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 really don't agree with this quote "Stripoutthe "whole web"andapps,and you'reprettymuch leftwithanupdated versionofthe first-genTiVo,minusthe DVRcapabilities."
First reason, why strip out the functionality? Its there and that is the product.
Second, I really think engadget and maybe even Google is looking at this wrong. Googletv other android market isn't just so we can use Gmail, Facebook, or twiiter. It is so we can use Pandora to share music with our families and friends, its o we can view our Flickr photos or home photos. Even use Google's new music streaming service that will be implemented just to ply music on the TVs during house parties or events. I don't know about you but when my sister is at school 2,000 miles away, I would love to chat with her on Skype on a 50" the while my whole family is in the room. I would love to have LLC mu video podcasts on Google Listen and watch them on my big screen. These are all things TiVo and webTV, even apple TV don't have....
@Blayze04 Buy a 360, and you'll be good for all those things with Microsoft's XboxLive. Especially with Natal later in the year
It seems to me the the game consoles are the best starting point for adding the full Web. Of course they don't provide DVR and still need an STB. If you want games, DVD/Blu Ray, VOD, cable TV, Web, it looks to me like 3 boxes are required plus a remote(s) and maybe a keyboard even if one box is an HTPC or a Tivo.
I want the full web on my HDTV. I think it would be cool doing PIP with the Web full screen then the TV channel in the PIP so you could surf the web while watching TV instead of having to unplug a laptop from charging and booting it up. Then you could switch back to watching TV without having to push another input button. The web is right their on the HDTV with instant access.
I also think Web TV failed the first time was that their was no Broadband Internet and the Web was in its infancy then.
I would also love to have a do it all PS3 with the full web and you would be able to hook any Cable or Satellite provider up to it. Then the PS3 would be the ultimate entertainment center.
Here's my reasoning for being skeptical, aside from the obvious "we've seen this fail before" type thing.
1) While I think it's gonna be neat to have a TV completely connected to the web and feature Android, I'm not willing to pay the hefty premium it's bound to come with. If modern TV pricing shows anything, it's that the companies will bleed your wallet for every little feature they toss in and Android would be a big gash for them to suck your wallet dry with.
2) Having an OS on a TV means sooner or later (sooner probably,) you're going to run into problems. What about the OS getting slow and buggy from too much stuff going on at once? Don't these new TVs need to have a processor in them that can handle Android? How much extra does THAT cost?
3) The whole "web on the tv" thing has been done before and it's failed miserably. Granted, this isn't a paid service like WebTV was, it's just a product with internet built in, but nonetheless, I think if people want to get online that badly, they will use something they know how to use like a computer or smart phone.
I guess, my whole point is that the benefits would be decent, but the cost is most likely going to be the big deterrent for a lot of people. I'm calling this the KIN of televisions at this point. Cool idea, but pricing makes it D.O.A.
Anyone know a way to hack Engadget to prevent articles from certain editors from appearing on screen? Like how there is a -iPhone/iPad option.
Ultimately I'd like to ban Michael Gartenberg and Apple news from my screen real estate.
"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."
Except that "Apps" is the important part. That's what Apple TV is adding. The IR blaster/STB functions are just Google trying to 1-up the Apple TV running iPhone OS 4 and are also a likely "first step" before adding IPTV, CableCARD, etc. Don't just toss them aside like unimportant ancillary functions just to make your TiVo/WebTV comparison when it's the TiVo/WebTV similarities which are tangential.
just give me a boxee box already
@rowehc Amen.
From the things id heard GoogleTV sounded like everything i wanted.. i then watched the Keynote just to make sure it was what i thought and i have to admit im extremely dissappointed. If im searching for video on the TV im most likely wanting to watch a proper TV show. i rarely watch 'webisodes' or anything like that - maybe GTV will be the beginning of proper content im going to want to watch off the internet ( im sure theres some great stuff out there but im not interested as of yet) and i know that Google searching LOST for video isnt going to get me the episodes for free. Theres no DVR capability - im sure it will come but its not the core feature. It should be.
AppleTV has never interested me. I like the core idea - i choose what i want to watch and have my entire catalogue to watch whenever i like but i dont just want iTunes, if i can get Boxee with some basic web interfaces that can stream my Boxee Library, Sky Player (for sports and On Demand Movies), iPlayer and the other British on Demand services, maybe have a Twitter feed/Facebook/Skype chat open over the top of a video then i think THAT will be the Web-based TV solution that i would want..
People dont want extra boxes to connect to their TV just so they can pay for Cable/Satellite and also search for lolcats in youtube on their TV. the Internet based TV of the future will replace the Satellite Dish / Cable company and Google basing their entire business plan around keeping those companies around is handing potential to a future AppleTV as its clear that when that stops being a hobby (hopefully the latest rumours are true - if not Apple need to up their game because Google could very easily edge past them and dominate this market)
I dont want to pay for a full Sky package, internet and GTV. Give me a GTV box with a harddrive and the ability to stream my current content and get the web content and we're sorted.. yeah im sure that with android apps for Boxee that this will be a possibility and i LOVE the idea of using my phone apps on a nice big screen but selling it as a companion to satellite will not be easy. Working in sales its hard to get customers to take out Sky/Satellite or Virgin because they dont like the subscription prices for either (im sure its the same in the US) and Free to Air TV just doesnt offer the quality of programming.
They talk alot about merging the Old TV technology with New Internet Technology... but they cant Merge Old TV business plans and just slab them together with new Internet business plans.. Old TV needs to die and New Web TV needs to gain Live Sports + nice web capabilities that work well on a TV = Job Done.
Really people? I exclusively use the web for all of my TV content. Everything is about Data on demand whether it is a voice call, video content or internet images. Only the internet is capable of managing all three on demand. Most importantly HULU, Netflix, Youtube, and other major networks have dramaticaly changed the TV landscape since the days of WebTV. Cable networks know this. Face it, DVDs and traditional passive TV will be surpassed by streaming content within 5 years and google knows it. It has already happened to the music industry with CDs and even Apple is redesigning the most popular iTunes for HTML5 so that your content will all be streamed between devices. It all comes down to streaming Data regardless of your content.
It's Google - everything's pretty much a glorified experiment! If the product flops, they'll simply bury it and move on... Google Answers, Google Video or Orkut anybody?
@hated one
It has a release date. This fall its released by Sony and Logitech. Android apps in 2011 and going completely open source in early 2011..
It has HD as it explicitly says you can play Youtube in HD and you can stream video in HD.
Boxee are releasing an app for it which means that any video you have on your network i would presume would be accessed by the Boxee app so your DVR is obsolete due to the fact you could use that .
Live streaming feeds is the whole idea of the product. Its what its there for. And as for surround sound the GTV boxes/ TV's can work as a companion to your existing set-up. so it does have surround sound and because its not like Apple where only one product will be released (lots of Manufcurers will be getting in on this) there will be a wide variety of products to choose from - Surround sound or without it. with DVR and without it.
I agree that working as an extra to other services like cable which will charge subcscription is a bad idea. they should just outright try and replace those companies.. Im skeptical about some of the points ive backed up here, as i mentioned in my previous comment, but for you to just come and flat-out deny that they exist is ridonkulous.
I have to agree with the author.
I just don't see it.
No one wants that extra box. Or the big expensive remote control. AT least not the mass market.
You also don't need "Google" in order to search for mainstream TV and Video. cable, satellite, Tivo, etc all can do this now effectively enough.
And I already have a DVR that finds my shows and records them so I can watch them whenever. Why do I want to use GTV first?
All I do now is hit the DVR button, press ok to select My Recordings and then go down to the show I want to watch.
ON GTV I would take a few letters of the show I want to watch. Up would come 30 search results and I'd have to scroll down to figure what show is on my DVR. I just don't see the time saved here.
And again Tivo and Comcast etc already let you search for shows good enough.
So what would GTV be for? Searching for web video from the same interface. I'm not sure that's a big winner. Maybe in conjunction with a Tivo hooked to OTA in combination with Netflix and Amazon OD. Still one has to wonder how well integrated it would all be.
A TV shouldn't be the main screen, it should be a peripheral to something else (i.e. a separate touch screen). As mentioned above, TVs are for passive viewing. If Google were to make a separate, Android-driven device that preformed the same functions as GoogleTV but was a device on its own, then people would be willing to buy it. Right now, I don't give a damn about a box that relies on my TV, I want an object independent of my TV that is best when used with my TV
Re: Google following the Netflix strategy of getting on every possible device... Too late. Google will only be on a handful to start. Yahoo is on many more devices than Google TODAY. Apple is only rumored to be in the game. Yahoo, Roku, LG, Samsung, Vizio, Panasonic, Xbox... These are the current players welcoming two new ones (big ones admittedly).
But to make this anything more than an early adopter toy, the battle will be about content more than technology.
The technology's job is to get out of the way and make the UI work like a TV.
When consumers say they want the whole web, they mean they want the content and they want it free. They don't really want to "browse" on a tv. They'll say they do until they try it.
And I don't mean you, readers of tech blogs, I mean your parents and average to lower than average non tech friends.
Although I think a phone or tablet as a helper tool is not a bad idea. It's better than an onscreen keyboard and it gives you a way to automatically "log in" to access your own favorites. Especially for kids. But they are bad as primary remotes because you have to look at them to find the keys. A good remote you can operate by touch while your eyes remain on the loving glowing screen.
More at http://www.TheHollywoodGeek.com
Typos are due to iPad. :)
Well google tv has potential but its such a sensitive subject they can easily screw this up. I have a decent network setup which shares the media and entertainment experience in my house with two primary servers that host recorded tv, music, movies, pictures and files for my wife and I such as our family budget and calendar, which is connected to our televisions. Now it took some work to put this together but when tv and the internet are married right its a beautiful thing, now if I can make a decent setup I can only imagine what Google or Apple can do
My TV is great at displaying video... but not so great at displaying text, etc...(and I have a big 65" HDTV). Also, I typically have the TV playing in the background while I browse the web, which wouldn't be possible if the TV is doing both. To be honest, the closest ideal net-connected device I've seen is Boxee - what I need is a device that lets me find every net video out there, lets me subscribe to my favorite shows, alerts me when they are about to expire, and also lets me play any local videos. Boxee does allmost all of these things, and if the bugs get squashed, I'll probably buy it... assuming the new AppleTV is not completely awesome, of course.
Google does not give a shit what kind of half baked products they offer, they just throw anything into the mix as long as they can put an ad in it.
GTV will be another mess google offers.
And with all the data google steals from people, I rather stay in a walled garden with MS and Apple.
Where my WelfareTV homies at? glined by DonnaCSA? ;)
So, what's wrong with MS Media Center? It does a lot already, and it automatically transcode my shows to my phone while I'm on the go... plus lets me watch TV from my laptop or phone anywhere...
As a developer, it'll be my job to show you that TV can be more than a passive experience, Michael Gartenberg.
So, if my Iphone is my remote, and I'm watching something on Google TV... What do I do when my phone rings and i need to pause or turn the volume down?
I agree - lately, gadgets are being used not for their core purpose - like e-readers are meant for reading, now they are integrating social networks into them; and now TVs have the internet, they were only meant for watching programmes and films, not updating your status in Facebook. If this trend continues we will soon have devices not being used for their core purpose.
Do you really need to introduce your articles by describing yourself as "a man whose desire for a delicious cup of coffee and a quality New York bagel is dwarfed only by his passion for tech"? Ugh.
Most of the consumers are not smart enough to realize GTV is useful or not, until they can personally experience it. It's still too early to say it won't work. But I personally think it's useful for me.
One area where I believe Google could gain a foothold is taking advantage of network connectivity between home entertainment components (by NOT using IR). More and more components (i.e TVs, receivers, DVR's... etc) are being released with ways to connect to your home network... either through Wifi or ethernet. Many of these components have IP control protocols which would allow GoogleTV to interface with the components. This is especially attractive if added to new TV's where the TV itself (with a nice GoogleTV GUI HDMI overlay) could seamlessly control your TIVO, PS3, AV Receiver...etc).
For me personally... this would be a very elegant solution where I see
very little progress into the mainstream currently. The "internet tv" portion of GoogleTV doesn't interest me as much as the potential for Google to integrate separate components. With GoogleTV being the main home screen I'd use to control my entertainment system... I may then be more likely to use apps, searches... browse the internet... click on ads... etc. I see that functionality as being the best way for Google to make an impact... now whether or not they can accomplish this is another matter.
What planet devoid of technology tied to your flat screen is Michael Gartenberg living on...?...stats show that a larger than life quantity of people have a desktop or laptop computer connected to their telebision screens already and $GOOG's latest venture shows even greater integration will help more merging of these two mediums...
@safe travels
It happens that I was just trying to figure out what is my next step in finishing up the setup for my home media system. I already have the DLNA configured and working, the TV is connected to the rest of the world through my home network and ISP, I have all the cables I need already in the wall (HDMI included) satellite TV is set and guess what is missing?
Internet streaming and browsing directly on my TV, which I want to have. Even though there are quite a few software or hardware products out there that can do part of the job, I can''t see one that does it all. In order to get everything I want in one box, I will need a mini PC with a really nice video card.
Wouldn't it be nice to be able to get all the software already in the TV? A blue tooth connection for a mini keyboard/touch will work OK for my solution, which I guess is easy to implement in a TV. The media storage for the TV can be any shared PC disk, or a USB disk connected directly to the TV, or a NAS.
Note to Michael: the demand for a TV that is able to browse the Internet is there. People want it and there will be more of them. As I know Google, they are pretty innovative and they can come up with a neat idea of a product.
Cheers
To The Author Of this article: Do you want to bet that this is gonna be the future? The consumers really want this to happen...But like a regular internet.. No more application
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSN_TV - Microsoft's duplication: Epic Failure in 7 years!