GoogleTV, AppleTV and the Battle For The Living Room

An anonymous reader pointed us to an article talking about Google TV and AppleTV challenging the major networks and taking their place in your living room. It'll be a tough battle, amusingly waged on cable company wires in many major markets.

Comments

with net neutrality not going to happen

[Anonymous Coward]

they won't get far off the ground. when it takes money out of the cable company mouths (the ISPs), they will throttle down google tv and apple tv so that you will have to use their services instead and there will be nothing we can do about it because enforcing net neutrality is big government intervention - just go ask the tea party people - they are adamant against net neutrality

Re:with net neutrality not going to happen

[click2005]

As I've mentioned before, this will give the ISPs an excuse to switch to per Gb billing.

Net neutrality

[codewarren]

And when the cable company says you can't use our lines for that... the guantlet for net neutrality will be thrown also.

(or when the cable company says, "look we have tv over the internet now too" like they did with phone service)

Re:Net neutrality

[MozeeToby]

(or when the cable company says, "look we have tv over the internet now too" like they did with phone service)

So? Let them, then there would be three TV over IP services vying for my money instead of just two (actually between Netflix, Amazon, and the possible multitude of Android based players there will be many more than three but you get the point). Though I suspect rather than "you can't use our lines for that" it will be a computer nerd shacked up in his workshop doing tests on each of the devices that discovers that the cable company's offering magically gets better bandwidth and latency than their competition. Though which cable companies will be stupid enough to pick a fight with the likes of Google and Apple at the same time remains to be seen (but you just know there will be at least one of them that thinks they can get away with it).

Re:Net neutrality

[mea37]

I doubt many cable companies, when faced with a loss of TV subscribers, will turn around and alienate their ISP subscribers with limitations on their service. I'm betting they'd like to have a hand in the delivery of TV content, even if it is only as the ISP over which someone else's digital service is delivered.

As to the Net Neutrality issue, my answer to the question has been and will still be "labeling laws". Doesn't bother me one bit if my cable company wants to say "services X, Y, and Z are not allowed on our network", so long as that's clearly stated up front.

And no, I don't expect the ever-shrinking population that only has one ISP option (or doesn't know how to find the other options) to be driving industry practices WRT network management.

Re:Net neutrality

[webheaded]

And if you're in an area where both companies do it?

I get tired about hearing about great old capitalism and choices in a market that essentially HAS NO CHOICES. I'm all for letting the market decide, but some people seem determined to fit a square peg in a round hole. It doesn't work in every single market. Stop parroting that crap and think about it for a minute. I mean seriously think. It's entirely possible that BOTH companies offering these services are simply going to dictate to you what you're allowed to do with their service and there is not a single thing you can do it. In other words, you can't vote for your wallet if there's no one there to vote for.

Re:Net neutrality

[EXrider]

I doubt many cable companies, when faced with a loss of TV subscribers, will turn around and alienate their ISP subscribers with limitations on their service

Oh no, cable companies would never do such a thing!

I hope you're being sarcastic.

Re:Net neutrality

[mea37]

"I get tired about hearing about great old capitalism and choices in a market that essentially HAS NO CHOICES"

And if you were even remotely correct that there are NO CHOICES, I would agree with you.

• You can probably choose your local cable company. Some areas even have more than one.
• You can probably choose your local phone company. Some areas even have more than one.
• You can likely choose from at least a handful of satelite providers. This may be restricted for you personally if you live in an apartment, but sad as you may find this the market is not driven by your individual circumstances.
• I'm increasingly seeing people using 3G and 4G wireless service as an ISP.
• You may be able to choose an independent ISP in your area
• Much as I'm sure you hate to hear it, if nobody is offering a service you consider worth the money, you can choose not to do business with any of them.

Go on, explain to me why the last one isn't an option. Pretend broadband is necessary to survive in modern society (even though lots of people get by fine without it), or that it's a God-given right that somebody just has to provide you a service to your liking.

What you perceive as broadband being 'necessary', I perceive as the existing services being worth the money to you even though you protest otherwise.

"It's entirely possible that BOTH companies offering these services are simply going to dictate to you what you're allowed to do with their service"

"BOTH"? LOL. Ok, we'll pretend there are only two.

Right, the phone company (who hates competition in the ISP market from the cable company) is going to help the cable company compete by cooperating with a ban on IP-baed delivery of TV shows, thereby allowing the cable company to get by with such a ban. Very realistic concern.

I'm well aware of the limits of the competitive markets, but when it comes to whether those principles apply to ISP's, I'm not the one who hasn't thought the matter through.

Re:Net neutrality

[commodore64_love]

Which companies would be so stupid? Well let's see:

- Comcast
- Cox
- Cablevision
- Time-Warner

In fact in 2009 these companies already met with one another, and agreed to set up a new CATV portal site that would only be accessible to cable customers. You would type in your customer number plus passcode, and gain access to free cable programming. Else you would be blocked. NEXT they laid pressure on Cable Channels by telling them they need to stop providing the programs for free (syfy.com, abcfamily.com, etc), because it was the cable companies that PAID for these programs via subscriber fees. The cable companies claimed their funding of these shows gave them first rights to distribution, and virtually all the channels have agreed.

While we've all been sleeping in front of our TVs, CRTs, or LCDs, the cable companies have quietly signed deals to lock-up these shows behind their own subscriber website. The final nail in the coffin will be enacted in 2011, when the "cable subscribers only" website goes live and the free viewing disappears. So yeah. They have taken up arms against Google, Apple, and the viewers to make sure we cannot see Cable TV online, except via the CATV website. They are powerful and not the least bit intimidated.

And what's worse: Because they are government-created monopolies, there's not a damn thing we can do to stop them. We have as little choice as deciding which electric company or natural gas company we want. The guys in Washington DC may be able to help, but I'm not holding my breath, given their tendency to favor media megacorp protectionism (ACTA, the new Online Copyright Czar, FBI crackdowns on file-sharing, et cetera).

Aside -

I wonder why Microsoft does not try to revive WebTV? I had one of them in the late 90s, and it was crap because lo-definition analog sets made reading the internet difficult (color blur), but now we have high-definition sets that can produce images as clear as a Super VGA monitor. WebTV could succeed this time.

Re:Net neutrality

[mea37]

So if two services offer the same speeds, that's evidence of collusion; but if a service offers different speeds, that excludes it from consideration because it doesn't meet your arbitrary definition of "broadband". Interesting.

Well, I'm going to address all of your comments in the context of your claim that broadband is necessary for access to government services, in spite of the fact that such a claim is nothing but an oft-repeated lie.

• I don't believe your claim of collusion between the phone company and the cable company. In the case we're discussing (restricting TV-over-IP), such collusion would directly contradict the phone company's interests. If you think collusion is occuring, raise the issue in court; that's why we have anti-trust laws. (That is of course if, as you claim, the two acting together would constitute a monopoly.)
• Satellite counts. Name a government service that you cannot access with sat service because it's too slow.
• 3G counts. Name a government service that you cannot access with 3G because it's too slow.
• I'm sorry to hear you're unaware of the independent options in your area; your lack of awareness does not a monopoly make.
• I already challenged anyone who wanted to make this claim to back it up, but instead you've chosen to just parrot it blindly. Even if we pretend it were true, you can access your government services over the Internet without having broadband in your home. The fact that you can spend money on new options that make your life easier does not mean that a person who doesn't spend money on those options is a 'second class citizen'

Re:Net neutrality

[webheaded]

So we either get really shitty and SLOW internet or we get really fast and RESTRICTED internet? Those are AWESOME choices. Where do I sign up? Also no, the option to not have any internet is not actually an option, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.

You can't call it fair competition when the players in the market have forced monopolies. I don't know if you're dense or just being facetious.

They haven't challenged anyone

[js3]

Is it just me or it's all hype and nothing to show for. Just because it has "google" and "apple" in it doesn't mean squat. They aren't relevant at all when it comes to TV.

Re:They haven't challenged anyone

[guruevi]

Yet. Apple wasn't relevant in the music market, mp3 player market, tablet market, smartphone market and at one time not even relevant (anymore) in the computer market.

Re:They haven't challenged anyone

[jedidiah]

Apple has already failed at this "hobby" of theirs and all they've really done this time around is release a less capable device.

This is the same old AppleTV as before. The only real change is the addition of a service that is already being bundled in nearly ever other consumer video device out there (netflix). ...that and a decreased ability to play non-Apple content.

Re:They haven't challenged anyone

[Anonymous Coward]

They're still not relevant to me in any of those markets.

Re:They haven't challenged anyone

[Doc Ruby]

And Google wasn't relative in the video market until it bought YouTube, since when it's been synonymous with "Internet TV". TV even has a whole show replaying YouTube clips.

Doesn't matter

[qsqueeq]

My wife still gets the remote.

Re:Doesn't matter

[cayenne8]

"My wife still gets the remote."

Grow a pair man....get it back!!

Youtube better

[AnonymousClown]

This is good news for both Google and Apple. Bad news for the networks. But lets face it, when YouTube with its piano playing cats, hyperactive teenagers and snippets of prime time TV manages to outperform the major networks, the major networks have only themselves to blame!

Cats? I use Youtube for instructional videos and things like that. Reading about something, anything, and don't understand it? Somewhere there's a video that shows you how to do it. Want to know what is the real deal that Wall Street cut with the Congressmen? Go to Youtube.

Because network TV just rehashes the same shit.

PBS turned into the Antiques, Beatles, Wayne Dyer, Suzy Orman, Ken Burns network.

Lesser evil

[guyminuslife]

Hmmm. So do I want a locked-down, shiny piece of Jobsified crap, or do I want a television that watches me? [insert pre-emptive "In Soviet Russia..." here]

Oh, who am I kidding, I want them both.

Re:Lesser evil

[jdgeorge]

As for me, I will only interested in one that plays well with my other media components.

Doh! Not to mention my interest in a device that helps me avoid posting broken grammar in this intellectually rigorous forum.

UI?

[UnknowingFool]

From the demo, Google TV requires some sort of keyboard/mouse interface. From the FAQ, it doesn't appear that it will be a standard Bluetooth one. Other the other end, Apple has a simplified remote but will allow for control through one of the iOS devices. I think where the battle will be won is how consumers will like the UI.

Re:UI?

[Zizagoo]

From the demo, Google TV requires some sort of keyboard/mouse interface. From the FAQ, it doesn't appear that it will be a standard Bluetooth one. Other the other end, Apple has a simplified remote but will allow for control through one of the iOS devices. I think where the battle will be won is how consumers will like the UI.

At the demo in Berlin they said there will be both Android and iOS apps for controlling Google TV. They even mentioned voice search integration.

Re:UI?

[Speare]

At the demo in Berlin they said there will be both Android and iOS apps for controlling Google TV. They even mentioned voice search integration.

I can just see it now. I'm watching a Star Trek episode, and Picard gives the shipboard computer a prompt, such as "Computer! Find all Starfleet regulations on personnel transfers." Suddenly my television starts playing a completely different program in my video library. Hopefully not something I put in the "embarrassing" folder.

Re:UI?

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

You freely admit, under no duress, that you watch Star Trek. That is the nadir, bottom, minima. You can't be shamed any more. You don't need embarrassing folder.

Shake up

[kdogg73]

I pretty much basically watch public television (PBS) and Netflix. I don't have cable or satellite service.

The media is prime for a shake up. But I'm not sure anyone can deliver us from hundreds of channels of crap. I mean, if Hollywood is already out of ideas, now banking on remakes, neither Apple or Google can help much, but only serve us classic reruns with a better user experience. :/

TV is so 20th century

[tverbeek]

I can't help wondering if they're fighting over the best deck-chair seating on the Titanic. I haven't turned my TV on in months.

Re:Still can't beat a console.

[ThomasFlip]

This is why I think we may see Apple (even Google) move into the console gaming market. Apple probably won't create a console with bleeding edge hardware to compete with Sony and Microsoft, but what I do see them doing is throwing in decent 3d graphics capabilities into an AppleTV or something similar, and potentially competing with the Wii. I think with Apples app distribution network, it's too good of an opportunity to pass up. And as a side note, look at Gamespot.com. They already have a section for iPhone games.

mythtv...

[nblender]

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out... My household has been a bit of an experiment as I switched to Mythtv about 5 or 6 years ago... First with satellite receivers hooked to capture cards and most recently cable TV tuners hooked to firewire... MythTV with all of its warts is actually relatively good... I've found though, that I can get higher quality and more current programming from the Bitorrent Channel than I can from any of the cable channels so an account on a few private trackers with a client that can do RSS feeds and a seedbox has pretty much supplanted our need for the cable connection... In fact, I'd sooner download a show than let my Mythbackend record it from cable... I still pay the cable bill, though.. The bitorrent channel doesn't get Antiques Roadshows and other shows that my wife watches... Plus, I sort of justify it to myself that I'm still paying for the content; I just choose to get a 3rd party (the scene) to de-commercialize it for me...

Wife Acceptance Factor is pretty high.. In fact, she hates LiveTV now... My son has grown up not really knowing what a commercial is.. When we visited the inlaws this summer, he was watching TV with his grandfather... A commercial came on and he was looking for the skip button.. Our livingroom at home sports a moderately sized LCD with an Acer Revo bolted to the back on the VESA mount. No cables are visible and the remote is a wireless keyboard. No stereo cabinet...

If I could get all of the shows I watch in reasonable quality (720p) automatically sent to a local storage device where I can play them back any time, and as many times as I want, I'd happily pay $70-$80/month (plus price of internet connectivity) for the privilege... I'm dubious that this is going to happen however. It'll probably be substantially more expensive, limit the number of times I can view a show, and if my hardware ever fails, I will have to repurchase all of my content.

If only they'd focus on giving consumers what they want; they'd make a ton more money.

Re:mythtv...

[whisper_jeff]

If only they'd focus on giving consumers what they want; they'd make a ton more money.

They'd have a ton more happy and satisfied (loyal) customers but I don't know if they'd make more money. I'm sure they've done the math and figured out that nickle and diming us at every turn results in more dollars in their pockets, despite annoying the crap out of us on a regular basis and, since happy customers aren't their goal, they've followed the money.

It would be nice if a content provider was able to build a viable business model based around happy customers but, thus far, it seems to be the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow - a nice dream but never gonna happen.

Re:mythtv...

[kwalker]

I'm nearly there with you, but my experience has been somewhat different.

I rolled out my own MythTV backend (First as a VM on my workstation then promoted to an MSI Wind (Atom 330, 2GB RAM, 500GB disk)) connected to a HDHomerun which is connected to a large OTA antenna mounted in my attic. Picture quality has been really good on channels that have decent video sizes and bit rates, and most of the TV transmitters are located on one mountain top, so I don't have to move the antenna to pick up different channels. I looked into cable and satellite when I was in the planning stages, but I did not want to do a D-A-D conversion to get it into Myth and the only channels my local cable monopoly provides unencrypted are the locals anyway.

My main problem is that the kind of TV I like, I can't find, even on torrent trackers. There used to be one that specialized in it (DigitalDistractions), but they went dark a few years ago and every other tracker website I've been able to poke through doesn't have it or doesn't have any shows that I don't already have. And I guess I'm not cool enough to be invited to the private trackers.

I've found a few that are almost suitable replacements, and when they air on a local HD channel, I get them in 480/720/1080, which looks acceptable to really good, and Myth brings them in usually faster than I can watch them, so I always have new content to keep me entertained.

blogspot?

[iamhassi]

"An anonymous reader pointed us to an article..."

An article on a unknown blogspot, telling us what we already know, that Apple and Google are battling for the living room and that Youtube is popular. Shouldn't this be in Idle?

AppleTV? I'll pass.

[Triv]

Apple will seriously have to convince people that their service is worth it considering how locked down, even for apple, the appleTV is. No web streaming (aside from youtube) means no hulu, no network websites, no thedailyshow.com. As a cable replacement it just might be viable on a per-show basis once more networks sign up, but as of now it's a $99 box that apple's selling to let them sell you stuff you most likely can get legitimately on the web for free.

If it wasn't so damned restricted I might give it a look, but it would take some heavy convincing. And this is coming from a Mac user of almost 2 decades now.

TW is Already Gone

[MrTripps]

I canceled my cable TV service a few months ago. My living room TV gets by with an antenna (whose picture is better then cable), PS3, PlayOn, Netflix, and uTorrent.

Apple is out to hunt bigger game than cable

[joeflies]

It looks like that Apple TV is out to replace cable companies, but I think that's only a superficial view of the long term plan. There's been no announcement to date that Apple plans to offer any channel that appears on cable .. rather they go through online content providers. They complete skipped the major gripe of cable, i.e. to offer a "subscribe to channels you want ala carte", and changed the game to "buy what episodes you want to see, on demand".

Which leads to the question .. so what role do the networks play in the grand scheme of things ... NBC / ABC / CBS / FOX are not all developing their own content, they buy that content from a show producer. If Apple develops enough mindshare and living rooms, you don't need NBC to order the episodes of a new show, Apple can buy it directly from the show's producers.

This could be a great play to cut out all the middlemen, not just the cable company or the satellite monthly fee, but the entire tv network system as well ... it's possibly the biggest change in the business of TV in 50 years, and frankly none of the TV networks seem to notice yet.

Re:Internet service bundled with cable TV

[bsDaemon]

I also only pay for cable internet access but not TV. I think it'd only be like, $20 a month more to get basic cable TV, but I'm not $20 worth of interested in television and won't pay for it.

As Usual, I Don't Get It

[BigBlueOx]

It doesn't seem to me that the delivery mechanism as big a deal as what product is being delivered. My fancy-schmancy digital-HD cable box with DVR and on-demand programming and bagels with cream cheese delivers over 500 channels of unmitigated crap. Hell, if it weren't for BBC America (Top Gear & Dr Who), I wouldn't watch anything at all. How is having an JobsBox or a GoogleFlooby going to change that? I'm going to spend my time watching YouTube? Really? That's the big plan? YouTube?? What am I missing?

Re:Still can't beat a console.

[HermMunster]

The fly in Apple's pie is that they can't get all the content brought together in a cohesive manner which allows the phobe to just watch what they want. Apple's walled garden is to blame. Apple would have to sign with everyone, and that's just not possible. As it stands it has two. ABC includes Disney, but two isn't enough to make a success.

Google on the other hand can partner with anyone without forcing them behind a walled garden. Google is about open access to all web video. Apple is about closed walled garden content that they can sell. In the long run Google wins. Google's TV and Apple TV are correlate directly to the Android's open nature vs. Apple's iOS which is closed and will never be opened.

Re:I dont spend much time watching TV

[Eponymous Coward]

I don't spend much time watching TV either, but not because I think it's brainless crap. I just don't have enough time. Honestly, I think TV is fantastically good these days. There are some extremely well written and produced shows on TV and I really do wish I had more time to watch.

Like you, I very rarely watch live tv though. I use the DVR and Netflix for most of what I actually do watch.

BTW, I would put local news and weather in the pile I label crap. They are poorly produced, sensationalist, consultant driven productions (I'm assuming you are in the US). I've moved around the US a little bit and the local news is the exact same in every city. The same sets, the same talking heads, waving flag graphics, color schemes, music, and network feeds. They all call their weather segments storm-tracker-weather or something similar. Watching local news is like saying you shop at the local walmart.

If they battle for the living room

[geekoid]

they will loose.

Look, the living room is a conduit for sales, not a sale in and of itself. all these companies would do far better to cooperate and have a good standard that lets the consumer decided on how it uses the media. Then each individual company can try to capitalize on that. No company is going to win over enough people that will want to hand over all media channel to them.

Re:Bundle discount

[mrchaotica]

The assholes at Comcast are using their digital switch* as an excuse to force cable boxes on their customers. Sure, they could just send unencrypted QAM like all digital TVs are designed to receive, but why do that when the FCC and FTC are too spineless to stop them from encrypting everything and charging $5 per TV for boxes?

*Note: Comcast's switch to digital is not the same as the broadcast TV switch and is not mandated by the government, even though Comcast representatives will consistently and blatantly lie by telling you that it is.