Entelligence: Hello WebTV part II
By Michael Gartenberg 
posted May 30th 2010 5:30PM
posted May 30th 2010 5:30PM
Entelligence is a column by technology strategist and author Michael Gartenberg, a man whose desire for a delicious cup of coffee and a quality New York bagel is dwarfed only by his passion for tech. In these articles, he'll explore where our industry is and where it's going -- on both micro and macro levels -- with the unique wit and insight only he can provide.
In a world of connected screens it's sometimes hard to classify what's what. I mean, what's a PC? We call smartphones "phones," but the reality is they're tiny PCs that go in our pocket. Similarly, the TV has undergone an evolution as well, and now Google is attempting to bring the PC and TV even closer together with the introduction of Google TV. What is it? Well there are three core elements: Android 2.2, the Chrome browser and the Android app marketplace. It's ambitious, but I'm skeptical. I feel like I've heard a lot of this before -- and in fact, I have. By no small coincidence, Android is headed by Andy Rubin, the man who was in charge of a product called WebTV before it was sold to Microsoft. And just as with WebTV, there's a lot of potential in the ideas behind GoogleTV, but I'm not sure Google has nailed it.
GoogleTV will launch this fall on a new line of connected TVs and Blu-ray players from Sony, as well as a set top box from Logitech. This strategy has a familiar feel -- Sony's sold TVs with integrated TiVo functionality in the past, and no one wanted them. Mixing TV content with a third-party set top box is also a challenge. In fact, vendors like Apple and Roku avoid doing this because it's a hassle. Unless you incorporate CableCARD into your box, users still need to rely on a separate cable box for content, and that's a problem -- in order to integrate command and control, Google is using an IR blaster. Yep -- an IR blaster. The same way I connected my first-gen TiVo in 1997. See, I told you this was familiar.
Once you get connected Google says GoogleTV is different because it's the whole web on your TV, as well as the entire Android marketplace -- all your Android apps will work on GoogleTV. The problem is the TV is not just another connected screen -- the TV is the largest screen in the home, and it's optimized for passive viewing of content as a shared experience. Research has shown time and time again that consumers don't want the whole internet on their TVs. Consumers simply don't want Gmail or Twitter or the "whole" web on the TV. There's a fundamental difference between what Google is offering and what consumers want -- and, importantly, what they're willing pay for. Plus, it's hard to sell the consumer on having to buy a complex remote or using their phones as a remote. (Note to Google: remotes are shared household device, and are often left on the couch. Phones are personal, rarely shared, and aren't usually left on they couch unless by mistake.) Strip out the "whole web" and apps, and you're pretty much left with an updated version of the first-gen TiVo, minus the DVR capabilities.
I get why the TV is important to Google -- it's a great opportunity for even more ad revenue. But the TV is not a phone or a PC. Consumers are looking for a different type of connected experience in their living rooms, and it's one that so far has defied every attempt to merge the TV and PC. GoogleTV just feels like the latest in a long line of niche products more likely to appeal to the enthusiast than to the mass market. An old joke has a consumer lamenting for a phone or PC that's as easy to use as a TV. Google can't succeed making the TV as complex as your other devices.
Michael Gartenberg is a partner at Altimeter Group. His weblog can be found at gartenblog.net. Contact him at gartenberg AT gmail DOT com. Views expressed here are his own.
GoogleTV will launch this fall on a new line of connected TVs and Blu-ray players from Sony, as well as a set top box from Logitech. This strategy has a familiar feel -- Sony's sold TVs with integrated TiVo functionality in the past, and no one wanted them. Mixing TV content with a third-party set top box is also a challenge. In fact, vendors like Apple and Roku avoid doing this because it's a hassle. Unless you incorporate CableCARD into your box, users still need to rely on a separate cable box for content, and that's a problem -- in order to integrate command and control, Google is using an IR blaster. Yep -- an IR blaster. The same way I connected my first-gen TiVo in 1997. See, I told you this was familiar.
Strip out the "whole web" and apps, and you're pretty much left with an updated version of the first-gen TiVo, minus the DVR capabilities. |
Once you get connected Google says GoogleTV is different because it's the whole web on your TV, as well as the entire Android marketplace -- all your Android apps will work on GoogleTV. The problem is the TV is not just another connected screen -- the TV is the largest screen in the home, and it's optimized for passive viewing of content as a shared experience. Research has shown time and time again that consumers don't want the whole internet on their TVs. Consumers simply don't want Gmail or Twitter or the "whole" web on the TV. There's a fundamental difference between what Google is offering and what consumers want -- and, importantly, what they're willing pay for. Plus, it's hard to sell the consumer on having to buy a complex remote or using their phones as a remote. (Note to Google: remotes are shared household device, and are often left on the couch. Phones are personal, rarely shared, and aren't usually left on they couch unless by mistake.) Strip out the "whole web" and apps, and you're pretty much left with an updated version of the first-gen TiVo, minus the DVR capabilities.
I get why the TV is important to Google -- it's a great opportunity for even more ad revenue. But the TV is not a phone or a PC. Consumers are looking for a different type of connected experience in their living rooms, and it's one that so far has defied every attempt to merge the TV and PC. GoogleTV just feels like the latest in a long line of niche products more likely to appeal to the enthusiast than to the mass market. An old joke has a consumer lamenting for a phone or PC that's as easy to use as a TV. Google can't succeed making the TV as complex as your other devices.
Michael Gartenberg is a partner at Altimeter Group. His weblog can be found at gartenblog.net. Contact him at gartenberg AT gmail DOT com. Views expressed here are his own.
I KNEW I was feeling a bit of Deja Vu behind this whole concept. It's good to see that Engadget feels the same sort of skepticism as I do.
@Becauseitsnotgoogle2 Thank God Bing doesn't use advertising on theirs, or Yahoo...
@r34p3r
I don't see how this problem isn't solved by just using your tv as an external monitor for a laptop. yes, the intervace isn't going to be optimised, but you can watch your regular cable, and then switch input and watch whatever webcontent you want on the big screen. you can even play your laptop games through the tv screen. works fine for me. what does google tv have that that doesn't?
@r34p3r I'll have to use GTV before I can pass judgment, but I do know I want the internet on my tv. My main computer is hooked to my tv and honestly, it feels odd anytime I use a computer and I'm not laid back in a recliner.
I've found that I never turn over to cable. Hulu, Netflix, Reader, and podcasts have taken all my time. Cable only provides me reruns which is just useless.
If Google TV provides them 4 things on top of live tv with a simple interface, the rest of the world can catch up.
Also TiVo was a dumb comparison for being packed in. A cool feature that your paying for in the hardware of a tv, but then requires a subscription to keep said functionality != cool features that you pay for once, and then keep.
@r34p3r At least we can all agree AppleTV is a steaming pile of crap
@metric Let's hold judgement if Engadget was correct with where AppleTV is heading with the $99 dollar unit. Much easier to swallow then anything over $150 for an interface to watch webisodes
@r34p3r I am totally skeptical on how this is going to work out. But I think its a lot like the iPad in many ways. Right now, I'm not super impressed with it. Nor any other tablet on the market or coming to the market for that matter. Meaning, the market isn't fully there yet for it it, but when it is it will be amazing.
So I think with the proper application development, this could be a pretty neat thing tablets and Google TV/ Apple TV which is now on the horizon again.
Only time will how this turns out. Things have changed a bit since Web TV but I do appreciate Mr. Gartenberg's insight on the matter.
@metric
You mean it is a big pile of crap as it stands. I believe the next iteration will fantastical.
@r34p3r
Whats a TV? dont recall when i last watched anything on it!
@munakib
Why is this like the 5th story where engadget is ripping GTV???
@cobjones
I think just a lot of people are skeptical where it can go and what it can do. I am skeptically hopeful. I see a lot of ways where application development can make this take off. But if the developers are just not there, then this product will fall flat on its face.
Where my WelfareTV homies at? Klined by DonnaCSA? Man, those were the days.
@r34p3r Strip out the "whole web" and apps, and you're pretty much left with an updated version of the first-gen TiVo, minus the DVR capabilities.
-- Yep, and that's why you wouldn't strip them, would you? http://j.mp/google-super-tv-2011
GoogleTV sounds great in theory, but in practicality it just doesn't seem reasonable.
You are exactly right. Not sure what google is offering here beyond an enhanced TV search.
And btw, I love a good coffee and bagel as much as the next guy, but you don't hear me crowing about it.
@DTJ The linking to streaming sites is nice, although i'd rather go through a HTPC. Personally I think you are being given a raw deal with your EPGs, in the UK we have the excellent one that Sky provides (although Virgin's isn't great).
Personally i'd rather have a good cup of Tea and some Victoria Sponge.
@DTJ :: It's what makes Michael Gartenberg wake up each day, the promise of a delicious New York coffee and quality bagel is his motivation in life, without it he would be nothing.
Anyways on topic, it will be good to be able to use the catch-up TV websites on the big-screen.
Consumers don't know what they want until they are told what they want. Very few people in the US or worldwide would have a smartphone unless Apple came along and told them that they needed a smartphone. Consumers wouldn't want or ask for fiber to the home until Verizon came along and showed them the benefits.
This is only Google's first try they can fix some problems, and still add features that make it unlike other web-connected devices.
@Bud92 You're STILL limited in that the TV is a simple device, You'll pay a couple hundred for an interface and App Marketplace. Unless you integrate Microsoft's Natal, you will still have to have a complicated "MEGA" remote that would be like an extension of one of Logitech's line. Hook up a PC and be happy, it's still going to be the same content
Well put Gartenburg. Who really wants the whole web on their TV. This product will not work in it's current incarnation, much like those who proceeded it. It will be interesting to see if Apple TV will offer something better. I'm thinking of going with a Roku Player myself.
@Edobe Forget Gmail and Twitter, that's missing the point. "Whole web" == YouTube, Vimeo, Veoh, CNN, BBC, NBC, blip.tv, justin.tv, mtv, theonion, collegehumor, funnyordie, gametrailers, imeem and a lot more.
Also Flickr, Picasa, deviantart, Panoramio, photobucket, twitpic, MobileMe, Kodak Easyshare, Snapfish.. you get the idea?
@Namarrgon I get the idea. I just believe that what you are talking about is better implemented through an HTPC or a DMR like the roku player or Boxee box. That is why I said it won't work in it's current incarnation.
So Google own my browsing habits, the browser itself, mail, operating system, instant messaging etc, and now TV.
I don't like putting all my eggs in one basket, especially a basket owned by a company who's core activity is advertising.
Even worse, they have created an environment whereby we have lost control of what data of ours they store and our control of it, and we seem to have accepted this with little resistance.
Sorry Google, you won't be on my TV.
i like the faint ..."how to be a grown up" e are surrounded by toys....never the less...unless this is free...i wont go for it
I am not usually a fan of Mr. Gartenberg...but well done on this article. I personally wasn't impressed with the whole google tv thing, with the whole IR blaster and use your own phone as a remote.(I have a droid from verizon and wouldn't really feel like using it as a remote and wasting battery life by having to keep the screen on)
It also reminded me of WebTV or whatever it was called, that I believe microsoft tried to market during the ages of dial-up.
@gatesofbill : This is just like WebTV, except that was before its time. The landscape has changed. We have a large penetration of high speed internet connections in homes, and we have a plethora of burgeoning TV/movie content providers/sources on the internet. It really is web TV now (TV on the web, not just the web on the TV). I currently use Windows 7 nettop PCs in the living room/bedrooms to accomplish what google TV does, and I haven't missed my cable TV at all, there is plenty of video content to take up my viewing time between Hulu and Netflix (not to mention browsing to the occasional non-TV website).
For the people worried about some crazy new remote control, who cares? You already have remotes for BluRay, TV, receiver, cable/sat STB, what's the problem with another one in the mix (and the fact that it may replace one if you ditch cable TV)?
For me the TV has long been just a big monitor, for whatever content source (DVD, Xbox, PC, etc.), so the whole notion of it being exclusively a passive device is so last century. Passive cable/sat TV isn't going away for years, but google TV has stepped into a growing market... We already have a generation of high school and college students using various internet content sources (Hulu, Netflix, piracy, etc.), and many will never go back to cable/sat. Google TV won't fail because nobody wants internet TV. If it does fail it will be for other reasons like cost, usability, what content sources it supports, etc.
The key to Google TV is not Google TV, it is that web apps become optimized for big screens. This was not possible when Web TV came out, but it's possible now. Clicker.tv has completely replaced Boxee for me. If other web apps follow suit, Google TV will be a success.
GoogleTV is a re-hash - there have not been any significant changes to technology or interfaces that suggest now is the time to be doing this. Every year there have been attempts to integrate web content into TVs (widgets, feeds, etc). They haven't taken off because a TV's selling point is its dumbness. You get home, throw up your feet and look for some mindless entertainment (to the point where we are even willing to watch numbing adverts). How about some "dumb" innovation? An easy voice-based interface might help. "TV, show me this weeks episode of House and record Top Gear".
Isn't it much cheaper to buy a cable and connect your PC to your TV? You get the whole web and much more.
When i sit down to watch some TV it means that i certainly not in the mood for typing some keywords into google on a remote (it actually means i am not in the mood to do so even on a full sized keyboard of my laptop). I want hit the power button, go randomly through channels (spending less than a minute hitting buttons) and finally relax watching something. I GET ENOUGT AVERTS ON MY TV more adverts from google search is overkill for me. No more adverts on a TV. NO way.
He probably loves the new Apple TV...
If this thing can run the Android Apps I'd care to run on my home stereo/tv setup, Last.fm, Netflix(hopefully soon), Pandora, etc.. and stream my local content(probably an App floating around for that as well) I'll buy it. The web content stuff is a very distant plus. I think the App part of this is what makes this NOT WebTV all over again. I don't see how you can strip that out of your argument.
@avinash240 How are you going to interface a web app when there is always going to be some type of latency between "phone"/remote and box. It would be useless for playing games until latency is eliminated AND it's so simple the average consumer can go "I can do that"
@silencets I'm not interested in playing games on it, I have an Xbox 360 and PS3 for that. I just want it to consolidate all my content services(Last.fm/Pandora/Netflix) and stream music from my windows home server. The only thing that comes close to fitting that bill is the boxee box and the popbox, neither of which is actually out. And then there is the off chance their might be an android app like Spotify, that I'd like to add to the mix.
BOXEE BOX FTW!
@sssilence when the hell are they releasing the damn thing? I hope this isn't vaporware...
@iName fall i think
@sssilence Waiting for the Boxee Box is killing me. Been wanting it since it was announced.
Problem with this is most people that are watching tv do it with more than themselves which means you are not going to be using googletv. I know when I watch tv it's to chill and get away from the internet and my computer. I just don't see it catching on and maybe google is fine with that and will cater to a niche market. Similar to apple tv.
Google TV is different from other web TVs because it integrates TV and Web, it makes them searchable. Anyway the sales figures will tell, hold on tight.
You bring up very good points and time will tell if Googles strategy is right. But I disagree on one thing: "Consumers don't want......".
Thats Bullshit.
Consumers don't know what they want until you tell them. It must seamlessly work, be simple and offer a real value. Then they will love it. Just like Smartphones nowadays.
They didn't knew they want them, did they?
@Frasier
I'll give you a hint... Google's 'strategy' is "if it fails, then oh well, who cares... "
@Wesscoast
Its a common IT Strategy: Fail often, fail early.
And they have the money to do that.
Google TV is all about what developers come up with. Bringing apps to TV will be the key. I see apps for that bring WMC to the TV without an HTPC. I see apps to use my WMC DVR to record programs I want. I see augmented reality type apps for TV (in-line fantasy stats, movie info). An app that can bring up wiki style info on shows (a clickable icon explaining that that last joke was a reference to an earlier episode plot point, then mark that episode to stream. A tivo style app that tracks what you watch and rate and makes netflix like suggestions.
They are using the netflix model of getting their software on as many devices as possible, thus allowing for easy entry by the business partners. They also are not trying to directly sell content allowing for easier non-competitive partnerships with content providers. Saying GTV is going to fail, is not taking into the POTENTIAL for new ways that we soon won't realize how we ever lived without.
I LOVE having the whole web on my tv.
- From my Acer Revo and a big ass Samsung 1080p
my issue is that apparently they hyped being able to do things like watch videos off hulu, when later it was revealed that they haven't even started talks with Hulu (and other providers). And it is very possible that in the end, Hulu will have to block such access because of the contracts that allow them content for their site.
and then there's the whole 'later' issue again.
Even if their stuff is utter crap, at least Apple works out the details before they release something and have a date for it. they aren't like 'well this is what it should do when it is finished and that will be sometime around the end of the year'
It's not that I don't want the internet on my TV (although then nobody can watch pr0n safely), it's that I just need a desk for my mouse and keyboard.
I wish the cable companies weren't so stubborn and greedy. can you imagine if they integrated google tv into their boxes? it would be much simpler and sophisticated than an IR blaster that's for sure. Until cable companies get their shit together (which is most likely never) things like Google Tv will never be ubiquitous.
@iName Cable Companies are still fighting TiVo. Good luck getting them to care one iota about GoogleTV
@silencets Cable companies/basic networks like the old way of doing business where they produce content and people are forced to watch it because essentially there is no other reasonable option.That's a big problem for Google and Apple, neither of them really produce content (Apple's Disney connection aside) so they can't force devoted fans into using their products for that reason. What they really need to do is create a television division and produce shows. There is absolutely no reason why Youtube couldn't become the new cable, it just doesn't have enough valuable exclusive/meaningful content yet. The real shame is, producing a show is fairly inexpensive for these companies. Time Warner produces loads of content, they even own HBO, they have a market cap of 35 billion. Apple has a market cap of what? 240 billion? Just start making reasonably written and produced shows... I mean, you already have an assload of white soundstages and mac pros running final cut, what more do you need :) ?