Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Giving Google TV Another Shot

Posted by Unknown on from the this-dream-sponsored-by-google dept.

MrSeb writes with a piece on Google's renewed push for Google TV adoption. From the article: "In spite of a mediocre launch caused by an overpriced device and low consumer adoption, Mountain View is attempting to breathe life into Google TV in the way of a major marketing push at CES 2012. By announcing partnerships with companies like Marvell and LG, and an effort to cut costs by switching to ARM architecture, Google is hoping to finally achieve the mass adoption it has been hoping for with the service. Is this a case of too little, too late?"

31 of 199 comments (clear)

  1. Give it two to the chest and one to the head... by JoeMerchant · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just to make sure... TV is dead, stream me my entertainment on-demand or don't bother making it.

    1. Re:Give it two to the chest and one to the head... by JoeMerchant · · Score: 2

      It doesn't have any "watch it while it happens" features, like showing you the SuperBowl in real time?

      See, with a name like "TV", I assume that's the major feature. Of course, I own a WDTV, and that's exactly what it doesn't do, but expectations from a name like Google are different than expectations from a name like Western Digital.

      But, with all the gadget distraction in my life, and a PC, PS3, and WDTV already hooked up to my 42" "dumb TV," I can't really be bothered to learn what yet another "TV" device does, and I sure as hell wouldn't have gotten my first "First Post" ever if I took time to read an article.

    2. Re:Give it two to the chest and one to the head... by Lumpy · · Score: 2

      Technically ATSC over the air TV is streaming. it's a MPEG2 transport stream.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    3. Re:Give it two to the chest and one to the head... by gstoddart · · Score: 2

      For two reasons. 1, the NFL are nothing but a bunch of scumbags. the claim yearly they lose a lot of money from people STEALING the superbowl by inviting friends over and having a party. Yes, having more than 10 friends over is ILLEGAL as far as the NFL is concerned.

      Which is a bit of reasoning I've never gotten ... if 2 people watch the Superbowl in 5 different houses, or 10 people watch the Superbowl in the same house ... the NFL makes the exact same amount of additional money ... zero. Because I've already paid my cable bill, and it doesn't cost me any more to watch the Superbowl.

      The NFL can think anything they want, but I've not signed a contract with them, and as long as my cable service delivers the Superbowl to me in my living room without me having to pay extra, or register with the central authority ... well, they have no control over it, and no say in the matter.

      Hell, I suspect the game is broadcast over-the-air in a lot of places ... are they going to claim to be losing money to that?

      What exactly is the revenue stream the NFL claims I might be stealing from? Because they sure as hell don't make any from me watching it now.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    4. Re:Give it two to the chest and one to the head... by IwantToKeepAnon · · Score: 4, Informative

      This same radical streaming technology can be used to watch many other timely TV shows as well, like the Oscars or Monday Night Football.

      Nope, MNF is not available via this radical streaming technology. It is on ESPN which is cable / satellite only. :((

      --
      "Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." -- Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy
    5. Re:Give it two to the chest and one to the head... by linuxwolf69 · · Score: 2

      The GoogleTV can do on demand streaming, purchasing and renting videos to stream, AND it integrates with your TV device (cable, satellite, set top box) so that you can watch live TV from those devices with GoogleTV.

      Also, if it's available to stream on the internet, you can view it on GoogleTV.
      Source: I own a GoogleTV.

  2. The real challenge... by jimbouse · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think Google's real challenge is with the content owners. If it would 'just work', then I believe the product would sell.

    1. Re:The real challenge... by rsmith-mac · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Bingo. Google needs content, and a lot more than they have now. YouTube rentals only fill a very narrow part of the spectrum; they need partnerships with Comcast, Verizon, and other cable operators like Microsoft has for their Xbox 360 media initiative to get access to their streaming libraries. Not to mention the major networks, Hulu, Major League Baseball, Amazon, and a bunch of smaller operators.

      Without content their box is just a useless hunk of plastic and silicon. Throwing it in a bunch of TVs won't change the status quo.

    2. Re:The real challenge... by hairyfeet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And THAT is why its gonna bomb. Google has basically enjoyed "free" content for years with their search, Gmail, etc. Sure they pay for their backend but they aren't about to cut a check to say every video that someone consumes that isn't on Youtube. MSFT and Sony paid a hell of a lot of money to get content for their players and Google think they can basically pull a Google search and get the content for free...ain't happening. Google is gonna end up with their ass blocked for anything worth watching so the ONLY content Google is gonna end up with is YouTube and shit like clog dancing so nobody is gonna care.

      Google's entire business model is the "throw it at the wall and see if it sticks" model which doesn't involve paying out big fat checks and the content owners aren't gonna let their media go to Google for free. Google can switch to ARM, MIPS, hell it could run it on fricking hamsters because that isn't what makes the GTV DOA, its the fact that Google is blacklisted across the board. You'd have better odds with a WDTV or a Roku than with a GTV because Google will NEVER pay the money, that would go against their entire "find more ways to monetize search" model which has worked VERY well for them in the past, but content is a whole nother ballgame. Hell just look at all the channels loaded by default in every single Windows box from HP on up under "Internet TV". You think all those companies like CBS just let MSFT copy their website's content and put it in a WMC wrapper? hell no! You can bet MSFT paid a pretty penny indeed to have every one of those channels and Google thinks they can just copy the website address and throw on their own wrapper and make some cash, boy are they in for a shock.

      Like it or not Google is dead meat if they don't shell out the bucks and Google has made it pretty clear when the content owners first started blocking them they ain't paying shit, so they ain't getting shit, simple as that. MSFT has had a hard on for the living room since WebTV back in the 90s so they'll pay, Sony knows it helps sell PS3s so they'll shell out too, Google is the one left out in the cold. Frankly I don't blame the owners, they gotta pay for bandwidth too ya know and if Google was allowed to pull this shit they'd get a massive hit with no ROI, whereas MSFT and Sony cut them a check.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  3. Buy, stop service, scrap devices by XrayJunkie · · Score: 2

    Problem with some of the google services, including the first TV service attempt: They hook you and drop the service later on. Everyone deserves a second chance, but this time, consumers and partners will be much more carefully. But they have some experience now - they might not make the same mistake twice.

  4. Or by Spad · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Is this me stating my opinion as a question while strongly implying that it's a fact?

  5. In other words, the AppleTV device is coming. by jo_ham · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I guess this is in response to the supposed Apple TV (as in, the physical device with a screen rather than the little streaming box they currently have) that Apple is allegedly working on, and Google sees the chance for some collateral sales when the inevitable marketing tsunami from Apple arrives.

    Nothing wrong with that I think, but it's going to live or die on content. As someone has already pointed out, the TV (and TV peripheral - DVR/online box/streaming device) market is hard to get into so you need a compelling reason for people to want to get your particular device.

    1. Re:In other words, the AppleTV device is coming. by jo_ham · · Score: 4, Informative

      If Apple builds an actual, big-screen TV, it'll probably be $3,000+. Their current 27" monitor is $1,000.

      This will not compete with the Google TV box, or TV's with Google TV built-in. It's for a different group of people.

      Is the fact that their 27" monitor is $1000 meant to be some sort of "proof" of overpricing?

      It's a 2560 x 1440 IPS 27" panel with LED backlight - those are expensive. Dell sells a similar one... and it's also almost $1000 (you can get discounts on it I believe - in fact, I just looked on Dell's site, they've marked it down from $999 with a "$150 instant saving" whatever that is [why not just lower the price?]).

      If you think Apple's 27" panel is way overpriced, you clearly haven't looked at the specs.

    2. Re:In other words, the AppleTV device is coming. by jedidiah · · Score: 2, Funny

      > Is the fact that their 27" monitor is $1000 meant to be some sort of "proof" of overpricing?

      Yes.

      Apple will push the most expensive high margin option available to the exclusion of all else. This will make the Apple product more expensive than anything else.

      You won't have a choice or any other options.

      Fanboys will make excuses.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    3. Re:In other words, the AppleTV device is coming. by DragonWriter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I guess this is in response to the supposed Apple TV (as in, the physical device with a screen rather than the little streaming box they currently have) that Apple is allegedly working on, and Google sees the chance for some collateral sales when the inevitable marketing tsunami from Apple arrives.

      Reports of Google's next iteration of GoogleTV and that it would be incorporated into TVs from more manufacturers instead of primarily as a standalone set-top devices (or integrated into other devices like blu-ray players) started before reports about the next generation of AppleTV; I would be hesitant to describe either as a response to the other, and even moreso to pick a direction.

      I think the GoogleTV is more Google exploiting the fact that TV prices are dropping and manufacturers are looking for sources of value-added features to sell in higher-priced models, and that GoogleTV-supported streaming sources (including, and especially, YouTube) have acquired a lot more professional content than anything to do with AppleTV's plans.

  6. Needs PVR Ability by Jedi+Holocron · · Score: 3, Insightful

    None of these devices, Google TV or Apple TV, are going to take off unless they offer a simple and effect way for a customer to record a show. This can either be Over The Air or Over The Cable. People WANT this feature because it is ingrained into their thinking.

    The ability to On Demand order and watch a show over Broadband still needs widespread adoption and availability. See other posts here about "content."

    Without easy PVR functionality, then these devices are just extra devices duplicating my already includes services in my big old stupid DVR/Cable box.

    1. Re:Needs PVR Ability by gauauu · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The simpler solution is to buy a Tivo.

      Yes, it is simpler, but Tivo requires a subscription. That disqualifies it, in my book.

  7. Re:Too little too late? by Tx · · Score: 2

    "Anyone who thinks I'm going to 'discard' my TV just to buy a GoogleTV (or an Apple or Ubuntu TV for that matter) is fooling themselves. Okay, sure, if I was so inclined I could sell my 'old' TV on craigslist, but you know what, even that's more than I want to do."

    I understand that you're not very interested in Google TV, but if you're interested enough to post a comment on it, you should be interested enough to spend ten seconds finding out that it's available primarily via STBs, as well as being built into TV sets. Selling your TV is not necessary.

    --
    Oh no... it's the future.
  8. The field is still wide open by Overzeetop · · Score: 5, Informative

    Set top boxes (or pucks, as they're becoming) are still an open field. Nobody has managed to create one without screwing some portion of the consumer market, or getting screwed by content providers, or both.

    I've had a Roku box and an AppleTV, along with a not-quite-the-same Popcorn Hour and a HTPC. What I've decided is that these things, when combined with a TV, are a lot like tablets. They're great for consumption, but the key is having applications which cater to various niche markets. To me, that means two things. You have to offer a framework for the content providers to make money, and you need to give application developers the chance to expand the usefulness and content options available.

    I gave up on the old Popcorn Hour a long time ago. The HTPC is nice, but I don't have the time to "manage" they system regularly and keep up with patches and bugfixes in add-ons. It works as a media player with the real remote control. I've tried the online streaming and it works, but the content is woefully limited. The Roku had some major launch issues with their v2, and I gave up after a month of poor streaming and difficult-to-manage navigation. The AppleTV is the easiest to use, but is a tough sell with their pay-for-everything-all-over-again model. I've jailbroken the ATV2 and use PLEX to stream my library for now. It's stable enough that the family is using it, and knows to just let it reboot when the application crashes (which it does frequently, as it's not a supported client).

    That's a very longwinded way of getting to applications. The iFoo and Android platforms are successful because they offer a huge array of content and content sources, all supported by their own separate dev teams. I don't have to wait for Google or Apple to create a Hulu+ client - the Hulu guys will do that. If it sucks, I won't buy their service. Same for Netflix, or Pandora, or any other service.

    I expect that if, and I say if, Apple opens the doors to applications on the ATV, the market doors will close very, very quickly on everyone else. They're the only box that has the silky-smooth, easy to use interface that makes it easy for a non-techie to use. Even when things go wrong, it like a weeble - the screen blinks black, and two seconds later you're back at the home menu, like nothing every happened. That's comforting to the average Joe or Jane, and it's easy to get the family to understand (i.e. - a reset requires zero interaction and nearly zero time). If it weren't for the (nearly) iTunes-only content model, it would be an absolute winner.

    So yes, there's an opportunity here - but it does require not fucking it up. And tech companies have proven that, on the whole, that's the one thing they're really good at. Your move, Google.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:The field is still wide open by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "They're the only box that has the silky-smooth, easy to use interface that makes it easy for a non-techie to use."

      I dont know I never use it unless I needed to reboot the Atv box to get bac kto the XBMC install on it.

      The latest XBMC makes the apple TV interface look like a complete turd. having a 2tb NAS full of bluRay and DVD rips delivers an experience at home that apple on their own refuse to give me.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    2. Re:The field is still wide open by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      ONly a techie does the initial jailbreak. My grandma maintains the XBMC install on hers just fine. It's self updating.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    3. Re:The field is still wide open by mounthood · · Score: 2

      You have to offer a framework for the content providers to make money ...

      Google is afraid of defining the market, and Apple isn't. Neither strategy has overcome. Cable was defined by the technology, and the business changes (pay TV, channels that are bundled/premium/rebroadcast, etc..) were forced on the industry because of what the technology would allow.

      The next major change (Internet TV) will be a software change, and software doesn't enforce any particular business arrangements. So what Google needs to do is create a system that both allows the content providers to make money and restricts the major industry players from dominating the new players, both developers and new content providers.

      There is only one way to protect the new creators, and that's to define and enforce the flow of money. Apple made a clear choice: all money goes to them and some is redistributed to the content providers. Google made the opposite choice: take our software and do whatever you want, we ask for nothing. Googles play is like Bill Gates giving away DOS; with an installed base comes developers and providers, but TV is an established industry not a new market. Google needs to take the Cable approach: Google TV has fair rules enforced by software that protect the established and new creators alike.

      --
      tomorrow who's gonna fuss
  9. Android by mwvdlee · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I've been seeing a lot of Android-based mediatanks and mediaplayers lately, complete with TV guides, dedicated apps and, ofcourse, access to the entire Android market.
    What's the benefit of GoogleTV over these Android-based alternative?

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  10. I've got one arriving Wednesday by chroma · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Over the holidays, I got a chance to give Google TV a serious tryout at my parents' house. They bought the Sony Blu Ray player with Google TV built in.

    I liked it so much that I ordered one for my living room. It arrives tomorrow.

    The Netflix/Amazon/web integration works very well and there's even an app store. I'm planning to use it for all my TV viewing and getting rid of cable.

    --

    Your design to a real part online: Big Blue Saw
  11. Global TV or any other TV. by ciderbrew · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm sat in the UK and want to watch content from Japan (not porn!) - Apart from streaming or putting a dish on the roof (not an option) howelse can you get it apart from streaming / downloading it? Swap the ads to sell local crap and show me programs I want.

  12. How to regain your lost potential by ALeader71 · · Score: 2

    Here's the way I see it. If I can download my content apps: Hulu Plus, Netflix, Amazon On-Demand, Pandora, etc from the Marketplace and get TV screen sized content from the Android Marketplace I'm buying.
    Now if Google TV acts as a content organizer ACROSS these apps and marketplaces, then Google TV provides something I can't get from any other set top box - Integration. I want the couch friendly schedule, but I don't want to jump between apps to view my content. If the price is right, you'll blow competitors like Roku (which I own) out of the water.

    Here's how you do it: Get the content delivery companies to allow you to grab the customer's content listings and the providers' catalogs and sort them into Google TV's database. Customers can search the new, bigger catalog and choose the most competitive price (don't mention competition to content providers, it makes them cry). Give customers a day-by-day listing of new subscribed content, replicating the look-and-feel from current set top boxes.
    Include your YouTube rentals and users' subscriptions and user's podcast subscriptions and now you have something I saw when I was a kid and they talked about "the future." Now if Hulu can't cut a deal with USA Network to stream TV shows to set top boxes, it won't matter. I can get them from my Cable or Satellite providers' On-Demand service. If I change providers, I don't have to completely re-program a new set top box or deal with ugliness that is the Comcast/Cox interface.

    --
    Only the dead have seen the end of War. - Plato
  13. I'm rooting for them by vawwyakr · · Score: 3, Informative

    Unless they change a lot and add a lot of content I see no use for me in any of these set top boxes/built in TV interfaces. I have a media center PC and it does everything they do and then also a whole lot more. None of them can just go to NBC.com and pull up last night's show for free. If they did then either they'd need some sort of agreement with the broadcaster which would probably be too expensive or they'd need a fully function web browser which would eliminate their dumbed down interface. I see no reason I should pay someone to give me less than what I could easily get on my own.

  14. Re:Content problem by txsable · · Score: 2

    There is actually an option on the Logitech Revue to change the user agent, but doing that breaks the custom UI interfaces for youtube, dailymotion, etc. I have not tried this but I'm seriously considering it.

    We got the Revue and a digital antenna last fall after deciding that we didn't want to pay $120/month (at the time we cancelled) for cable services that kept getting less "service" for more money every month. (it was $85/mo when we subscribed 4 years earlier,and we didn't change anything in our subscription since then!) With the digital antenna we get about a dozen channels in our area. If we lived in a major metro area we'd probably get 30 or more channels. We supplement that with Netflix streaming and occasionally hooking the laptop up to watch something from ESPN or other network streaming. (Except Doctor Who...can't get new episodes streaming in the US, far as I can tell! Get smart BBC, we'd love to watch, too!)

    Our biggest complaint about the Revue, and Google TV in general, is not the Revue nor Google TV's fault. It's ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, and the rest of the big broadcasters who seem to think there's a difference between watching streaming shows from their website from a Google TV device and a laptop hooked to a 37" LCD television. My personal choice would be for Google to de-list from search results any station and network that won't work on Google TV, until those networks realize they are 1) alienating potential customers who want to watch their shows and 2) contributing to the "piracy" they claim to hate when people find other means to watch the shows they want to see because the networks are too...short-sighted? stupid? to give their viewers what they actually want.

  15. Re:As long as the "back end" is open, by CastrTroy · · Score: 2

    Meh, I'd rather just everybody program applications for Wii/XBox360/PS3. Netflix is so popular simply because they make it easy for people to use. You don't have to buy a new box. You don't have to hook a computer up to your TV (which until computers started having HDMI cables a couple years back was was quite cumbersome). You just turn on your game console, which already has a wireless remote, and browse content and watch it. I don't know why more of these online systems don't just support devices that people already have hooked up to their TV. Google TV should be software you install on your console. As should Apple TV, Hulu, and all the other content providers. Nobody needs another box under their TV, and nobody need a tv with a computer built into it when we all have a perfectly fine computer sitting under our TVs anyway. The Wii is only $100. And if you simple must have HD the XBox is only $200. These devices should be the only box you need hooked up to your TV.

    --

    Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
  16. Re:I see a pattern by Yvan256 · · Score: 2

    Isn't the definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results?

    Nope, that's the definition of a scientist.

  17. SmartTV Are "The Next Thing" by EXTomar · · Score: 3, Informative

    As An Owner Of A Sony Google TV it worked out surprisingly well. Especially after the last major update which added the interface to Android Marketplace.

    I had initially got the thing because I needed a "medium" sized HDTV and the current specials made it a reasonable buy. I've seen "Internet on TV" so my expectations where really low. I have several things that play Netflix. I have several things that do DLNA. I have plenty of devices that have web browsers in them (although very few entertainment/living room devices do that). This TV has all of them it. What ended up happening is that it combined some of the disaparate components into the TV itself. Its about as close to a HTPC as anything consumer electronic thing I have without actually being a HTPC. But it still has gaps. I would claim that my Sony Google TV would be a little weird as a family room HDTV but its a great bedroom or office TV mostly because you don't need a bunch of little boxes to go with it.

    After being happy with my Google TV, I see the next step as a full blown "Smart TV" like "Smart Phones" that revolutionized cell phones. The software components are all there but it needs better and tighter integration. Especially with a home internet connection, your TV should be leveraging the search and information it has to some intelegent things out of the box.

    Things to improve with Google TV:
    - Boxee style "Show Me Later". There is a way with Boxee to put a link on your browser to "tag" things you find on the Internet to watch on your box later. What I do with Google TV is remember where it is and browse to it.
    - Subtitle support. If a video stream has subtitle text encoded it should display it. Mutliple devices do it multiple ways where this seems to be something that could be better supported in the display instead of the player.
    - Agressively scrape information but depricate non-display friendly information. I don't think reading email on TV is a good idea but a Smart TV should recognize emails from your mother and father from their European vacation with pictures and a Youtube video where those videos and pictures are great to view on a TV.
    - Google has a nice calendar feature, lets start using it. I'm not suggesting that one should be mixing their professional meetings and appointment data with when "Survivor" is on but a Smart TV should to track both events. The goal here is to get the TV and PVR and other devices to recognize the same calendar and do some smart things with the information. Recognizing you have favorite programs or a video streams but have a conflicting appointment should make the devices save or promote features.