Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
CES 2011: Google TV Sees Delays
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Until the caps on downloads gets removed I dont see anything like this taking off in any big way. I get 250g from Comcast a month. Yea, sounds like its not but two teenagers and two adult geeks can easily consume that much. We have 2 Xboxes, 8 computers and two separate Nexflix subscriptions.
Part, but not all, of it is licensing. Netflix cannot stream all shows or movies either. Because it started as a secondary business of Netflix, they could add it in small amounts as more content became available. Google tv needs it all to just get going.
The only one taking off is this:
http://www.youview.com/
It has the codevelopment and coinovation with existing hardware manufacturers as well as broadcast and content providers.
http://www.youview.com/
It has the codevelopment and coinovation with existing hardware manufacturers as well as broadcast and content providers.
With respect, I'm going to say it's just you. We live in a world where a million pressure groups will come down hard on any prominent figure who says something that is perceived as offensive. No one went after Steve Jobs for using that term in that way.
Everyone want's a piece of that internet pie. There is a lot of content to go around. But not enough money. Isn't that the issue here. As of right now cable and dish still offer the best option. This is a business and people want free content. Or at least cheap. Cable and dish are the closest thing you will get to offering cheap content for a good profit. The best an internet content distributer can do is offer to distribute for a price. And that price does not come close to the money made with ad dollars or affiliate sales. Which makes up a HUGE chunk of change t.v. channels make.
Unless they, including companies like Comcast, can control the internet. T.v. companies will not budge. Let's be realistic. The Super Bowl will not get streamed because the ad dollars they rake in before, during and after. The internet can't compete with that right now. All it can do is take the sloppy seconds.
T.v. is a dinosaur but the internet is still a baby when it comes to a profitable business model. What we want is not consistent with reality. Jobs and all the content providers and creators know this. Which is why this is going to take a while. The cost in my opinion will be the freedom of the internet. Content providers want to charge people for every time they see it. And we want to pay for it only once. Just my 2 cents.
Unless they, including companies like Comcast, can control the internet. T.v. companies will not budge. Let's be realistic. The Super Bowl will not get streamed because the ad dollars they rake in before, during and after. The internet can't compete with that right now. All it can do is take the sloppy seconds.
T.v. is a dinosaur but the internet is still a baby when it comes to a profitable business model. What we want is not consistent with reality. Jobs and all the content providers and creators know this. Which is why this is going to take a while. The cost in my opinion will be the freedom of the internet. Content providers want to charge people for every time they see it. And we want to pay for it only once. Just my 2 cents.
One word...
Licensing.
It's the biggest obstacle to any new TV service. YouView has the advantage in the UK that it's a consortium of current license holders. They've already had to fight off Sky and Virgin, could you imagine what it would be like if they tried to just walk into a foreign market.
I think the piece of the puzzle that people are missing is that the "free" web content needs to be delivered to the living room in most cases via the cable companies broadband.
It doesn't make good business sense for the cable companies give up billions of dollars of revenue they make today on their cable television business. The money they make alone on cable boxes alone is something they don't want to lose.
Now if consumers are willing to pay their cable companies $150 a month for only their broadband internet access, then maybe they will change their stance, but I doubt anyone of will want to do that.
It don't think for a moment the 3G or 4G networks can handle this type of bandwidth either.
Perhaps some day when we all have fiber to our homes we will see web TV solutions really take off, but until then it will be just niche product.
It doesn't make good business sense for the cable companies give up billions of dollars of revenue they make today on their cable television business. The money they make alone on cable boxes alone is something they don't want to lose.
Now if consumers are willing to pay their cable companies $150 a month for only their broadband internet access, then maybe they will change their stance, but I doubt anyone of will want to do that.
It don't think for a moment the 3G or 4G networks can handle this type of bandwidth either.
Perhaps some day when we all have fiber to our homes we will see web TV solutions really take off, but until then it will be just niche product.
the internet content is supposed to be a freebie so people don't use bittorrent . it's supposed to be for people that live on their computer 24 hours a day. the content owners know they aren't going to make much money on it, but the plus is that it cuts down on the p2p sharing
watching it on a TV they want to be paid for what the content costs. our of the $90 basic cable bill something like $30 goes to pay for the content
I think you have it exactly right. No internet connected TV, service or site aggregator can succeed without the content "old media" supplies. If, and until, they are able to find a way to successfully monetize their content, then we might see this change. What makes the AppleTV appealing is its tie in to your iTunes library and the iTunes store and now, especially, Netflix.
For GoogleTV to succeed, they will have to come up with a way to share ad revenue with content providers, make it more lucrative than it is now with broadcast and cableTV, and ink licensing deals the way cable and networks do now. Apple will likely need to do the same thing if they get into the steaming business too.
At any rate, I don't see this happening any time soon. Old corporate media is just too slow to adapt and change.
Ok, I'm curious... can an Apple TV or google replace our set top boxes that the cable company came with (I mean would they let us view the channels through our TV)?
Point being the ones our cable provider gave us are so totally crappy we'd probably be convinced to buy one that actually worked well if you could do that sort of thing (I just figured we had to use what they provided).
Point being the ones our cable provider gave us are so totally crappy we'd probably be convinced to buy one that actually worked well if you could do that sort of thing (I just figured we had to use what they provided).
And there's part of the issue there. Comcast will fight tooth and nail to avoid removing those caps. They'd rather you buy pay-per-view movies from them (which wont count against your cap) than from Apple, Microsoft, Netflix, etc. So the caps stay in place.
This is one reason we need net neutrality. Big conflict of interest when the only ISP in a given area is also a content provider and have the power to limit access to other content providers.
I don't think the Cable Co's will like that - while they may offer cable card, that just allows the channels - you don't get other services like PPV or on Demand that you are paying for - I think you also have to pay them for the card already. Most cable Cos give you the box and most of them encrypt everything digital.
Meh. There's nothing special about the current generation of Google TV. It's just a stripped down home theater PC. We've had those forever and they've never went anywhere because people don't want a living room PC.
All its potential has yet to come (built-in to most TVs, Android Market, etc). If Google can follow through on that, it may get interesting. But you would be crazy to buy one today.
At least Apple's realistic with the new Apple TV and set the price point appropriately at $99.
Where I live Cox Cable has no cap and a 30GB connection that is about to be upgraded to a 50GB connection. The only competitor, ATT tops out at 18GB (I don't know if ATT has a cap on their DSL.)
It would be nice to have FIOS and 100 GB.
Well, we don't use the on demand services, we just watch the channels that come with our package.
It's too bad though cause the DVR's they gave us are totally glitchy in recording programs (and other stuff too). It's pretty frustrating using the DVR sometimes cause it has so many glitches you have to try to get around.
when will google get into the farm tractor business to compete with john deere? or the cotton and textile business? coffee beans? Google is nothing but annoying with all these random products they launch.
I was going to write the same comment about the Google TV. It looks like a hot mess to me because I think the approach is all wrong. What Google is trying to do is just take all of the major streaming content on the web and make it available through one set-top box. Except the geeks (I use that term with affection) who are interested in this sort of thing already do it with dedicated HTPCs, laptops connected to their televisions, etc., and those who don't do this either don't care or think it's too complicated. You can probably lure some of those people over with a low price-point device with a nice and simple interface - like the Apple TV. But it ain't going to happen with a pricey box with a typically ugly Google UI.
Just my two cents.