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 TV to Launch Later This Month: Apps, Netflix Streaming, AirPlay-Like Video Capabilities
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No you don't. If you'd ever actually used DLNA you'd realize how quickly a DLNA library can be corrupted and you have to restart the entire infrastructure. Sorry, but every time I tried to get a DLNA endpoint to work, I was greeted with some measure of fail because of lack of standards integration and everyone pushing their own proprietary crap onto the stack.
DLNA also doesn't give you quite the control over endpoint devices the same way that Airplay does.
Perhaps... but the whole key is it's not their now, and you can bet Apple will likely require you to have a new version to use the apps.
This is exactly what the Apple TV should have been. It doesn't matter if this is what the Apple TV will be down the road, because the Google TV will have additional features and functionality by that point.
ouch
Man, Steve Jobs is getting owned. Google is making the right moves while Apple is sending out bad antennas, gimped TV devices, and other such things. Man.
Man, Steve Jobs is getting owned. Google is making the right moves while Apple is sending out bad antennas, gimped TV devices, and other such things. Man.
Really, guess I better go restart my entire infrastructure then since I've been using it for ... well since I got my LG BD player. Oh wait no, I was using it before then... when was it exactly... hum... oh right, when I got my PS3. No, that's not quite right, I think it was when I got the QNAP to act a DLNA server...
So many different devices interacting with each other without "corruption", I wonder what I am doing wrong.
the video doesn't show an input device (an earlier video suggested a keyboard/mouse interface for web surfin, etc).
I'm not so thrilled about having a keyboard/mouse.
Although it also takes multiple smartphone inputs, it gets inconvenient for family use or similar situations where someone wants leaves the room with their personal smartphone.
P.
I'm not so thrilled about having a keyboard/mouse.
Although it also takes multiple smartphone inputs, it gets inconvenient for family use or similar situations where someone wants leaves the room with their personal smartphone.
P.
Google hasn't had an original idea for years. This demonstrates why Apple plays its cards so close to the chest... let anything slip and Google announces a 'me too' immediately.
BTW...
OH BOY!!! Farmville on my TV!!!
My life will be complete.
You could just be using crappy DLNA devices. I can't say I've ever had a problem in the 2 years or so I've been using mine extensively.
That said, DLNA does give you identical control over endpoint devices. DLNA supported the "push to device" functionality touted with AirPlay back around 2008-2009 if I recall. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if AirPlay is simply Apple-branded DLNA, just like Bonjour is Apple-branded ZeroConf.
That's great if you don't mind "creepy" Eric Schmidt indexing all your viewing habits to be leveraged by Google later or sold to the highest bidder...
Eric Schmidt said:
So, can you list any patents or did you just reply with a ad hominem against Google ? What is it with this forum and all the Google hate ?
You think Google does "me too immediately" ? Without ever working on things before hand ?
I bet you think that Google buying Android the startup in 2005 is all a big retcon and that Google simply made the articles about it appear in 2007 when Apple released the iPhone, the first ever fullscreen touch phone!.
Seriously guys. Apple. Is. NOT. the sole industry innovator.
It was 2008, the link to Techradar I made earlier talks about push to device DLNA and the article is dated 2008.
Apple is using DAAP. Airplay is probably just push DAAP. Basically, proprietary DLNA just for the sake of keeping their ecosystem closed instead of using open standards. Apple touts open standards like H.264 and HTML5 when it serves them and pushes closed, proprietary ones when they can. Double standards.
there are already TV's with the same functionality built in which cost $200 more than an equivalent TV. most of the new LED backlit and 3D models already have it. so expect Google TV to be in the cheapo $650 models in a year or two.
the difference is that Google TV seems to be a lot better than the current internet enabled TV's. i've seen an LG internet TV and the yahoo widget apps were so slow it was like watching trees grow
apple TV seems to be targeted at the niche who don't have a game console, internet enabled blu ray player or a cable box
If Google is betting that the killer app will be web browsing from your couch, I'll take that bet. I don't think its a feature anyone really wants (at least in the real world.)
Other than that, there's nothing in this announcement that won't be available on ATV2, and I'll take my product from Apple over Google's eternal beta-land any day.
Oh, and Logitech... They can't even make a TV remote that properly charges in their own custom base. Cheap plastic crap-ola.
Let's be clear... Google is putting yet another box in competition with the cable box. Good luck with that.
Apple is making its box a piece of a peer network. As much content will come from iPhones and ipads as it will directly from the internet.
Is that the right answer? Time will tell. But I don't think Google has the customer chops to pull this off.
I 100% agree with this statement.
Thank you! I thought I was the only one who felt this way on GoogleRumors. I mean MacRumors, sorry.
Your privacy is one of the most valuable things you have these days. Nothing is ever 'free'. I for one am not going to trade convienience for data mining anymore.
Still, I do like the way Google is pushing Apple and the other companies here.
But they are the ones to actually product things that work and that people (not geeks) like.
I didn't claim patent infringement, only a lack of originality (and class). Schmidt sure had his tape recorder going on in the Apple Board meetings, didn't he?
Start with Android and go from there. (And don't come back with 'they announced it a year before Apple'... What they announced was another chiclet feature phone. They were just ripping off Blackberry before they saw a better idea to steal in the iPhone.)
Yes, anyone who likes what they see in Google TV and doesn't immediately proclaim Apple to be the best is a confused poster or a Google plant. Godalmighty.
The other main difference I haven't seen addressed in this thread is initial cost.
The Logitech Revue (first Google TV box) is set to release in a few weeks at a $299 price point. The Boxee Box is $199 (Amazon). The $99 price point ofTV2 makes it a lot more appealing to just try.
This is one of the big advantages Apple has over Google/Boxee for this round.
Funny. Some people on this board were saying that the Kindle was dead because even though it was MUCH cheaper as an eReader - the iPad was better and would supplant it because it can do so much more. My argument then (which got blasted) was that people sometimes don't want more - they simply and ONLY want an eReader and therefor - the price point makes a huge difference.
To other posters - newsflash - Apple didn't invent everything having to do with content delivery and the internet. And Steve Jobs, your mighty mighty Steve even states that he takes current technologies and (in his opinion) improves them. He didn't invent the portable musical device (iPod) he improved upon it. He didn't invent the eReader he improved upon it. He didn't invent the tablet computer. The desktop. The laptop. OS. Need I continue?
The arguments going back and forth about who came up with what first is laughable.
It's like someone came into YOUR house and STOLE something of YOURS. Get over it. It's called business. And companies come out with competing products all the time. And often they are in development for YEARS. People here take it so personally.
Uh ? My mom owns 0 Apple products. Yet she watches TV, surfs the net, plays portable games. In fact, I'd wager that people (not geeks) like a lot of tech products not made by apple and that these products work.
You're going to stand there and tell me the only products that work for normal people are Apple's, all the while ignoring the fact that Apple has a minuscule market share in about every market in participates in ?
I seriously doubt you're arguing that geeks make up the big majority of the population, that would just be insane.
I agree with the rest of your post (not quoted), but
Actually, the good thing is that Apple won't have to match Google with feature parity. In fact they rarely do. Look at Apple's products-- there's usually a long list of features people complain about Apple lacking, yet Apple continues to succeed largely because they don't take the kitchen sink approach. I'm sure Apple will monitor GTV and implement the features they think are valuable.
One of my pet peeves recently has been this "cult of competition". The idea that competition, for the sake of competition, is somehow inherently good as an end in itself. In this case, the competition may be valuable-- Apple TV is languishing and some innovation from others may help Apple clarify its view of the market. The question you always have to ask though is whether the competition is better than cooperation. Is there more to be gained from Apple and Google attacking this market independently, or would it be better to the consumer if they two companies focused on compatibility and sharing the cost and effort of competing with traditional media?
...
You're going to stand there and tell me the only products that work for normal people are Apple's, all the while ignoring the fact that Apple has a minuscule market share in about every market in participates in ?
You are as always correct. Digital portable music players, smart phones, digital music stores, just to name a few - Apple has a minuscule market share in all of these markets.
Google, on the other hand, is huge in every market in which they try to take part.
I seriously doubt you're arguing that geeks make up the big majority of the population, that would just be insane.
I really dislike how so many MR posters desire the dumbing down of the world considering they consider themselves the elite Apple united. As if they can have it both ways. On one side they pat themselves on the back for being smart and cutting edge to buy all things Apple. They praise Apple products for "just working" and not being complicated. As if a) no learning curve exists for an Apple product and b) it's too too hard to learn anything else. Most human brains can't handle android or other products because they are just too complicated.
Tragic really. Depressing. I give my fellow society members a little more credit than most perhaps.
BTW - it's a fallacy and simply marketing which states that Apple Products just work. When you look behind the curtain - you can easily see that they don't just work. There are thousands of people who take classes, post on forums, visit the genius bar to learn how to use even the basic functions of their phones, computers, etc.
So I have no idea where people get off making such ridiculous claims. Everything has a learning curve.
And it's tiresome to read threads that encourage people to be lazy. Or refer to anyone that actually spends a few minutes reading a manual or whatnot is automatically a "geek."
DLNA is a copy of Apple's original Airtunes concept which is now known as Airplay. Apple was the first to implement the concept and show it off. But these are two different technologies, implementations, and methods. It's a lot more going on under the scenes than you apparently have a clue about.
It's not just some name difference like you seem to be suggesting any more than a bicycle is the same as an automobile because both are designed to get you from point A to point B. For you to state that DLNA and Airplay are the same makes you look utterly clueless.
By the way, I have used DLNA on many different devices and it is a huge headache. Especially with video. The spec is so open for interpretation that manufacturers all have their own implementations and there are huge compatibility issues between hardware. There is very little error correction so the link often breaks and when it does it kicks you completely out rather than failing gracefully. Even when it does work, there is not much in the way of integration with metadata, tagging, etc. so the UI is always very subpar.
Worst of all, support for fast forwarding and rewinding video using DLNA is absolutely horrendous. That reason alone is a deal breaker. You are kidding yourself if you think DLNA video implementations work well.
I hope Google came up with something better like Apple did with Airplay because if they chose to use DLNA for streaming between devices, they are going to be at an immediate and large disadvantage to Apple TV. There is a reason Apple spent years perfecting Airtunes before announcing the current Airplay implementation to include video. There is a lot that has to be done behind the scenes integrating and inventing various different types of technologies to make it work well.
It looks to be very focussed on subscription TV, at least right now.
This doesn't make much sense if you don't live in the US or a place where lots of people have cable/satellite/whatever. If someone bundles it with a couple of DVB-T tuners for places like here in Australia, I might be more interested.
It really also has to feature robust DLNA streaming support for all the content I already have. And the streaming interface can't look like ass, otherwise I'm better off buying a WDTV or whatever.
Colour me interested but not particularly motivated to buy right now. If Sony does the bundling right with their TV's (and hooks it into the tuners seamlessly), I will definitely consider it for the next set I purchase.
This doesn't make much sense if you don't live in the US or a place where lots of people have cable/satellite/whatever. If someone bundles it with a couple of DVB-T tuners for places like here in Australia, I might be more interested.
It really also has to feature robust DLNA streaming support for all the content I already have. And the streaming interface can't look like ass, otherwise I'm better off buying a WDTV or whatever.
Colour me interested but not particularly motivated to buy right now. If Sony does the bundling right with their TV's (and hooks it into the tuners seamlessly), I will definitely consider it for the next set I purchase.