the games would actually have console-like graphics.
EDIT: Side note: I know that Google doesn't make the devices themselves, but they have a very close relationship with the launch manufacturers. So how is it that Google fails again, and again, to grasp what the right price would be for the product launch? It's happened 3 times already.
1) Google TV set top box was $300, instead of $150, or even $100.
2) Xoom started at $800, instead of having a wi-fi only version at $500 at most ($400-$450 would've been the sweet spot)
3) Chromebooks at $430, when it should've been $250-$300 at most. What happened to the "disposable machine" idea? I mean it's irrelevant if it had even a quad core i7 in it, and you'd think the price would be justified. But it wouldn't be. At the end of the day it's an "Internet-only machine". There's a price threshold you can't pass.
Google seems more inexperienced in the consumer market than I thought. Price is such a critical factor in gaining market acceptance, especially for a new product category. They should first ask themselves "What is the right pricing for this type of product" and then try to squeeze the most powerful specs they can in it.
I completely agree with that, too. Like what were they thinking? I won't even go into explaining why that's such a bad idea, because I think it's obvious to most people that was a stupid idea.
They have Google Voice Search, and they didn't even use it for Google TV. They could use that for saying commands and doing the searches on Google by speaking to it..
But I don't even think that should be the main way to interact with Google TV. I know they've been working on Kinect-like stuff for Android and that they hired I believe the former tech lead from Kinect, so I think they should be using Kinect-like technology to allow you to use the Google TV interface with your hands.
Would those 2 be the perfect interaction models for Google TV? I don't know. But I think it sounds a whole lot better than using a full QWERTY keyboard.
I think the lack of content hurt Google TV, too. Did they even have Netflix at launch? I think they didn't. I know Hulu is up for sale. It might be a good idea to buy them.
I also think video chatting on TV is pretty revolutionary and might be a huge thing in the future, so they should take advantage of that with GTalk. The only problem I see here is that people will have to buy cameras for their TV's, too, so adoption for that might be a little slow, but it would get there.
Hulu is not up for sale, Yahoo may have made an unsolicited offer. Hulu also does not have long term content deals (which are their only real asset). Right now Hulu is mostly owned by the content owners which is why it gets content at all, if Google bought it a lot of the quality content they currently have would very likely go away.
I do know that there are a bunch of people playing with the Kinect controller for navigating TV but I think you'll see this with a future Xbox rev first. Microsoft has TV platforms in the past (Media Center and traditional cable style guides etc). I think its much more likely to see this type of innovation come from MS in the Xbox, since they can do a lot of this with software and already have millions of boxes already hooked up in peoples living rooms.
> I also think video chatting on TV is pretty revolutionary and might be a huge thing in the future, so they should take advantage of that with GTalk. The only problem I see here is that people will have to buy cameras for their TV's, too, so adoption for that might be a little slow, but it would get there.
I just bought the add-on camera for my Sony flatscreen, which has a Skype application built in. It is in fact a very convenient way to video chat, compared with using a laptop. I am sure cams will be built into the TVs from the next generation or two.
The absolute best thing about Google TV is using my phone (iPhone, iPod, or Android Phone) as the remote. I never have to roam around the room looking for a remote any more: it's in my pocket. The phone also nicely includes a decent keyboard.
google tv failed because its extra value was extremely quickly killed by the content providers. if it didn't affect anyone, content providers wouldn't have lifted a finger
OK, possibly that was an OTT statement but I think it's fair to say that it's questionable whether many people want another large box in their living room and whether a keyboard is something which adds value for them in that scenario.
You may be right about your keyboard comment. I like having my little Sony Google TV controller in easy reach at the moment, but with voice search, I can imagine a day without it.
In my humble opinion, the area where Google TV really kills is in media aggregation. I can enter a few search terms, and suddenly video, audio, and who knows what else is available on my big screen TV. Is it on Netflix? Is it on Youtube? Is it on Amazon? It doesn't matter. I just search in one place and press play. Ultimately, this list will include Hulu, ABC, NBC, Comedy Central, Fox, et al. We will have to wait for the content providers to decide that advertising to web viewers is just as worthwhile as advertising to cable viewers.
Imagine a TV experience where everything is video on demand from thousands of sources, but searchable from one place. You won't even need a cable subscription.
Ultimately, this list will include Hulu, ABC, NBC, Comedy Central, Fox, et al. We will have to wait for the content providers to decide that advertising to web viewers is just as worthwhile as advertising to cable viewers.
No it won't, None of the large networks are moving to this model anytime soon. This is not a matter of loss of ad dollars its a matter of loss of subscription revenue. Cable Networks pay the networks to carry their content (ESPN make $4B a year in cable fees) and ad dollars on the web in no way make up for this loss in revenue. You may end up getting everything on demand some day, but you will be paying a subscription for it.
Point taken, but I'm more than happy to pay them directly. I'll pay for Hulu Plus when it is released for Google TV. I don't like looking through a grid of shows that are currently "on." I don't even like flipping through my DVR. I want to type the name of the show in, and select my favorite video source from the results.
I am one of those people that didnt want a box or a keyboard, Google TV integrated into the TV nicely worked as the solution.
Pretty much every normal person who sees it in action, pause live tv, bring up wikipedia to look something up to answer a question, or pull up youtube to listen to the original of a song before listening to it on The Voice, pull up a Brian Wilson interview during a Giants game commercial -- all without changing context, just with this same little remote, to a person they have all said "I want this".
But the SW just hasn't been fully baked as of yet, it crashes, it halts, it ignores inputs, and the UI is confusing for first time users. All of its problems and issues are primarily SW related. At least for the TV, the paradigm and design are very correct, I think, and quite powerful.
I haven't ever played with a Google TV device, but my first thought upon reading that is that I could and would rather do all those things today on my phone (or tablet), not on my TV.
E.g. I can separately look up supplemental information on my handheld device and then, if there's something I want to share with the rest of the people in the room, I can: verbally share it, pass the device around, or (with Apple TV, which I'm fairly pleased with, but certainly isn't perfect) beam that info up to the big screen via AirPlay. I'd hate to subject my viewing-mates to watching me fiddle with a UI that overlays and takes screen space/otherwise distracts from the thing they're trying to watch.
tl;dr: Why would I want wikipedia on my TV when I've got it on my phone?
If I am by myself, I agree -- I always have a laptop nearby and use it quite often for this sort of thing. Except in the case of video -- I much prefer to watch any video of any sort on my TV and having full Youtube on my TV in such an accessible way is more or less worth the price of admission for me.
But what I have found with viewing mates is actually quite the opposite -- looking something up and verbally telling them/passing the device is I think a much less pleasant and engaging way of doing things -- unless perhaps you are the one looking them up.
If you are the controller its fine -- but for the other people in the room I think it can be pretty annoying. I have found it actually more enjoyable for the group to watch the interaction and to be a part of things. It is more communal. I think we underestimate how boring it is to watch someone sitting on a couch with a computer and wait for an answer with no idea where they are in the information retrieval process, unable to suggest they click on some other link, and unable to be a part of it.
tldr: I think people actually like the internet, and don't mind looking at it when they have a reason to want something from it. Doing this in the relaxed, living room, communal viewing context is a pleasant, conversation invoking experience.
EDIT: I should add -- this must be used wisely and with discretion. The ability to turn your TV into the internet is a powerful thing, with great potential for annoyance, and one not to be abused. I find myself doing it with guests not when I have a question, or remember something on the internet that relates to something -- but when they do.
Not for daily use, no. But for simple tasks like having a stats-box on-screen during a game or being able to "throw" content from your phone to your tv, it has potential.
I have and I've found it horrible - mostly from an ergonomic perspective. I can't sit on my couch with my feet on my coffee table and comfortably navigate my TV. I forced myself to use it for 2 weeks to see if I'd get over it and quickly switched back to my Logitech Harmony.
This is in contrast to the Boxee remote which I like which is a normal remote but has a keyboard on the back.
NOTE: I use the Logitech GoogleTV remote, not the Sony TV "Big Ass Playstation Controller" remote. The Sony one, theoretically, may be easier to use.
For most consumers a internet set-top box for TV is a completely new type of technology purchase (similar to a tablet purchase). Set-top boxes don't have the "cool-factor" of other technologies (smartphones/tablets) to drive sales, and TV === Cable mentality is already ingrained, so the barrier to adoption is price. The price needs to be low enough that the consumer is willing to take the risk of adopting a new (possibly dust-collecting) gadget.
E.g. I really wanted a GoogleTV, but the price-tag was high for something I was sure I'd use a lot. Instead I got an Apple TV for $99. It doesn't have everything I want, but it suits my needs 90% of the time. (also see eBook readers)
I have the Sony TV and in general have no problems with either the price or the remote/keyboard. I have been displeased with the state of the SW, and the lack of bug fixes. I anxiously await 3.1 and a more modern version of Chrome.
Seriously! I love my Google TV, but one of the best parts about Chrome is the rapid update schedule. I'd almost prefer the stock Android browser to the version of Chrome that is on the current Google TV boxes. I believe that Google TV is running Chrome 5, while the latest Chrome stable build seems to be 12.
Does anyone know what version of Chrome is on Fishtank?
This looks good. I scored a free Google TV (from Google) last year and have been enjoying it as a consumer item, but customer work has soaked up all of my time since then and I have not been able to do much (at all) as far as customizing web apps for the platform, experiment more with Android development, etc.
Also: re: keyboard: I like having a keyboard. It is unobtrusive and generally nice to use.
Google TV broke my heart. I try not to set high hopes for technology ... I made a mistake with Google TV.
If they had released an app store from the get-go, maybe that could have saved it. The crappy controllers, the fact that many content providers blocked them, the price tag were all nails in the coffin.
Here's the thing ... building a consumer product is very different from releasing code on the Internet. Google does the latter extremely well ... I am shocked at their performance on the former. When you pay a few hundred bucks for something, you want it to work properly. I don't care if it will work great after a year's worth of update. I paid for it now ... I want it to work now. Also, I don't care if they aren't the ones making the badly conceived hardware ... from the consumer's standpoint, the product = software+hardware.
End of rant. Btw ... this is pent up rage from having a Nexus One phone die on me in less than a month as well as Google TV. I use a Nexus S phone now ... far superior, but I feel I simply burned the $$$ for my other product purchases.
I really like my google tv but it could be so, so much better. I see huge potential as long as Google doesn't lose interest in it, but that may be asking too much.
I was also hoping for Tegra 3 in some of the TV's or set top boxes, and that Google would take advantage of this to try to turn Google TV at least a little bit into a gaming console platform.
Developers are already starting to port their PC or PS3 games to Android phones or tablets, and Honeycomb 3.1 is getting gamepad support. I think it would be a good idea to have some nice console like games in the Android Market for Google TV. But it needs Tegra 3 to really push this console idea, because the games would actually have console-like graphics.
EDIT: Side note: I know that Google doesn't make the devices themselves, but they have a very close relationship with the launch manufacturers. So how is it that Google fails again, and again, to grasp what the right price would be for the product launch? It's happened 3 times already.
1) Google TV set top box was $300, instead of $150, or even $100.
2) Xoom started at $800, instead of having a wi-fi only version at $500 at most ($400-$450 would've been the sweet spot)
3) Chromebooks at $430, when it should've been $250-$300 at most. What happened to the "disposable machine" idea? I mean it's irrelevant if it had even a quad core i7 in it, and you'd think the price would be justified. But it wouldn't be. At the end of the day it's an "Internet-only machine". There's a price threshold you can't pass.
Google seems more inexperienced in the consumer market than I thought. Price is such a critical factor in gaining market acceptance, especially for a new product category. They should first ask themselves "What is the right pricing for this type of product" and then try to squeeze the most powerful specs they can in it.