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?"

7 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 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
  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.

  3. 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.
  4. 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.