Editorial: Engadget on Google TV
By Nilay Patel 
posted May 21st 2010 8:41PM
posted May 21st 2010 8:41PM
Joshua Topolsky:
I think the potential for Google TV -- as with anything Google does -- is huge, but it's all about execution, and right now, Google hasn't shown it's got a better idea on execution than those who've come before them. The strength of the Google TV concept is the idea of a unification and simplification of our increasingly complicated TV watching experiences. Many people are now drifting from screen to screen, sometimes out of choice, but usually out of necessity. When you want to watch YouTube or Hulu you're in front of your PC; when you want to watch the latest episode of Lost you're planted on your couch; sometimes you're on a train and playing back video you've downloaded on a phone; but in each of those situations there are different interfaces, shopping experiences, content qualities, and most of all, ways to find that content. We know Google can do search, and we also know that search in TV and movies (especially with the inclusion of web content) is a growing headache, as is the playback of all that video.
Google TV today is an orphan intermediary... but it needs to be the main event. |
Nilay Patel:
It's really simple: any product that requires IR blaster control of a cable box is doomed to fail. Sorry, Google, but if you want to take over the living room, you've got to go all the way and build a box with built-in tuners -- otherwise you'll end up showing off embarrassing demos of Google TV controlling a TiVo Premiere that offers almost exactly the same search, discovery, and streaming content options. Oh, wait -- that's exactly what happened. Where's the Dish Network box with the built-in tuners that provides a unified, cohesive experience? That's what Google should be demoing. Speaking of which, it's not like Motorola doesn't know how to build Android devices -- where's the Motorola DCT that runs Google TV? Now that would have shaken things up a bit.
Right now the actual Google TV products are the same type of hacky kludge that the market has rejected time and time again -- anyone remember Web TV? |
Look, I'm not saying the ideas behind Google TV are bad, or that Google won't iterate this thing and make it worthwhile in a few years. But right now the actual Google TV products are the same type of hacky kludge that the market has rejected time and time again -- anyone remember Web TV? It was a box from Microsoft with a keyboard, browser, and an email client that ran its own TV guide, using IR to control your cable box -- and there was a model from (dun dun dun) Dish Network featuring integrated tuners. It... failed, to put it lightly.
If Google really wants to revolutionize TV, it's going to have to start by taking direct control of TV itself, not gluing a UI layer on top of existing cable boxes. That means dealing with things like CableCARD, or better yet, getting cable companies like Comcast, Time Warner, and Cox to directly integrate Google TV into their platforms. Maybe Google's already working on that, but these companies have never been open to change, and they're particularly not open to change involving internet video competing directly against their on-demand offerings. Google's got a hard fight ahead of itself, and I wish it well -- heaven knows the world needs a better TV experience -- but as long as the majority of Google TV devices require an IR blaster and a separate cable box, the platform will be for niche audiences only.
P.S.- And let's not even get started on how poorly Microsoft has done with Media Center, which is a mature, flexible product that virtually no one uses, even though it's built into Windows 7 and beautifully integrated into the Xbox 360. This stuff is hard.
Paul Miller:
I'm probably the wrong guy to ask: I'm one of those boring people at parties who claims to never watch television and then glares at you judgmentally. Still, the whole idea of an internet-enhanced television watching experience has always intrigued me, merely for the fact of its spectacular failures over the past decade or so. It's clear that the market potential is there, so why hasn't any one company invested heavily enough and pushed hard enough to make it work? I don't know if Google will be the one to crack this, but there are two things they're doing that could set them apart.
Google doesn't have to 'win' to win. |
Firstly, Google's Android track record is exemplary when it comes to partnerships. It's created very few disincentives to get on board (Nexus One), and a whole pile of reasons to jump in (free, open source, rapid development), which has taken the platform from one device and one carrier in late 2008 to the incredible variety of carriers, devices, and form factors we see today. The perfect scenario for TV-enhancing tech is when it costs very little or "nothing" extra to add on to a product, and with zero reason to leave it out a manufacturer might shrug its shoulders and slap that Google logo on top of what might otherwise be a bit of commodity electronics. If Google TV can seep into cable company DVRs (its most natural home, if its least likely one), then we'll really know Google is on to something.
The other big win is that Google doesn't have to "win" to win. Google's revenue is from web ads, and has merely created a platform that delivers regular websites (and a handful of new TV-optimized ones) to televisions. Similarly, the glut of iPhone-friendly websites and HTML5 experiences proved great reasons to buy an Android phone. Sure, there are some fancy application and UI add-ons on top that Google would love for you to participate in, but no matter who builds and sells ways to access it, the "real internet" (Flash, HTML5, and all their little friends) is the platform Google is pushing to the TV.
Of course, this initial launch looks pretty lackluster. IR blasters? Another set top box? Sure-to-be-overpriced Sony TVs and Blu-ray players? But the T-Mobile + G1 pairing wasn't exactly earth shattering, and look where we've ended up.
Richard Lawler (HD editor)
When I see Google TV I'm not thinking of IR blasters, the Chrome browser, or whether or not Hulu will ever be open to running on anything other than a PC. The simplicity of bringing internet content onto the TV alone -- switching to a YouTube video, or a Google map, or a photo album -- from a phone or computer to the TV screen with the press of a button is a great selling point by itself. Today most households already deal with multiple remote situations with varying degrees of success. If Sony and the rest can show buyers good reasons to try the internet on their TV, they'll be lining up for another TV or Harmony product that ties them all together. Android on phones has shown Google can effectively bring the cloud to consumer devices, and I think Google TV can succeed where others have failed.
Android on phones has shown Google can effectively bring the cloud to consumer devices, and I think Google TV can succeed where others have failed. |
Those cable boxes and their closed systems? Google has somehow managed to talk its way into bed with Dish, and I won't bet against its chances elsewhere. Even in the worst case scenario with CableCARD entrenched plus TV providers holding tight to the reigns of their interfaces, guides and channel information, Comcast (of all providers) has shown us another way. Just like the prototype iPad remote control it recently showed off, the company could easily produce an Android app that allows it to guide the experience -- and promote its own VOD and other services -- that talks to your set-top box via EBIF without any hacked-on solutions from years gone by. The future of TV is wide open, and if streams become wider open, Google will have a mature platform ready to take advantage. Sony -- slide Google TV into one of your receivers instead of the current XMB interface and you can count on at least one sale.
Ben Drawbaugh (HD editor):
Having access to everything that makes the internet great on a TV has always sounded like a good idea, but until now no one's been able to integrate the two experiences in a way that makes sense to anyone other than uber-geeks. So I'm excited that Google might be the one to actually make it stick, but with the few details that have been revealed don't look promising.
The biggest red flag out of the gate is the need for an IR blaster. Sure, IR is the most widely accepted control interface in the home, but it's hardly loved by all. But let's just assume it does work reliably: IR is still a very limited interface because of its one-way nature. How can Google TV provide great search results if it has no way to know what's recorded on your DVR? Or know what new shows are available for free on a provider's video on demand service? IR can only do so much, and in the case of integrating with the majority of the content consumed on TVs, it can't do enough.
The biggest red flag out of the gate is the need for an IR blaster. |
Building Google TV into TVs and set-top boxes from providers makes more sense, but most internet features in TVs go unused because of their poor integration with the provider's set-top -- just look at Yahoo Widgets. The Dish integration is the most promising, but Dish isn't exactly the biggest video provider in the US. Now, if Motorola, Cisco, Comcast, Cox and Time Warner (among others) were up on stage touting integration, then Google TV's outlook would be completely different. But as long as the cable industry forces the inept tru2way down the throats of third parties who want to integrate with their services, we'll continue to see half-baked solutions that work more like VCRs from 1988 than a modern consumer electronics device.
Darren Murph:
If there's any company who can do this right, it's Google. But frankly, this still isn't what I want. I'm one of those folks who has a PC connected directly to my TV, and if I need to watch something directly from the web -- which is rare, given my cable subscription, DVR and Netflix-enabled Wii -- I simply fire up that machine and get on with it. It's a simple enough setup for me, and it works just fine. What I want is à la carte, and I honestly see limited value in providing another way to search on your television for old shows. If, however, Google were somehow able to strong-arm networks into providing their cable coverage live on the internet for a monthly fee, all of this would fit me much better. I'd certainly pay each month for live streams of ESPN, TNT, USA and maybe three or four others, and having a Google-fied search engine handling it would make it all the better. But then again, I'd utilize the TV tuners in my HTPC to watch and record OTA signals from the local FOX, CBS, NBC and ABC affiliates, so yet again I'm back to relying on my existing PC.
There's an overriding sense of "too complicated" surrounding this thing. |
Does this service stand a chance? Maybe. But I can safely say I won't be buying a new set-top box nor a new television just to try it. Maybe in five years, if it's still kicking, and I need to replace my set anyway, I'd give it another look. I think one of Google's biggest obstacles here is going to be marketing and education -- a huge majority of people who buy televisions and just accept the cable boxes that are shoved down their throats do so because they barely understand any of the technology. Telling an entire generation of existing TV users that they need a new TV that "pulls content from the internet" will immediately shut down their attention sensors. Another huge problem is that this doesn't really converge anything; you're not getting rid of anything in your AV rack (even Sony's Internet TV will need a standalone DVR to keep on handling DVR duties). As Nilay alluded to, there's an overriding sense of "too complicated" surrounding this thing. And anyone technically savvy enough to be bothered with "complicated" likely already has an HTPC setup (or similar) that they're perfectly happy with. Good luck Google -- you'll probably need it.
Chris Ziegler:
Let's do everyone a solid and call this what it is: on-screen pivot search and a web browser. Both ideas are theoretically good, but neither belongs to Google; in fact, seemingly countless companies have said "hey, those are good ideas" over the past fifteen-odd years.
I'm pretty sure my WebTV Plus from 1998 accomplished well over fifty percent of what Google seeks to accomplish here. |
In fact, I'm pretty sure my WebTV Plus from 1998 accomplished well over fifty percent of what Google seeks to accomplish here. And my WebTV had a Thomas Dolby-produced background music soundtrack that could be enabled on demand to make your browsing a more relaxing experience... bet you can't say that about Logitech's companion box.
You might say, "yeah, but this is Google -- surely they can do this right where others have gotten it wrong." And yes, we'll admit: the TiVo Premiere is one of the worst executions of television pivot search capability ever executed. But it's important to remember that virtually none of Google's successes have been organically created: Android and Google Docs were both borne of acquisitions, just to name a couple. I have no more faith that Google TV will be perfect at release than Android 1.0 was. Or Orkut. Or Dodgeball. Or Wave. Or Buzz.
You get the idea.
Google TV is coming at a time when Americans' home entertainment setups are more complicated than ever. Hell, I'm an Engadget editor and I wouldn't stand a chance of being able to use mine without a well-programmed Harmony remote. Asking a typical consumer to buy a Google TV box -- or to pay extra for a television with Google TV integrated -- is going to be an extraordinarily tough sell, particularly when countless other set-top devices deliver similar functionality.
We love Android, Google, but let's just keep working on phones (and maybe the occasional tablet) for now.
Ross Miller:
I rarely watch TV without having a laptop or smartphone an arm's reach away -- it's the nature of this job, and perhaps even an indication of our ever-connected lifestyle. Seeing Google demonstrate web browsing on a television screen doesn't appeal to me because it just takes up "big screen" real estate that I'm using to catch up on How I Met Your Mother. Internet video content, however, is another story, but Google can't yet promise me that the content I'll want to watch won't be blocked (henceforth known as "being Boxee'd").
Maybe Google's banking on brand recognition and trust to weather the initial storm and pick up the right partners. |
The presentation at this week's I/O keynote was nothing if not unintentionally hilarious -- it was almost inevitable, given the need to use daytime TV to present the thing (although did they really not anticipate potential phone interference with a crowd of thousands?). YouTube and NBA notwithstanding, the apps were pretty underwhelming. Let's not forget, though, that Google's audience for these events are consumers second and developers first. Showing off how easy it is to bring existing Android apps to Google TV doesn't look pretty, but we're sure quite a few programmers and engineers were elated at the compatibility. That said, the company has a very limited window -- Fall 2010, as CEO Eric Schmidt repeated ad nauseum towards the end -- and it needs to rally its developer base into producing compelling some compelling software that sets it apart from the number of other options out there.
But maybe Google's banking on brand recognition and trust to weather the initial storm and pick up the right partners. That's not the worst of gambles, but like Apple TV, I'm not quite sure when Google's offering will be able to shed its hobby status (or perhaps "beta," to borrow from the company's colloquialisms). This isn't a new concept and there isn't a lot here that separates it from the pack, and there's just so many pieces that need to fall into place in such a limited amount of time before it makes its first impression on the consumer base at large.
Thomas Ricker:
I don't own a TV. My computers already are my TVs. But I have heard of television and I've watched enough to thoroughly understand the mindset of a zombie. From a business perspective, I think the living room is a very natural move for Google as yet another screen to sell its ads on. It also creates another monetization path for YouTube. Sure, it's been done before. But this isn't WebTV, it's Google, a brand that's known and trusted by consumers and revered by geeky tech journos and early adopters. Google's also a company with enough sway to turn the once mighty Sony into a lowly "tell us how to be successful on the Internet Google" pawn.
Like Android, I expect Google TV to look very different in a few years as the platform matures -- we'll see if it's as disruptive. |
Yeah, the experience is a little rough around the edges now, but this is a generation one rollout. Hell, what we've seen so far is just pre-release software on prototype hardware. And this is before an army of independent software developers have taken a crack at it -- having the same OS on your network connected TV and smartphone, MIDs, and tablets should make it easy for clever devs to build all sorts of interesting apps allowing the devices to interact in ways we've never dreamed. Like Android, I expect Google TV to look very different in a few years as the platform matures -- we'll see if it's as disruptive.
Don Melanson:
Internet-enabled TVs and set-top boxes have certainly been making some progress in recent years, but most efforts continue to feel like they're missing the mark. I'd propose that's because they've ignored a key fact about TV: that it's a lazy medium. When you're sitting on a couch after a hard day's work, you don't want to be presented with an endless series of menus and options, you just want to find something to watch.
Google's boiled things down to the most essential element: a single search box that's "just there." |
Google's managed to recognize that, I think, with its deceptively simple unified search box on Google TV. Sure, you can have more or less all the same functionality on something like a TiVo Premiere, but Google's boiled things down to only the most essential elements: a single search box that's "just there," and which returns your search results in a simple list that basically treats live TV and web-based videos equally.
Now, things do get slightly more complicated (i.e. less lazy) from there with apps and phone integration and whatnot, but the fact that Google seems to have gotten this core element right at least gives me some hope. Of course, I'll probably feel differently when my TV starts whispering targeted ads at me based on what I've watched, who I've emailed, where I've driven, and what I had for breakfast.
Sean Hollister:
If you were paying attention during the dot-com bubble, you know Google's idea isn't new; back in 1996, WebTV pioneered the, well, web TV model. However, back then those interested in trying out the budding internet (not yet a facet of daily life) wanted to get the whole experience, not the dumbed-down service that company had on offer. Fast forward to 2010, and what Google's offering this fall seems to be the entire web experience coupled to the entire TV experience, integrated as tightly as PDA and cellphone were in the days right before "smartphone" was added to your vocabulary, and as long as Google hasn't made any tremendous oversights, I imagine TVs will look more and more like their vision going forward. Whether their partners' specific solutions will take off this Christmas, however, depends of course on price.
For all but the most tech-savvy early adopters, what Google and its partners are offering sounds confusing and a bit expensive to pull off. |
For all but the most tech-savvy early adopters, what Google and its partners are offering sounds confusing and a bit expensive to pull off. Besides, the resolution of TVs has increased in the HD era such that you don't need a special interface to adequately view a regular PC connected to an HDTV, and as such a sizable number of those same consumers have or can build a media center PC that does most of the same things Google TV promises, without needing Google's help.
Jacob Schulman (intern):
The thing that strikes me most about Google TV is the possibility of a standardized TV operating system. |
Good stuff good stuff I think google is sure breaking the barriers of what we can do with web on or TV.
@Alexpeegs Great Article, nicely done Engadget
@Alexpeegs
Actually I use my 47" as display.
It's connected with my laptop via HDMI cable. I canceled Cable service long time ago, I watch live TV with antenna when it's necessary. Mostly I watch TV show from Hulu, ABC.com, ETC.... I like that Hulu has less ad than Live TV.
Engadget staff, knowing you all are fans of apple, I have this question for you: Where is Apple TV?
@Alexpeegs Wait, there are Engadgeters that don't already have HTPCs hooked up to their bigscreen TV?
A TV is just a big monitor. =)
@Alexpeegs "Breaking the barriers"? The only thing Google TV does is overlay ads onto an amalgam of existing sources. Look at E's demo vid - when I search for "glee" I want to watch the damned show, not go to Fox's homepage or see someone's youtube fan rant. The biggest (I'd argue *only*) barrier is still in play: I can't just watch what I want when I want.
@Beatnik As apple has stated Apple TV has been a hobby, but if and when apple decides to put any effort into apple tv it will blow google tv out of the water.
@jsbaugh
WRONG
@jsbaugh
"Remember Apple TV, THEY BLEW IT"
GOOGLE TV
@jsbaugh the engadget staff hit this on the head in a number of ways... clearly you didnt even read the post. Apple TV failed in a big way, its only real use is with Boxee. Apple isn't successful with everything they "try" at, only recently have they had any mainstream success with iPod/iPhone/iPad... (remember Newton, Pippin, MacintoshTV, Copland, etc...) Not saying google will pull it off, but they have a way better chance than Apple... you sir are voted down.
@jmhalder
Exactly, Apple is far from pure at getting everything right, or being successful at everything it does.
It does though give stuff a go, it isn't shy about dumping what doesn't work or swapping tech out when the road ahead changes.
In this way it often puts itself on the line, championing tech, like USB, or FireWire or video. This doesn't make it the winner always but often the disruptor.
I thought up something like this with two friends back in 1993. This GoogleTV has a long road full of resistance, consumer aside from the networks. So Google wants to take their ad money now? Not likely, without a huge fight. They are well entrenched (as opposed to the mish mash of ad networks online when google came along). That this was not considered by the engadget team is a surprise.
Finally, do you mob in the USA have so many channels that you need a google level search tool to find something to watch? Really? I don't have a tv but I watch others who do. This is what I observe...
Consumers don't need this because tv is lazy, you already know what you watch at 6pm etc, I never see people wondering what's on, lost in channel surfing trying to find something.
The net needs search, you are looking for a piece of info on something with billions of places it might be. On TV, celebrity chef is on at 7pm on Tuesdays, it's not a mystery lost in a data maze where nothing really connects.
TiVO works cause you might not be home at 7pm on Tuesday. Apple TV worked (did) for a limited market who wanted to pipe iTunes to a TV, dead now cause you just plug your computer direct to the TV, no need to pipe.
If something jogs me to search if I was watching tv, I whip out a smartphone and it's done. The user doesn't want to swap away from the show just to search some tidbit of info. Maybe you use a tablet or a latptop but it's the same, it's not from a lack of search and web on tv it's because you don't want to break the content stream entertaining you.
What's the compelling reason then? To waste the biggest screen on a piddly app. I think not
try again google and next time be either more transparent about wanting to take network ad revenue or show how they won't lose their income. That way you might be able to show some partners who aren't just their because you paid them to make your demo device
@Beatnik I think you might want to wait and see on AppleTV. Given that Apple's figured out the Mac Mini works BETTER as an AppleTV, I'm kind of expecting a merger of the two.
In the article, Sean Hollister said: a sizable number of those same consumers have or can build a media center PC that does most of the same things Google TV promises, without needing Google's help.
And he's right. Google TV sounds like a boring and outdated device, when I look at my sub $600 Media PC (W7MC) that handles HD media without a hitch, dual TV tuner (analog cable + OTA HD, since CableCARD is a distant dream for us Canucks).
Colour me completely unimpressed by Google TV.
@Cy Starkman "That this was not considered by the engadget team is a surprise." Well, maybe some left it out, but it was definitely considered, perhaps even the phrase "being boxee'd" got coined here, I dunno. There is positively no doubt that the networks will try to limit the distribution of the content they own: see Hulu on boxee, figure ABC.com here, etc.
However, it will be interesting to see how a few other options get integrated. Lower players, less legitimate and illegitimate. Does Comedy Central currently block any content? I'm not sure, but I haven't specifically heard about it, also their are the off-shoots like Southpark studios. How will Youtube play into the mix if they can manage to get both their legit and illegit content into the mix? What about the MegaVideos and Chinese sites and surfthechannel that serve content without actively blocking unauthorized content? Perhaps the networks would actually try to work with Google rather than to try to spread their reach into stopping illegal content distribution, which isn't currently all that successful.
If Google were to try to work with them and give them ad-money, while not really taking over liveTV, they will have a shot at gaining a partner, which I think you failed to consider while some at Engadget did consider that networks wouldn't just "jump" at this opportunity and might go down with a fight. You just didn't see it.
@Alexpeegs
good stuff, huh?
Search and TV. When will they ever "just get it?"
The average couch potato doesn't want to work that hard. =]
@Alexpeegs Yeah but they haven't done anything new except add Android to the mix. I like what they have shown and it's cool, but really? Controlling your DVR via IR Blasters. What is this 1998? As many of Endadget's editors just said alot of this has been done before. Where are the partnerships with movie studios and TV providers to allow direct to HD download of TV Shows, where is the live TV streams from Cable Providers etc. All of this is what people like me are looking for not yet another way to add ANOTHER box to the mix. I have already cancelled my Cable Subscription and now purchase my TV or watch my TV from a few different sources, Netflix, Hulu and Apple TV. Say what you will about Apple TV it does it's job and it works. I purchase a TV show and I OWN it.
While I will probably pick one of these up simply for the integration with Hulu's services, G-Mail and others on my TV, plus internet browsing, it will probably not go much farther than that. I mean I already have multiple devices that allow me to watch my Netflix instant queue on my TV, Xbox 360 and PS3. What we want is to bring the variety of what TV has to offer and either replace it with Internet that allows us access to those shows and streams or something completely new that we won't even realize until we see it.
Right now Google hasn't shown us that yet, but as they said here this is just the first version and it's a pretty good start.
@micable "Right now the actual Google TV products are the same type of hacky kludge that the market has rejected time and time again -- anyone remember Web TV?" -- Yep, but this time, its a different game already. Opinions. http://j.mp/tv-google-impressions
@ttringle
> Controlling your DVR via IR Blasters. What is this 1998?
Until a better open standard comes along then IR Blasters are the order of the day. It doesn't matter how primitive the peanut gallery thinks the solution is. If Cable Card were more open, more available and more pervasive "the primitive solution that actually gets the job done" might not be needed anymore.
I'm not holding my breath.
I will use "what works" while waiting for something that satisfies the peanut gallery. Tivo did quite well with the technology.
@jedi HDMI-CEC. Two-way comms and full control.
No reason at all GoogleTV couldn't or wouldn't use this, but IR blasters will still be needed for legacy equipment.
@Alexpeegs I don't see it. Comcast, Time Warner, AT&T and Verizon are all missing. Direct TV too. Without them this thing is likely a non-starter, not that any of them would be particularly open to it. The fear of it might push them to move a few pawns forward is all I'd expect. Google should have bought Tivo and added this stuff to the Tivo interface. Taken that to DirectTV for the Tivo/DirectTV box that is supposedly coming. Then it might stand a chance. And it would keep Tivo from going out of business. As it is I don't see it. Just looks like a big kludge.
Most cable people use their DVR remote as their interface. The Google TV won't know anything about what is on this DVR. It won't be able to reliably navigate the VOD content on the box or even reliably change the channel. And having an additional interface to navigate to find non-Hulu non-Fox non-NBC web content to watch? Another non-starter. It needs to be integrated with the DVR box that is everybody's (well 50% of American's) primary interface to the TV these days.
Damn straight no one agrees on this. Nilay was getting angry in the podcast:
"web tv made my parents stop watching tv altogether, which made them focus more on me" poor kid.
Cool Beans!
My PS3 and windows 7 has let me marry my computer/web/tv/gaming all quite nicely with little effort. I can only see things getting better from here. go google go.
If Google doesn't figure out that when watching TV people don't really want to search, they want to FIND, then it's not going to work.
They also have to put the 10-foot user experience at their top UI priority.
@Hazdaz
Wow, way to try to sound all deep and shit. The purpose of EVERY FREAKING SEARCH IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND is to FIND. People don't use Google search engines to SEARCH, they use them to FIND, duh.
@tonicboy
:rolleyes:
The point is that TV watching is more of a PASSIVE experience rather than an interactive one like surfing the net.
People flip on the TV and might simply watch what's on, rather than know ahead of time what show and what episode they want to watch. If they think that people are going to spend 10 minutes running down 50 search results, then GoogleTV is simply not going to work.
@Hazdaz Agree wholeheartedly on the 10ft user experience.
On your main point, I think you've segregated the audience too much. You're almost looking at the people who watch TV to watch TV, rather than those who watch TV to watch their favorite shows. I have no way of knowing how big either side of the coin is, but with that knowledge one of our points would be less valuable.
Also, to say it'd take 10 minutes, IMO, is really trying to make your argument stronger while not actually having a base for that premise. I think you might be thinking too much in the realm of some web search, while I'd tend to presume (based on early rumblings) this search will be much less comprehensive. Though I do think finding the wrong results would be more frustrating than web search, which I think is part of your point.
So, this really comes down to something. The efficiency and accuracy, right? It can conceivably, with commercials and many stations (presuming you literally just hit channel up, which might be a thing of the past for most with things like "favorite" buttons and memorizing channel numbers) it can take 10 mins to find what you want to watch utilizing the status quo, and in that case you might have missed something. Previous to the internet, some people would use much more than 10 mins to find what they wanted to watch in the print edition of TV guide.
So, if we can get more accurate results, expand our horizons, or anything else without really sacrificing efficiency this is a gain to all who want to do more than to be just "tuning in" (alternatives being searching/finding as you put it). These improvements are definitely possible, so it'll be important to see the price of devices in the market.
@juanvaldez
You can't search for something if you don't know what you want to find.
Sure it's not all the time, but a large % of the time people simply do not even know what they would like to see... they just want to be entertained by SOMETHING. TV is set up as a limited number of selections that present themselves to the viewer - the media is pushed to you. Searching on the internet is almost the opposite - an infinite set of possibilities, but only if you go out and look for them - pull technology.
Google is the master of the "pull" but even the most accurate and efficient search comes up empty if the viewer doesn't have any idea what he wants to see.
@Hazdaz You are exactly right, and this is why the internet on a TV has never, and likely will never really work. The only thing people want from the internet on their TV is content. They want the 10ft Hulu interface or Pandora, and they want those available as channels or apps, not as a website you navigate to. They certainly do not want to search for something and receive hundreds of irrelevant results.
This is DOA simply because there is no market for this type of thing. Now if you give me something like the Roku box with Hulu and ESPN3, in addition to the Netflix, MLB.TV and, podcast channels they already have, and I will pay whatever amount of money you want.
"The thing that strikes me most about Google TV is the possibility of a standardized TV operating system."
Yeah, until some idiot company decides to come along and make their own (most likely more pathetic) version of Google TV to compete...Bada anybody?
@FlyersPh9 Windows Media Center for W7 is about as advanced a media interface that I have seen to date, and bonus points that its touch optimized to boot, and there are a plethora of media center gyromotes, keyboards, etc already on the market.
Nice thing too is that you can close the WMC UI, and you have a full operating system behind it that needs no more than nettop components to be quick and speedy.
And with the 150% scaling option with the click of a button, the 10 foot usability is great at 1080P.
I think Google TV will mirror Android in terms of adoption rate and how long it will take the general public to recognize that Google doesn't just want to be a blank page on the internet but a part of every aspect of their lives. I'm not saying its a bad thing either. I think Google is great and offers amazing products and services, but it will take time for people to realize this. Being an early adopter, I will probably pick one of these up.
as king said, it's now or never.
I, for one, welcome our new GoogleTV overlords
Isn't this what google always does? They release something as early as humanly possible in the earliest stage possible and (usually) listen and respond to feedback by improving the products.
I'm happy Google is tackling this one and I hope they're successful with full integration into a cable box or offering a Tivo-like alternative.
@BigHam
Because it doesn't have to be GREAT to have ads on it.
"The Ads work?"
"Yeah, but, we've only implemented 3 of the 5 core fea--"
"That's why its called Beta...It's done... what's next boys?"
As long as they dont forget the homies in the hood, they get a pass in the hood... A lot of the lil homeys got the G1 but ya know we trend setters in the hood... If you get seen with an EVO 4g u best have some explainin to do.. homeys in the hood gonna get that phone.. Nobody using the iphone no more in the hood... REAL TALK!!!
@Mike Vick
English, do you speak it?
Google: Have the balls to make THE standard OS for set-top boxes. Support OTA, DVB-S, DVB-C, Clear QAM, CableCard, tru2way, and cut deals with the various cable/satellite providers. I'll buy a $400 device if it integrates seamless with my DirecTV now or, if I move somewhere, digital cable there. Google TV 1.0 does not come even remotely close to that, and it really doesn't try.
@mlayer I'm not really sure at this stage of the announcements, since things are still a bit in the infancy stage of development. But, wouldn't that device really be something they want out of OEMs, rather than produce themselves? You're asking Google to do something that really isn't in their business model, and which would be more risky to them since it's not their level of expertise. I predict that the $400 hardware that you desire will come out, and that it wont do well, but it'll come because the OS they use is open source and someone will try to capitalize on the possibilities, you just have to be a bit more patient and not have expected that on day -10 (ok, not even in its infancy yet, still in utero).
Why they (Samsung,LG,Sony,etc) just don't put inside in TV some kind of PC. Nothing powerful, something what's inside HTPC. It could run everything, TV stuff and OS stuff (like Android). Then put inside WiFI and done. Perfect TV.
@artissco
Why don't they just make a huge iMac with a TV tuner?
Seriously, that would work well, with expanded sound capabilities built-in, maybe blu-ray, and ir+bluetooth remote control. Sounds great to me. Maybe cutting the price could be a priority for whoever tries this, though.
VeriaCast 2.0? I mean it already have Youtube, Picassa, Netflix(only on certain hardware), and Amazon
Why IR Blasters?! Everything's connected to your network these days, why not IP commands?
@xbbx
You can control your cable box over your network? Mine can't even output video over HDMI without crashing every half an hour.
@Chefgon
Not cable ;) but yes
Wonder what Boxee's thinking right about now? Seriously though in order to make a truly seamless interface you must control the content. As the editors point out this is not it. Big content and cable companies won't let this happen. As another commenter pointed out we need a common interface for TV. With the current fragmentation of content on the web this wont happen for at least 5 years. This is why torrents are so popular, they put all content you watch within a common interface. If the execs would learn this and charge a reasonable rate like $30-$50/month for everything available then piracy would decrease greatly. Until then this is the best we can expect.
@lane3128 I actually wondered why Boxee didn't come up in more of the editor's comments. I keep hearing raves about Boxee Box and software, maybe more the idea of the software going into partner devices, but I do think I recall hearing that they were interested in the Boxee Box and yet a separate Box for Google TV has everyone saying that is such a non-starter. The only thing I could think of is that they think the Boxee Box isn't good for the market but that as an individual they can look past its issues.
I'm missing something, maybe Boxee doesn't need IR blaster or something else. Also, in the previous Google TV article I read IR blaster is "so 1997" while my Sling Solo (and I'm sure other Sling boxes) would've disagreed.
most of the engadget group are nuttin haters just my 2 cents
@shockwave18
I would say apple fanboys, them ALL.