http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/ Engadget Comments for http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/May 21st 2010 8:47PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/May 21st 2010 9:14PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/
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.]]>May 21st 2010 9:19PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/May 21st 2010 9:48PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/
A TV is just a big monitor. =)]]>May 21st 2010 9:53PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/May 22nd 2010 12:05AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/May 21st 2010 10:16PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/WRONG]]>May 21st 2010 10:34PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/"Remember Apple TV, THEY BLEW IT"
GOOGLE TV]]>May 21st 2010 10:40PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/May 21st 2010 11:01PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/
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 ]]>May 22nd 2010 12:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/May 22nd 2010 12:41AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/
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.]]>May 22nd 2010 1:22AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/
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. ]]>May 22nd 2010 1:40AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/
good stuff, huh?

Search and TV. When will they ever "just get it?"

The average couch potato doesn't want to work that hard. =]]]>May 22nd 2010 2:43AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/
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. ]]>May 22nd 2010 10:45AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/http://j.mp/tv-google-impressions]]>May 22nd 2010 3:32PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/
> 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.]]>May 22nd 2010 5:47PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/
No reason at all GoogleTV couldn't or wouldn't use this, but IR blasters will still be needed for legacy equipment.]]>May 22nd 2010 9:22PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/
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. ]]>May 23rd 2010 10:36PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/
"web tv made my parents stop watching tv altogether, which made them focus more on me" poor kid.]]>May 21st 2010 8:47PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/May 21st 2010 8:49PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/]]>May 21st 2010 8:52PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/
They also have to put the 10-foot user experience at their top UI priority. ]]>May 21st 2010 8:54PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/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.]]>May 22nd 2010 12:05AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/
: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. ]]>May 22nd 2010 12:39AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/
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. ]]>May 22nd 2010 1:52AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/
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.]]>May 22nd 2010 9:56AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/
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.]]>May 22nd 2010 11:49AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/
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?]]>May 21st 2010 8:55PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/
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. ]]>May 21st 2010 9:56PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/May 21st 2010 8:55PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/May 21st 2010 8:56PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/May 21st 2010 8:57PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/
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.]]>May 21st 2010 8:57PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/
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?"]]>May 21st 2010 9:30PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/May 21st 2010 9:00PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/ English, do you speak it?]]>May 22nd 2010 1:28AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/May 21st 2010 9:00PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/May 21st 2010 11:42PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/]]>May 21st 2010 9:03PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/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.]]>May 22nd 2010 2:23PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/May 21st 2010 9:05PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/May 21st 2010 9:07PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/
You can control your cable box over your network? Mine can't even output video over HDMI without crashing every half an hour.]]>May 21st 2010 9:39PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/Not cable ;) but yes]]>May 22nd 2010 10:39PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/May 21st 2010 9:08PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/
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. ]]>May 21st 2010 11:12PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/May 21st 2010 9:08PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/21/engadget-on-google-tv/I would say apple fanboys, them ALL.]]>May 21st 2010 10:15PM