So you are saying they have the vast majority of market share? Way to root for the other team.
I am talking about their approach and quality of product. AKA crappy user experience!
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.
Google Announces Google TV for Fall 2010 Launch
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I am talking about their approach and quality of product. AKA crappy user experience!
Apple needs to buy Ruku and add a DVR (buy Tivo) into AppleTV and it would FLY off the self!
The death of Google TV
Well, I guess you'll soon be getting your online porn on your TV. I bet that's something Steve Jobs could focus on.. Get Apple TV with NO PORN.. Bwahahahahaha..
Well, I guess you'll soon be getting your online porn on your TV. I bet that's something Steve Jobs could focus on.. Get Apple TV with NO PORN.. Bwahahahahaha..
No, no, no.
My first impressions on this were great, thinking of this as an amazing product of the future. But now I have changed my mind...
Currently, I have an average Dish Network HD DVR setup that costs around (US) $80-90 a month. It has way too many channels than I would ever watch, and do not get my moneys worth out of it.
A 3rd party internet-based TV box from a provider different a cable/dish provider has a ton of potential. Why not just drop the cable/dish services and stream everything 100% through the web. Doing that would save my family $1000 a year by itself. On top of that, a new monthly-based service by Google (or Apple) could be offered that streams top Live News/Entertainment channels directly to your TV box via WiFi. Google (or Apple) could make a deal with broadcasters to make this happen, giving each broadcaster $1-2 a month for each user that watches their channels. The system could work in a very similar way that the iPad 3G service works- you pay for what you need by the month, and cancel the service when you don't need it. So users could pay only for the channels that they watch, rather than an extremely expensive cable/dish service where you pay for $30 to $150 a month for 100-1000 channels. And if you usually only watch 5 channels, you could only have to pay $5-10 a month for an HD TV service!
Many people may question "What if my internet is not very fast and my TV box wouldn't be able to reliably transfer live TV shows (via the internet) when I need it the most?" Well, a TV box could be constantly monitoring your bandwidth, automatically changing the resolution if frames start dropping. So if you are downloading a large movie file or game on a computer in your household, the TV box could detect the lack of bandwidth, and automatically lower your resolution to around 480i. And when the speeds pick up, the resolution could change back to 720p or 1080p.
Broadband internet speeds will gradually increase as time progresses, allowing this type of setup to make sense for use on a daily basis.
Does anyone else agree with me on this idea?
My first impressions on this were great, thinking of this as an amazing product of the future. But now I have changed my mind...
Currently, I have an average Dish Network HD DVR setup that costs around (US) $80-90 a month. It has way too many channels than I would ever watch, and do not get my moneys worth out of it.
A 3rd party internet-based TV box from a provider different a cable/dish provider has a ton of potential. Why not just drop the cable/dish services and stream everything 100% through the web. Doing that would save my family $1000 a year by itself. On top of that, a new monthly-based service by Google (or Apple) could be offered that streams top Live News/Entertainment channels directly to your TV box via WiFi. Google (or Apple) could make a deal with broadcasters to make this happen, giving each broadcaster $1-2 a month for each user that watches their channels. The system could work in a very similar way that the iPad 3G service works- you pay for what you need by the month, and cancel the service when you don't need it. So users could pay only for the channels that they watch, rather than an extremely expensive cable/dish service where you pay for $30 to $150 a month for 100-1000 channels. And if you usually only watch 5 channels, you could only have to pay $5-10 a month for an HD TV service!
Many people may question "What if my internet is not very fast and my TV box wouldn't be able to reliably transfer live TV shows (via the internet) when I need it the most?" Well, a TV box could be constantly monitoring your bandwidth, automatically changing the resolution if frames start dropping. So if you are downloading a large movie file or game on a computer in your household, the TV box could detect the lack of bandwidth, and automatically lower your resolution to around 480i. And when the speeds pick up, the resolution could change back to 720p or 1080p.
Broadband internet speeds will gradually increase as time progresses, allowing this type of setup to make sense for use on a daily basis.
Does anyone else agree with me on this idea?
I agree with you that it's a great idea for CONSUMERS, but it won't happen anytime soon because it's a terrible idea for BROADCASTERS. See all those channels that you and I don't want but we have to pay for anyway... we subsidize the other channels that flat out don't draw enough of an audience to stay afloat. By bundling everything into packages your provider (Dish, Comcast..etc..) can keep airing niche networks, some of which I do watch. If they went to an ala-carte model the number of channels available would drop significantly, and possibly some of the channels you actually want to pay for would no longer be available.
It sucks, but that's how it was explained to me. For the time being it would just be nice if Apple/Google/Whoever would build a nice set-top box that offers some web-connectivy, enhanced DVR functions, and allow apps like Netflix, Boxee, etc.. I'm hoping with this Google announcement this will prompt Apple to make the ATV the awesome little internet TV box that it can be. It's really time for ATV to stop being a "hobby" and start being a real product in Apple's eyes.
I hope this lights a fire under Apple's ass. Let me control my TV with my iPhone, or iPad and we're halfway there.
It would be very simple to prevent that from happening. A $50/month Unlimited channels service could be offered, for those who are interested in niche networks. The per-channel cost could even be increased to $4 a month to encourage customers to buy the unlimited package. Niche networks would only be encouraged to broadcast, because it wouldn't be as difficult to get a spot in a providers limited 1000-channel lineup. This is where Google gets the "a few hundred channels to millions of channels" idea from.
A large portion of the cost customers pay for their providers consists of support, broadcasting stations, setup at your house, rental equipment (box, dish), and the workmen that are constantly on the move fixing cable outages. None of those factors would apply in this case, bring total service cost to nearly half of what it would usually cost.
So this system would be very efficient, and I don't see any reasons that broadcasters wouldn't support it.
It's time for Apple and Microsoft to join forces to kill the Devil--Google.
Don't forget Google stabbed Apple in the back.
Microsoft didn't stab Apple in the back with the OS: http://www.macobserver.com/columns/thisweek/2004/20040630.shtml
Don't forget Google stabbed Apple in the back.
Microsoft didn't stab Apple in the back with the OS: http://www.macobserver.com/columns/thisweek/2004/20040630.shtml
With today's Google announcements, Google's Android 2.2 has surpassed iPhone 4.0 OS and the Google TV is what Apple TV should have been, but since the Apple TV was just a hobby I should not have expected much over the last several years...or really anything.
I will be dumping my 3GS in a few weeks for the Sprint EVO. I will let you know in 4 weeks if I made a mistake or a great move. I do wish it came with 2.2 instead of 2.1. I used to laugh off the complainers here about Apple going exclusive with AT&T. It turns out these complainers were right.
Google's open systems vs Apple's closed environment...who will be the victor?!?! Very exciting times.
I will be dumping my 3GS in a few weeks for the Sprint EVO. I will let you know in 4 weeks if I made a mistake or a great move. I do wish it came with 2.2 instead of 2.1. I used to laugh off the complainers here about Apple going exclusive with AT&T. It turns out these complainers were right.
Google's open systems vs Apple's closed environment...who will be the victor?!?! Very exciting times.
Yeah it's pretty much over for Apple. What ever Apple has for lunch Google is intent on eating it.
You know, my first reaction to this announcement was that Apple dropped the ball and Google was coming in to take it away from them.
On second thought, it is possible that Google smells (or, potentially, corporate spies uncovered) a pending, unreleased threat from Apple in this space. In that case, Google is announcing a pre-emptive PR strike while Apple is chugging right along with its unreleased product.
I personally believe the pending threat to be iTunes X. The number one feature of this new software will be cloud storage of your iTunes media (no syncing, no storage, your media everywhere - on-demand). The second most significant feature will be television/movie subscriptions. The third major feature will be iAds which enable free or cheaper access to television and movies. All of this, of course, will pump to any iDevice, and of course, the AppleTV.
It may not seem like it, but I suspect Google is making a pre-emptive strike with Google TV.
On second thought, it is possible that Google smells (or, potentially, corporate spies uncovered) a pending, unreleased threat from Apple in this space. In that case, Google is announcing a pre-emptive PR strike while Apple is chugging right along with its unreleased product.
I personally believe the pending threat to be iTunes X. The number one feature of this new software will be cloud storage of your iTunes media (no syncing, no storage, your media everywhere - on-demand). The second most significant feature will be television/movie subscriptions. The third major feature will be iAds which enable free or cheaper access to television and movies. All of this, of course, will pump to any iDevice, and of course, the AppleTV.
It may not seem like it, but I suspect Google is making a pre-emptive strike with Google TV.
Yes, cloud storage of my 40 GB HD movies - bring it on!
Especially if one wants to access their files on AT&T's 3G network - LOL.
Seriously - "cloud media storage" today fails miserably for most people - it might be useful for horribly over-compressed audio files. It won't work for lossless audio, or even "VHS-quality" video.
If everyone had a 1 Gbps home broadband link, and every mobile had an honest 10 Mbps link - then keeping your media in the cloud becomes interesting. (Until you look at the GB/month charges from the cloud storage providers, that is.)
You noticed that, too? I've been using PVR/DVR technology to control my television (rather than it controlling me) for nearly 10 years. The only "television" I ever watch live anymore is usually baseball. And I usually watch it over streaming internet via my Roku box, MacBook, or iPad, sometimes all at the same time
(Yeah, I know I'm a junkie. Can't help it. I wait all winter for baseball season).Point is that all of this technology has been available for a while. Not dissing Google here. I welcome more entries into the market, so that it becomes more mainstream. Bring it on, Google. The more the merrier. Let's get the power away from the Comcasts and NBCs of the world.
Between my two AppleTVs, my internet connected Bluray, my Roku, my Tivo with Netflix and Amazon, and my internet connected television, I still want more choices.
And to all of the mopes, who have whined about "Duh, what is thith doing on Macrumors?" Give me a break! Ever heard of AppleTV? This is directly relevant and direct competition to AppleTV. And it should only serve to make AppleTV better.
Well, Google has pretty much got their hand in every pie possible.
What's next? GoogleBox? Is there a skunkworks WebGL/OpenGL game console somewhere at Google? Ad-supported gaming sounds like a great business.
I highly doubt Sony will be singing their praises once they announce that.
What's next? GoogleBox? Is there a skunkworks WebGL/OpenGL game console somewhere at Google? Ad-supported gaming sounds like a great business.
I highly doubt Sony will be singing their praises once they announce that.
Yes, cloud storage of my 40 GB HD movies - bring it on!
Especially if one wants to access their files on AT&T's 3G network - LOL.
Seriously - "cloud media storage" today fails miserably for most people - it might be useful for horribly over-compressed audio files. It won't work for lossless audio, or even "VHS-quality" video.
If everyone had a 1 Gbps home broadband link, and every mobile had an honest 10 Mbps link - then keeping your media in the cloud becomes interesting. (Until you look at the GB/month charges from the cloud storage providers, that is.)
I've been purchasing and watching TV shows and movies on my AppleTV for the last 2 years - takes about one minute to buffer and done - on demand. HD, about 4 minutes buffer. And sorry, but if you consider MP4 720P to be VHS quality than you're probably too young to remember VHS. Either that or your just making wild claims for dramatic effect.
Cloud storage would enable a user to never have to worry about how many hard drives they need running in the back room to store all of their media. Nor would they ever need to worry about data loss.
Cloud media storage will happen. Likely as an option at first - but it will happen. And it will be touted as a major feature and benefit.
Additionally, why would you WANT to stream HD to your iPhone over AT&T 3G? The nice thing about a cloud based iTunes X is that it could serve media to your device that is sized and optimized for that device. Apple could have 4 versions of the same film and serve it to you differently based on the device calling it.
Yeah, I was thinking of doing the same, but really, really wanted OS 2.2. Although the EVO supposedly does Flash 10.1.
Google is just awesome.
You guys are all just haters.
Their I/O conference has proven to be very impressive so far and i think they will be the leaders of the industry in the future with the whole Android concept and platform.
You guys are all just haters.
Their I/O conference has proven to be very impressive so far and i think they will be the leaders of the industry in the future with the whole Android concept and platform.
Do you honestly think anyone here is waiting with baited breath for your "review"? I think many of us lost interest the minute you compared two non shipping OS. Android 2.2 and iPhone OS 4 haven't even shipped yet you seemingly have pored over both and have ascribed a victor. Interesting since we're just on the 4th beta of
Second people that make platform decisions based on "mythical" Open vs Closed systems have already shut their brains down. The only thing coming out of your mouth will be diatribe.
Nay. Stick to being a fan and let reviewers with experience provide the balance necessary in a proper review.
As for the Google TV. I fail to see where it's going to do anything TV viewing. It's a solution in search of a problem. With a DVR it's pretty easy to find shows to watch and record them. Google TV doesn't seem to address what consumers want which really is cheaper and improved content.
As someone said here. Yet another niche product that will likely sell less than a Nexus ONE.
AppleTV haters unite now you can rag on it some more, how is this acompetitor? I Have all my own content on my ATV, what does Google TV do? Integrates crap from many different crappy sources, wow now I can watch and integrate reality TV, or i can enjoy DVD's I've ripped from my collection, vintage TV shows, movies ,concerts... hmm..
I am interested. As well as others, I am sure. I am also contemplating dumping my 3Gs.
But if you want a "real" review, of a shipping Android OS, here is what Engadget says about the Incledible's Android 2.1 with Sense:
"To say that this UI is competitive with something like iPhone OS 3.1 (or 4 for that matter), or Palm's webOS is an understatement; in many ways it's superior to what Apple and Palm are offering."
Really? Is this what you said about Steve Jobs' diatribe in the famous Open Letter, ranting about how Flash is not an "open" system?
Try looking up a show which you have not recorded on your primitive DVR. What part of searching the web (Hulu, Netflix, YouTube, etc.) did you not understand?
The only fail here is your pointless post.