6 ms·

Google launches Google TV

188 points by kacy 16y ago

yanw 16y ago
GTV is running on Atom instead of ARM, the Android VM approach makes sense to me now.
rmanocha 16y ago
Is it just me, or does this seem a lot like what boxee does? Perhaps Google, with it's brand name will be finally able to push the web+tv concept into the mainstream.
- MikeCapone 16y ago
  I wonder if Apple will react by updating AppleTV and turning into what everybody was hoping it would be from the beginning..
  - kacy 16y ago
    I'm likely to be completely wrong, but I seriously think that Apple is prepping Apple TV for the iTunes cloud that we continue to hear about. It will be the premiere device for them if they want to enter that market. Imagine on demand streaming of all the shows you want for around $30/month. Ready to stream to your iPad, iPhone, iMac, and Apple TV.
    - justinph 16y ago
      I'd love to see it (sort of), but Apple has pretty a pretty piss-poor record of doing well anything in "the cloud". If anyone could get it right, it's google.
      - MikeCapone 16y ago
        That's what Apple tends to do, though.. They wait and wait until a market already exists, and then they redefine it. Maybe they're bidding their time for cloud services?
      - bbatsell 16y ago
        Spending over a billion dollars on a brand new datacenter says to me that they're interested in changing that record.
        rortian 16y ago
        Well then Microsoft must be kicking serious ass in the space too because they have spent a lot more. I am super skeptical of any company that spends a lot of money to break into an area that isn't in their 'core competency'. Apple has shown they only know how to offer online services for a high subscription rate. It'd be interesting to see if they can offer anything decent for free or a low price point.
        OrangeGuutan 16y ago
        You must be with the U.S. Department of Education...
    - bshep 16y ago
      One can only dream... I would drop my cable subscription in a hearbeat
    - obelix 16y ago
      Heh, will it play Hulu running on that ugly Flash? Will it do Youtube streaming? I bought the AppleTv on day 1 and use it a lot, but I will never pay Apple to see content that is free on the internet. Why would I pay iTunes when I can see The Daily Show at thedailyshow.com? Lame. Until apple allows a fully functional browser on the AppleTv, they are dead.
    - mikeryan 16y ago
      "Imagine on demand streaming of all the shows you want for around $30/month" Never going to happen. They'll do ala-carte pricing for on-demand content but no major network would go for a fee this low. I shouldn't really say never, it could happen but it would be very near or even above what you pay for cable now. Realize that a large portion of your cable bill already goes to the networks - and the networks get a large chunk of chedder in ads. There's no way $30 a month for "all shows" could come anywhere near making up for the money a network makes with cable. For Apple to offer this service it would cost you more then you already pay for cable. Realize too that the large cable systems are actually looking at providing this service with an initiative called TV Everywhere.
      - colonelxc 16y ago
        Between Netflix and Hulu, I get a lot (not all) of shows (and movies) streamed to me for ~$11 month (my netflix) + ads (hulu). For $30 dollars a month, I would expect access to a much higher percentage of old shows, plus streaming of the new ones. Now, of course that doesn't mean the networks like it, or will agree to a contract like that. They should though, because they'll never get more than that out of me per month, and I see cable becoming increasingly irrelevant as streaming becomes more popular.
        timr 16y ago
        "Between Netflix and Hulu, I get a lot (not all) of shows (and movies) streamed to me for ~$11 month (my netflix) + ads (hulu)." You left off "...for now." Hulu is on record that they'll be moving to a PPV model for certain shows. The days of completely ad-supported Hulu are numbered.
        mikeryan 16y ago
        If you're not a power watcher you can make this work at that price point. But as pointed out elsewhere Hulu is a trial service and still working out their model. It has quite a few shows but its totality is actually quite small. They're controlled by the networks and if you follow their TOS you should only be able to watch their shows on a pc NOT on a TV. Netflix's service is awesome but again quite limited. Sports is completely ignored in your model. ESPN makes $2-3 per cable subscriber whether you watch them or not. This equals about 1 billion (no joke) a year in revenues for them. So just to get ESPN it would cost about ~%10 of your viewing budget. Now its not just ESPN every network thats older than 5 years old gets a cut of your cable bill. Let alone the fact that you can't stream most local sports over the internet at this point. I see both sides of the argument and I thought as you do that cable is becoming more irrelevant. Heck on Monday the UFC's Roku channel launched - which allows users to bypass cable for PPV events. My company built that. But the truth is that the TV Networks are pretty inextricably tied at this point to the cable operators. Internet delivery of on-demand content at a reasonable rate doesn't yet make sense.
  - px 16y ago
    I think Apple has been quietly waiting for this market to mature. In this case, Google's success would potentially be very profitable for Apple, too.
    - goatforce5 16y ago
      I'm of the understanding that they've recently been ramping up the Apple TV team.
- fefzero 16y ago
  I think they left a few things out, like playing back local media. This appears to be built on android, though, so maybe that means that functionality like this can be enabled later. I wonder if it will support hardware decoding for H.264 and WebM.
  - obelix 16y ago
    Rishi mentioned hardware decoding using GPU. Local media was not mentioned, but I don't see something like the Logitech box NOT doing local media. If not, I expect someone to write an Android app for it instantly. Imagine the possibility of an open API.
- obelix 16y ago
  The difference being boxee never got it shipped with a box (yeah I know about the boxee box which hasn't shipped yet). Google with its muscle can get it done. Built into Sony Tv, logitech box, built into dish network - done. BTW, boxee can't mix and match TV programs and web - this can. You can't do a google search when watching TV through boxee. This takes the integration to the next level, IMHO.
gnubardt 16y ago
The analytics they gather will be invaluable. Like nielsen ratings for web video (correlated by household instead of user or computer).
- snprbob86 16y ago
  They already get a lot of this data. Set-top box analytics are far more accurate than Nielsen: http://www.google.com/adwords/tvads/ http://www.google.com/adwords/tvads/
  - nopal 16y ago
    No, they aren't. If you're saying there are more of them and that Nielsen relies on a sample, then that's probably right. (Although, statistically, I'm not sure that matters). And Google doesn't use analytics from set-top boxes, they use data from Nielsen: "The demographic data imported for Google TV Ads comes from The Nielsen Company, the longtime television audience measurement experts. AdWords data is drawn from their National Homevideo Index (NHI) daily national cable report. We draw the demographics from the viewing source data, using the quarter-hour report periods." http://adwords.google.com/support/aw/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=94134 http://adwords.google.com/support/aw/bin/answer.py?hl=en&#38...
- nopal 16y ago
  Nielsen's value lies in their ability to know exactly who is watching TV (or using the computer, now that they can monitor internet usage). Members of a household log in to a Nielsen box when they watch TV, and Nielsen knows precise demographic information about each member of the households they monitor. Google's not going to be able to tell you a Hispanic, thirteen-year-old male watched Ninja Turtles (online) from 8-8:15.
  - jsz0 16y ago
    I bet they could. Just look at what Google account the Android phone acting as a remote is logged into. It'd probably be easy enough to build some demographic information just analyzing the users e-mail and searches.
MikeCapone 16y ago
It sounds good, but what are the chances that this will come to Canada? We still don't get Hulu or Google Voice...
- kacy 16y ago
  It's open source. :-) Hopefully you'll be able to get plenty of devices that use it. Logitech is creating a companion device. They said it should be available worldwide.
- hello_moto 16y ago
  Yes sir. This is a HUGE problem. Any American TV Network websites aren't available to Canada. Silly really.
rokhayakebe 16y ago
Maybe there is something i am missing here, but how is this better than hooking your laptop to your TV and bookmarking on your favorite shows on your browser?
alain94040 16y ago
Not impressed yet. I watched the video and I can't tell if Google TV will know about the channels I already receive. If you look at their pitch (around 0:30), they say it's too hard to find what I want to watch because I receive hundreds of channels. I don't know about you, but I have a DVR, and it's quite easy to find and record any show and watch them anytime. So if Google TV doesn't give me access to the live shows I already receive, it doesn't really solve a problem. I also have an AppleTV, so I understand the value of being able to watch video podcasts and YouTube on my large screen TV.
- stanleydrew 16y ago
  If you have the dish network google TV can interface with the scheduler and your dvr. Hopefully more providers will come along as this develops.
staunch 16y ago
They could do what iPhone did to phones to the desktop/television. A simple platform that does what 90% of people need (watch Hulu/Netflix, browse eBay, send email, etc). The Chrome Web Store can provide the App Store component. I think the really critical part is getting the price so low that they get massive distribution. At least until TVs have it built in. No one thinks "I need to buy an internet computer for my TV", so they have to make it cheap enough that people will say "why not?" They should make good money off ad revenue, so hopefully they can give the devices away, or get them down to $19 or $29.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- loire280 16y ago
  I'm still a little skeptical about the wisdom of putting computer hardware inside of your tv. CPU/GPU/Decoding obsolescence is much faster than panel obsolescence (assuming that new panel technologies plateau until the next resolution bump). Just wait until your $1200 TV loses Hulu support because your manufacturer On the other hand, what a great way for panel makers to differentiate themselves. I also expect that these features will be only integrated into the higher-end models (240hz + LED), giving manufacturers a way to recover from the recent price wars that have brought LCD prices down so rapidly.
- chrischen 16y ago
  Lots of new tvs are Internet enabled already with YouTube support and other stuff. And if your tv isn't, then there are bluesy players that do it, not to mention ps3s and xboxes. However the one thing usually missing is July, so if google can bring that then it's awesome
  - apu 16y ago
    July?
    - natrius 16y ago
      Probably Hulu.
csallen 16y ago
I've never understood why solutions such as these are better than simply plugging your computer into your TV. Any answers? Am I missing something?
- Tiktaalik 16y ago
  Computers are huge. Also the interface in general is bad for TVs. Media centre front ends such as XBMC can solve this issue, but that's not a consumer friendly "out of the box" solution.
- fortybillion 16y ago
  Cost. Ease of use. Remotes. Integration with existing AV equipment. All available in a PC connected to your TV, but requiring of effort and understanding.
  - PostOnce 16y ago
    Rather, marketing. No-one profits from you plugging your PC into your TV, so no-one is going to spend marketing money to tell you you can do it. It's not hard. 1] Plug s-video cable into TV. 2] Right-click ATI tray icon / secondary display / enable. Done.
    - GloryFish 16y ago
      You couldn't pay me to run an s-video signal into my TV.
      - PostOnce 16y ago
        I have an SDTV. I assume you could do the same with a DVI cable and an HDTV. Just replace the name of the cable, the steps remain the same.
    - akeefer 16y ago
      Don't forget about audio. Even where the appropriate video output is available, many PC's lack any audio output other than a minijack.
Tiktaalik 16y ago
It'll be interesting to see if this goes anywhere. Microsoft (Xbox), Sony (PS3) and Apple (Apple TV) all have boxes that in some way attempt to bring in TV/movie/photo content to your TV. Those three haven't impressed me too much with their efforts. Of course I'm in Canada, so many great features are inaccessible to me. Apple TV in particular has been particularly weak. It should have been something like this from the get go. Maybe they'll finally announce some interesting stuff for it now that the iPad is out the door.
Keyframe 16y ago
looks like xbmc+apple tv combo (minus itunes)
PostOnce 16y ago
I am all the sudden reminded of Windows Media Center. Microsoft sure seems to have a lot of trouble getting traction in some markets.
- kenjackson 16y ago
  Media Center took the approach of replacing the DVR, while Google is supplementing it. While I love the Media Center DVR, its web browsing sucks (there's no TV-focused browser). If Media Center fixed that problem, and fixed the issue with extenders being able to play all content (including Flash) then it would be a compelling device. Now it's hard for me to justify not using my Comcast DVR. Sure not as good, but I get tons of OnDemand content, and its a small quiet device with no upfront cost.
- hello_moto 16y ago
  I'm not quite familiar with WMC story/ecosystem even though I am using it with W7 these days. One thing I noticed is that the missing good/solid hardware from big companies (i.e. Sony). Right now I'm using W7 with my computer and its screen, not a separate device that I can hook-up to my TV. AppleTV sort of did that half-ass (pardon me). AFAIK AppleTV cannot work with my Cable provider: it only streams content from the internet.
- swilliams 16y ago
  Microsoft just keeps missing the mark with Media Center (MCE). It's been around since 2002-2003, but has never gained any significant traction. It's actually a pretty nice product. The UI works well and is pretty simple to use; if someone can use a Tivo, they can figure out MCE's interface. The problem has always been the hardware and the marketing. When it first came out, you needed a dedicated PC to run it (unless you wanted to watch it on your monitor, thereby missing the point of the whole application), which was expensive (if you wanted it quiet) and painful for the lay-person to set up, especially considering Wifi wasn't quite up to the task (802.11b was what was primarily out there). To get around this, MS had a good idea with the Extenders, but again, the execution was horribly flawed. You still likely needed a spare PC and a fast network connection to stream data to the Extender. Additionally, the companies that made extenders tended to be Linksys and D-Link... not exactly companies busrting with consumer friendly/simple UIs. Plus they were another $200-300 addition. Plus, Extenders were never marketed well either because the manufacturers didn't have the money, or they just didn't care. Fortunately, MS did also build Extender functionality into the Xbox. But again, it is still some separate, hard to find mode on the Xbox. You have to pair it to a PC like you would a bluetooth device, and can be confusing for a non-techie. And once you have that done, now your Xbox has two different ways of playing music/video: One with the MCE mode and UI, and one with the native Xbox dashboard UI. Plus the Extender has to "connect" to your PC every time you want to use it. Perhaps the most damning experience I've had with it came when I showed it to a friend of mine. He's about as enthusiastic about technology as you can get, but didn't know about MCE. Back in 2007ish, after looking at it for 5 minutes he said: "This looks awesome, why haven't I ever seen this before? Good job Microsoft." Hindsight is 20/20, but they really should have made it 100% native on the Xbox, or released a similar device that didn't require a PC sync.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
neovive 16y ago
This looks many times more powerful and easier to use than my current cable box (of which most cable companies give you no choice). Searching for shows on my cable box is slow and time-consuming, so GoogleTV looks very promising if it can interact nicely with existing set-top boxes. This is also a great way for Google to enter the home entertainment space and begin leveraging this platform to expand the reach of their advertising and analytics platforms.
physcab 16y ago
It's unfortunate that the demo they performed went so badly. If I'm going to view internet on my TV, it has to be easier than plugging in my laptop. After watching them fiddle around with their devices so awkwardly, I doubt it will be any easier. Part of me was wishing that I could watch Steve Jobs debut a new web-enabled Television that just freaking works.
- AGorilla 16y ago
  Can you provide a link to the demo?
- invisible 16y ago
  Yeah, but in all reality they had 4,000 people trying to use bluetooth (which only has 79 channels). Perhaps it was dumb of them to not use a WIRED keyboard. I didn't see many problems besides the keyboard issue.
- WiseWeasel 16y ago
  Seems like it would be pretty straightforward. Just update the AppleTV OS with an App Store and BlueTooth+expanded IR capabilities, and let the 3rd party developers bring the internet stuff and advanced input options to it. It seems that Google TV doesn't leverage my local media, so my iTunes/media library is still isolated from my living room, unless I'm missing something and it turns out to be an Android OS variant (supports native 3rd party app development) and developers can implement that sort of functionality with it.
  - freakwit 16y ago
    according to matt cutts' live "buzz". It is an android OS variant! "Software: Built on Android 2.1 + Google Chrome + a Flash 10.1 plugin. Aha: Android apps will work on Google TV. The mobile market will work on Google TV. Demo of Google TV running Pandora with no changes by Pandora. Brittany Bohnet from the Google TV team is up. From a web browser, you can select an app, and the app gets sent straight to the Google TV. Two application frameworks: web apps, and Android apps. A Google TV-specific SDK will come out down the road. Ambarish Kenghe is up to talk about Google TV. You can optimize for the size of the screen. From a web site, I think he said you'll be able to switch channels and record shows." [ http://www.google.com/buzz/109412257237874861202/RXsQ4oG885h/Heres-my-live-buzz-of-the-keynote-for-day-2-of http://www.google.com/buzz/109412257237874861202/RXsQ4oG885h... ]
drenei 16y ago
I see a simpler and arguably better search-find-consume cycle that includes more sources like the TV channels you subscribe to, PPV, etc. I'm not sure if thats enough though. I guess that would depend on the price point + execution. Right now I already get what seems like the same results it promises — all of my video is sourced online and I just feed the video from my computer to my TV setup. But I don't find cable valuable. Maybe this is more valuable for people who do?
jaytee_clone 16y ago
I already have a google tv. It's call projector + laptop. But of course, I'm not the market segment they are going after.
davidedicillo 16y ago
I start feeling Google is spreading itself a little too thin... and we all know what happen when other giants made that mistake.
- mikeryan 16y ago
  I get what you're saying but in this case I'm not sure I agree. I think Google's looking to extend Android to any embedded device that will run it. I think this is much more an extension of android then a whole new product direction.
Concours 16y ago
Genius move, love it. It should make watching TV really fun.
obelix 16y ago
RIP AppleTv. Apple had 3 years to do this and they missed it. Android apps on the TV. The first person who gets the games to work with Logitech Controller or any generic controller will win - big. This thing can dent iPhoneOS big time.
- theBobMcCormick 16y ago
  Android apps on the TV has the potential to be huge particularly if the build these Google TV systems with a decent video chipset (like that Tegra chipset Nvidia's been demo'ing on a prototype Android tablet). Particularly with Logitech, long time maker of TV remotes and game controllers, on board, this could challenge Wii for home gaming, possibly even challenge the Xbox 360 and PS3.
  - obelix 16y ago
    Exactly. If that happens and casual games make it to the TV through this, fun times ahead. Even otherwise, whoever can handle web flash games correctly with the controller (expect Logitech to nail this again) will win.
  - czhiddy 16y ago
    While I can see something like this doing very well against the Wii in the casual gaming market, the hardware is too slow to compete with the 360/PS3 graphically for hardcore gamers. That said, this isn't necessarily a bad thing. Hasn't the Wii been wildly more profitable than its competitors?
    - theBobMcCormick 16y ago
      We don't know what the hardware for GoogleTV will be yet do we? But you're probably right. The odds that it'd include Xbox360 level hardware are realllly slim. :-(
- jsz0 16y ago
  I'm not counting Apple out yet. We don't know what's happening behind the scenes with Apple TV. It wouldn't surprise me if they had something waiting in the wings. Apple has a pretty good track record of keeping a big project secret, announcing it and shipping it before their competitors have established any fortified position. If you were to combine together all these devices -- Apple TV, Roku, Popcorn Hour, etc there's a pretty big market there. No one has quite figured it out yet. An Apple TV Rev 2 running iPhone OS with an SDK running on cheap ARM hardware sold at a low margin could be hugely successful very quickly.
riobard 16y ago
For anyone interested in an earlier failed attempt of Microsoft (China) into the living room http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Venus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Venus
mikeryan 16y ago
So some background on this space. This is hardly the first entrant and pretty much every tv and blu-ray you buy moving forward will have similar capabilities to what Google has announced. Though perhaps with a different provider. Yahoo actually has the most TV's out right now with similar interactivity using their widget platform. They're on Sony, Samsung, Vizio and LG tvs http://connectedtv.yahoo.com/ http://connectedtv.yahoo.com/ Samsung has their own platform running on their TVs and blu-ray players. Its an HTML engine and also supports a "Flash Lite" or Stagecraft. (and their tvs still run yahoo widgets as well) http://www.samsung.com/us/internetTV/ http://www.samsung.com/us/internetTV/ Vudu (recently bought by Wal-Mart) has an app platform being supported by many manufacturers as well its Lua based and on Toshiba, LG and Sanyo products. (this is outside of their on-demand video service) Panasonic has "Viera Cast" which is actually a cloud based service I haven't really figured out yet So besides these there's quite a few "Over The Top" boxes that provide similar functions such as Roku Popcorn Hour (about to launch their new Popbox in a bit) Apple TV Boxee Anyway its fun to see Google hopping into the space we'll see how well they do.
- obelix 16y ago
  You are right. Apple TV should have been this product, if it was open and allowed you to browse any website and ran flash, it didn't. Boxee would be this product if it had shipped a box that worked with the TV. (Yeah, I know about the boxee box). The difference is Google has the muscle to close the loop on this one. The others are all closed at various levels or lack developer traction. Boxee is the closest in terms of being open, I was hoping to replace my apple tv (had it from day 1 and use it for my videos and photos)
  - stcredzero 16y ago
    You can hack the Apple TV and put Boxee on it. The fact that so many people did that should've clued Apple in. What Google has, that only Yahoo and Microsoft can match, is federated search for video content. Apple should buy a search engine and apply it to search video content. Google also has the brand clout to take on Microsoft and Apple. Yahoo has less brand power, but it has enough to leverage itself into this market.
Zot95 16y ago
This doesn't seem to offer much more than TiVo. Based on Google's 2 minute pitch, much of what they promised is already available on the Gen 3 TiVo: record programs, Netflix, YouTube, video on demand, photos. The only things I saw that were new were a "global" search capability and bookmarks. Is that enough of a difference maker? Probably not. Maybe if there was some other benefit thrown in (aka no recurring service fees).
lishevita 16y ago
I just looked at this and thought "Boxee. Yeah, I have that already." OK, so they've jumped into a market that's already got a few players and since they are so big they'll bring it to the masses. That's not all that exciting from where I sit.
brown9-2 16y ago
It's not at all clear from the video, but what are you typing on when you watch to search for whatever it is you're asking the Google TV device to search for? A keyboard plugged into the set-top box?
- obelix 16y ago
  oh, for the demo they showed a keyboard and an android phone as well. The input device / controller is going to vary based on provider. I can imagine there will be many remotes with built in keyboards something like this: http://www.productwiki.com/upload/images/d_link_boxee_box_remote_1.jpg http://www.productwiki.com/upload/images/d_link_boxee_box_re...
- smackfu 16y ago
  Bluetooth keyboard that talks directly to the TV/set top box, which is why they had trouble with interference issues.
nickpp 16y ago
And the world yawns...
spudlyo 16y ago
I don't have TV, I have a 30" monitor. My sweetie and I roll the chair away from my desk and sit on the couch a few feet behind. HD content looks great, and I have a variety of sources to choose from, you tube, hulu, USENET, etc.
jk8 16y ago
I am totally confused. Is Google going to sell a box like apple TV and Boxee box?
- wmf 16y ago
  Not quite; Google makes the software but the boxes will be sold by Sony, Logitech, etc.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
elblanco 16y ago
Cheapo laptop ($500), connected to my TV and surround sound, wireless keyboard + remote control to switch back to my FiOS TV is close enough for all of this for me.
kevinelliott 16y ago
The video was mostly fumes. It's hard to really see the true vision of the product with that they released. But, at least this announcement may actually get Apple to rethink their Apple TV strategy.

188 points by kacy 16y ago

yanw 16y ago

GTV is running on Atom instead of ARM, the Android VM approach makes sense to me now.

Is it just me, or does this seem a lot like what boxee does? Perhaps Google, with it's brand name will be finally able to push the web+tv concept into the mainstream.

MikeCapone 16y ago
I wonder if Apple will react by updating AppleTV and turning into what everybody was hoping it would be from the beginning..
- kacy 16y ago
  I'm likely to be completely wrong, but I seriously think that Apple is prepping Apple TV for the iTunes cloud that we continue to hear about. It will be the premiere device for them if they want to enter that market. Imagine on demand streaming of all the shows you want for around $30/month. Ready to stream to your iPad, iPhone, iMac, and Apple TV.
  - justinph 16y ago
    I'd love to see it (sort of), but Apple has pretty a pretty piss-poor record of doing well anything in "the cloud". If anyone could get it right, it's google.
    - MikeCapone 16y ago
      That's what Apple tends to do, though.. They wait and wait until a market already exists, and then they redefine it. Maybe they're bidding their time for cloud services?
    - bbatsell 16y ago
      Spending over a billion dollars on a brand new datacenter says to me that they're interested in changing that record.
      - rortian 16y ago
        Well then Microsoft must be kicking serious ass in the space too because they have spent a lot more. I am super skeptical of any company that spends a lot of money to break into an area that isn't in their 'core competency'. Apple has shown they only know how to offer online services for a high subscription rate. It'd be interesting to see if they can offer anything decent for free or a low price point.
      - OrangeGuutan 16y ago
        You must be with the U.S. Department of Education...
  - bshep 16y ago
    One can only dream... I would drop my cable subscription in a hearbeat
  - obelix 16y ago
    Heh, will it play Hulu running on that ugly Flash? Will it do Youtube streaming? I bought the AppleTv on day 1 and use it a lot, but I will never pay Apple to see content that is free on the internet. Why would I pay iTunes when I can see The Daily Show at thedailyshow.com? Lame. Until apple allows a fully functional browser on the AppleTv, they are dead.
  - mikeryan 16y ago
    "Imagine on demand streaming of all the shows you want for around $30/month" Never going to happen. They'll do ala-carte pricing for on-demand content but no major network would go for a fee this low. I shouldn't really say never, it could happen but it would be very near or even above what you pay for cable now. Realize that a large portion of your cable bill already goes to the networks - and the networks get a large chunk of chedder in ads. There's no way $30 a month for "all shows" could come anywhere near making up for the money a network makes with cable. For Apple to offer this service it would cost you more then you already pay for cable. Realize too that the large cable systems are actually looking at providing this service with an initiative called TV Everywhere.
    - colonelxc 16y ago
      Between Netflix and Hulu, I get a lot (not all) of shows (and movies) streamed to me for ~$11 month (my netflix) + ads (hulu). For $30 dollars a month, I would expect access to a much higher percentage of old shows, plus streaming of the new ones. Now, of course that doesn't mean the networks like it, or will agree to a contract like that. They should though, because they'll never get more than that out of me per month, and I see cable becoming increasingly irrelevant as streaming becomes more popular.
      - timr 16y ago
        "Between Netflix and Hulu, I get a lot (not all) of shows (and movies) streamed to me for ~$11 month (my netflix) + ads (hulu)." You left off "...for now." Hulu is on record that they'll be moving to a PPV model for certain shows. The days of completely ad-supported Hulu are numbered.
      - mikeryan 16y ago
        If you're not a power watcher you can make this work at that price point. But as pointed out elsewhere Hulu is a trial service and still working out their model. It has quite a few shows but its totality is actually quite small. They're controlled by the networks and if you follow their TOS you should only be able to watch their shows on a pc NOT on a TV. Netflix's service is awesome but again quite limited. Sports is completely ignored in your model. ESPN makes $2-3 per cable subscriber whether you watch them or not. This equals about 1 billion (no joke) a year in revenues for them. So just to get ESPN it would cost about ~%10 of your viewing budget. Now its not just ESPN every network thats older than 5 years old gets a cut of your cable bill. Let alone the fact that you can't stream most local sports over the internet at this point. I see both sides of the argument and I thought as you do that cable is becoming more irrelevant. Heck on Monday the UFC's Roku channel launched - which allows users to bypass cable for PPV events. My company built that. But the truth is that the TV Networks are pretty inextricably tied at this point to the cable operators. Internet delivery of on-demand content at a reasonable rate doesn't yet make sense.
- px 16y ago
  I think Apple has been quietly waiting for this market to mature. In this case, Google's success would potentially be very profitable for Apple, too.
  - goatforce5 16y ago
    I'm of the understanding that they've recently been ramping up the Apple TV team.
fefzero 16y ago
I think they left a few things out, like playing back local media. This appears to be built on android, though, so maybe that means that functionality like this can be enabled later. I wonder if it will support hardware decoding for H.264 and WebM.
- obelix 16y ago
  Rishi mentioned hardware decoding using GPU. Local media was not mentioned, but I don't see something like the Logitech box NOT doing local media. If not, I expect someone to write an Android app for it instantly. Imagine the possibility of an open API.
obelix 16y ago
The difference being boxee never got it shipped with a box (yeah I know about the boxee box which hasn't shipped yet). Google with its muscle can get it done. Built into Sony Tv, logitech box, built into dish network - done. BTW, boxee can't mix and match TV programs and web - this can. You can't do a google search when watching TV through boxee. This takes the integration to the next level, IMHO.

gnubardt 16y ago

The analytics they gather will be invaluable. Like nielsen ratings for web video (correlated by household instead of user or computer).

snprbob86 16y ago
They already get a lot of this data. Set-top box analytics are far more accurate than Nielsen: http://www.google.com/adwords/tvads/ http://www.google.com/adwords/tvads/
- nopal 16y ago
  No, they aren't. If you're saying there are more of them and that Nielsen relies on a sample, then that's probably right. (Although, statistically, I'm not sure that matters). And Google doesn't use analytics from set-top boxes, they use data from Nielsen: "The demographic data imported for Google TV Ads comes from The Nielsen Company, the longtime television audience measurement experts. AdWords data is drawn from their National Homevideo Index (NHI) daily national cable report. We draw the demographics from the viewing source data, using the quarter-hour report periods." http://adwords.google.com/support/aw/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=94134 http://adwords.google.com/support/aw/bin/answer.py?hl=en&#38...
nopal 16y ago
Nielsen's value lies in their ability to know exactly who is watching TV (or using the computer, now that they can monitor internet usage). Members of a household log in to a Nielsen box when they watch TV, and Nielsen knows precise demographic information about each member of the households they monitor. Google's not going to be able to tell you a Hispanic, thirteen-year-old male watched Ninja Turtles (online) from 8-8:15.
- jsz0 16y ago
  I bet they could. Just look at what Google account the Android phone acting as a remote is logged into. It'd probably be easy enough to build some demographic information just analyzing the users e-mail and searches.

MikeCapone 16y ago

It sounds good, but what are the chances that this will come to Canada? We still don't get Hulu or Google Voice...

kacy 16y ago
It's open source. :-) Hopefully you'll be able to get plenty of devices that use it. Logitech is creating a companion device. They said it should be available worldwide.
hello_moto 16y ago
Yes sir. This is a HUGE problem. Any American TV Network websites aren't available to Canada. Silly really.

rokhayakebe 16y ago

Maybe there is something i am missing here, but how is this better than hooking your laptop to your TV and bookmarking on your favorite shows on your browser?

alain94040 16y ago

Not impressed yet. I watched the video and I can't tell if Google TV will know about the channels I already receive. If you look at their pitch (around 0:30), they say it's too hard to find what I want to watch because I receive hundreds of channels. I don't know about you, but I have a DVR, and it's quite easy to find and record any show and watch them anytime. So if Google TV doesn't give me access to the live shows I already receive, it doesn't really solve a problem. I also have an AppleTV, so I understand the value of being able to watch video podcasts and YouTube on my large screen TV.

stanleydrew 16y ago
If you have the dish network google TV can interface with the scheduler and your dvr. Hopefully more providers will come along as this develops.

staunch 16y ago

They could do what iPhone did to phones to the desktop/television. A simple platform that does what 90% of people need (watch Hulu/Netflix, browse eBay, send email, etc). The Chrome Web Store can provide the App Store component. I think the really critical part is getting the price so low that they get massive distribution. At least until TVs have it built in. No one thinks "I need to buy an internet computer for my TV", so they have to make it cheap enough that people will say "why not?" They should make good money off ad revenue, so hopefully they can give the devices away, or get them down to $19 or $29.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
loire280 16y ago
I'm still a little skeptical about the wisdom of putting computer hardware inside of your tv. CPU/GPU/Decoding obsolescence is much faster than panel obsolescence (assuming that new panel technologies plateau until the next resolution bump). Just wait until your $1200 TV loses Hulu support because your manufacturer On the other hand, what a great way for panel makers to differentiate themselves. I also expect that these features will be only integrated into the higher-end models (240hz + LED), giving manufacturers a way to recover from the recent price wars that have brought LCD prices down so rapidly.
chrischen 16y ago
Lots of new tvs are Internet enabled already with YouTube support and other stuff. And if your tv isn't, then there are bluesy players that do it, not to mention ps3s and xboxes. However the one thing usually missing is July, so if google can bring that then it's awesome
- apu 16y ago
  July?
  - natrius 16y ago
    Probably Hulu.

csallen 16y ago

I've never understood why solutions such as these are better than simply plugging your computer into your TV. Any answers? Am I missing something?

Tiktaalik 16y ago
Computers are huge. Also the interface in general is bad for TVs. Media centre front ends such as XBMC can solve this issue, but that's not a consumer friendly "out of the box" solution.
fortybillion 16y ago
Cost. Ease of use. Remotes. Integration with existing AV equipment. All available in a PC connected to your TV, but requiring of effort and understanding.
- PostOnce 16y ago
  Rather, marketing. No-one profits from you plugging your PC into your TV, so no-one is going to spend marketing money to tell you you can do it. It's not hard. 1] Plug s-video cable into TV. 2] Right-click ATI tray icon / secondary display / enable. Done.
  - GloryFish 16y ago
    You couldn't pay me to run an s-video signal into my TV.
    - PostOnce 16y ago
      I have an SDTV. I assume you could do the same with a DVI cable and an HDTV. Just replace the name of the cable, the steps remain the same.
  - akeefer 16y ago
    Don't forget about audio. Even where the appropriate video output is available, many PC's lack any audio output other than a minijack.

Tiktaalik 16y ago

It'll be interesting to see if this goes anywhere. Microsoft (Xbox), Sony (PS3) and Apple (Apple TV) all have boxes that in some way attempt to bring in TV/movie/photo content to your TV. Those three haven't impressed me too much with their efforts. Of course I'm in Canada, so many great features are inaccessible to me. Apple TV in particular has been particularly weak. It should have been something like this from the get go. Maybe they'll finally announce some interesting stuff for it now that the iPad is out the door.

Keyframe 16y ago

looks like xbmc+apple tv combo (minus itunes)

PostOnce 16y ago

I am all the sudden reminded of Windows Media Center. Microsoft sure seems to have a lot of trouble getting traction in some markets.

kenjackson 16y ago
Media Center took the approach of replacing the DVR, while Google is supplementing it. While I love the Media Center DVR, its web browsing sucks (there's no TV-focused browser). If Media Center fixed that problem, and fixed the issue with extenders being able to play all content (including Flash) then it would be a compelling device. Now it's hard for me to justify not using my Comcast DVR. Sure not as good, but I get tons of OnDemand content, and its a small quiet device with no upfront cost.
hello_moto 16y ago
I'm not quite familiar with WMC story/ecosystem even though I am using it with W7 these days. One thing I noticed is that the missing good/solid hardware from big companies (i.e. Sony). Right now I'm using W7 with my computer and its screen, not a separate device that I can hook-up to my TV. AppleTV sort of did that half-ass (pardon me). AFAIK AppleTV cannot work with my Cable provider: it only streams content from the internet.
swilliams 16y ago
Microsoft just keeps missing the mark with Media Center (MCE). It's been around since 2002-2003, but has never gained any significant traction. It's actually a pretty nice product. The UI works well and is pretty simple to use; if someone can use a Tivo, they can figure out MCE's interface. The problem has always been the hardware and the marketing. When it first came out, you needed a dedicated PC to run it (unless you wanted to watch it on your monitor, thereby missing the point of the whole application), which was expensive (if you wanted it quiet) and painful for the lay-person to set up, especially considering Wifi wasn't quite up to the task (802.11b was what was primarily out there). To get around this, MS had a good idea with the Extenders, but again, the execution was horribly flawed. You still likely needed a spare PC and a fast network connection to stream data to the Extender. Additionally, the companies that made extenders tended to be Linksys and D-Link... not exactly companies busrting with consumer friendly/simple UIs. Plus they were another $200-300 addition. Plus, Extenders were never marketed well either because the manufacturers didn't have the money, or they just didn't care. Fortunately, MS did also build Extender functionality into the Xbox. But again, it is still some separate, hard to find mode on the Xbox. You have to pair it to a PC like you would a bluetooth device, and can be confusing for a non-techie. And once you have that done, now your Xbox has two different ways of playing music/video: One with the MCE mode and UI, and one with the native Xbox dashboard UI. Plus the Extender has to "connect" to your PC every time you want to use it. Perhaps the most damning experience I've had with it came when I showed it to a friend of mine. He's about as enthusiastic about technology as you can get, but didn't know about MCE. Back in 2007ish, after looking at it for 5 minutes he said: "This looks awesome, why haven't I ever seen this before? Good job Microsoft." Hindsight is 20/20, but they really should have made it 100% native on the Xbox, or released a similar device that didn't require a PC sync.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

neovive 16y ago

This looks many times more powerful and easier to use than my current cable box (of which most cable companies give you no choice). Searching for shows on my cable box is slow and time-consuming, so GoogleTV looks very promising if it can interact nicely with existing set-top boxes. This is also a great way for Google to enter the home entertainment space and begin leveraging this platform to expand the reach of their advertising and analytics platforms.

physcab 16y ago

It's unfortunate that the demo they performed went so badly. If I'm going to view internet on my TV, it has to be easier than plugging in my laptop. After watching them fiddle around with their devices so awkwardly, I doubt it will be any easier. Part of me was wishing that I could watch Steve Jobs debut a new web-enabled Television that just freaking works.

AGorilla 16y ago
Can you provide a link to the demo?
invisible 16y ago
Yeah, but in all reality they had 4,000 people trying to use bluetooth (which only has 79 channels). Perhaps it was dumb of them to not use a WIRED keyboard. I didn't see many problems besides the keyboard issue.
WiseWeasel 16y ago
Seems like it would be pretty straightforward. Just update the AppleTV OS with an App Store and BlueTooth+expanded IR capabilities, and let the 3rd party developers bring the internet stuff and advanced input options to it. It seems that Google TV doesn't leverage my local media, so my iTunes/media library is still isolated from my living room, unless I'm missing something and it turns out to be an Android OS variant (supports native 3rd party app development) and developers can implement that sort of functionality with it.
- freakwit 16y ago
  according to matt cutts' live "buzz". It is an android OS variant! "Software: Built on Android 2.1 + Google Chrome + a Flash 10.1 plugin. Aha: Android apps will work on Google TV. The mobile market will work on Google TV. Demo of Google TV running Pandora with no changes by Pandora. Brittany Bohnet from the Google TV team is up. From a web browser, you can select an app, and the app gets sent straight to the Google TV. Two application frameworks: web apps, and Android apps. A Google TV-specific SDK will come out down the road. Ambarish Kenghe is up to talk about Google TV. You can optimize for the size of the screen. From a web site, I think he said you'll be able to switch channels and record shows." [ http://www.google.com/buzz/109412257237874861202/RXsQ4oG885h/Heres-my-live-buzz-of-the-keynote-for-day-2-of http://www.google.com/buzz/109412257237874861202/RXsQ4oG885h... ]

drenei 16y ago

I see a simpler and arguably better search-find-consume cycle that includes more sources like the TV channels you subscribe to, PPV, etc. I'm not sure if thats enough though. I guess that would depend on the price point + execution. Right now I already get what seems like the same results it promises — all of my video is sourced online and I just feed the video from my computer to my TV setup. But I don't find cable valuable. Maybe this is more valuable for people who do?

jaytee_clone 16y ago

I already have a google tv. It's call projector + laptop. But of course, I'm not the market segment they are going after.

davidedicillo 16y ago

I start feeling Google is spreading itself a little too thin... and we all know what happen when other giants made that mistake.

mikeryan 16y ago
I get what you're saying but in this case I'm not sure I agree. I think Google's looking to extend Android to any embedded device that will run it. I think this is much more an extension of android then a whole new product direction.

Concours 16y ago

Genius move, love it. It should make watching TV really fun.

obelix 16y ago

RIP AppleTv. Apple had 3 years to do this and they missed it. Android apps on the TV. The first person who gets the games to work with Logitech Controller or any generic controller will win - big. This thing can dent iPhoneOS big time.

theBobMcCormick 16y ago
Android apps on the TV has the potential to be huge particularly if the build these Google TV systems with a decent video chipset (like that Tegra chipset Nvidia's been demo'ing on a prototype Android tablet). Particularly with Logitech, long time maker of TV remotes and game controllers, on board, this could challenge Wii for home gaming, possibly even challenge the Xbox 360 and PS3.
- obelix 16y ago
  Exactly. If that happens and casual games make it to the TV through this, fun times ahead. Even otherwise, whoever can handle web flash games correctly with the controller (expect Logitech to nail this again) will win.
- czhiddy 16y ago
  While I can see something like this doing very well against the Wii in the casual gaming market, the hardware is too slow to compete with the 360/PS3 graphically for hardcore gamers. That said, this isn't necessarily a bad thing. Hasn't the Wii been wildly more profitable than its competitors?
  - theBobMcCormick 16y ago
    We don't know what the hardware for GoogleTV will be yet do we? But you're probably right. The odds that it'd include Xbox360 level hardware are realllly slim. :-(
jsz0 16y ago
I'm not counting Apple out yet. We don't know what's happening behind the scenes with Apple TV. It wouldn't surprise me if they had something waiting in the wings. Apple has a pretty good track record of keeping a big project secret, announcing it and shipping it before their competitors have established any fortified position. If you were to combine together all these devices -- Apple TV, Roku, Popcorn Hour, etc there's a pretty big market there. No one has quite figured it out yet. An Apple TV Rev 2 running iPhone OS with an SDK running on cheap ARM hardware sold at a low margin could be hugely successful very quickly.

riobard 16y ago

For anyone interested in an earlier failed attempt of Microsoft (China) into the living room http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Venus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Venus

mikeryan 16y ago

So some background on this space. This is hardly the first entrant and pretty much every tv and blu-ray you buy moving forward will have similar capabilities to what Google has announced. Though perhaps with a different provider. Yahoo actually has the most TV's out right now with similar interactivity using their widget platform. They're on Sony, Samsung, Vizio and LG tvs http://connectedtv.yahoo.com/ http://connectedtv.yahoo.com/ Samsung has their own platform running on their TVs and blu-ray players. Its an HTML engine and also supports a "Flash Lite" or Stagecraft. (and their tvs still run yahoo widgets as well) http://www.samsung.com/us/internetTV/ http://www.samsung.com/us/internetTV/ Vudu (recently bought by Wal-Mart) has an app platform being supported by many manufacturers as well its Lua based and on Toshiba, LG and Sanyo products. (this is outside of their on-demand video service) Panasonic has "Viera Cast" which is actually a cloud based service I haven't really figured out yet So besides these there's quite a few "Over The Top" boxes that provide similar functions such as Roku Popcorn Hour (about to launch their new Popbox in a bit) Apple TV Boxee Anyway its fun to see Google hopping into the space we'll see how well they do.

obelix 16y ago
You are right. Apple TV should have been this product, if it was open and allowed you to browse any website and ran flash, it didn't. Boxee would be this product if it had shipped a box that worked with the TV. (Yeah, I know about the boxee box). The difference is Google has the muscle to close the loop on this one. The others are all closed at various levels or lack developer traction. Boxee is the closest in terms of being open, I was hoping to replace my apple tv (had it from day 1 and use it for my videos and photos)
- stcredzero 16y ago
  You can hack the Apple TV and put Boxee on it. The fact that so many people did that should've clued Apple in. What Google has, that only Yahoo and Microsoft can match, is federated search for video content. Apple should buy a search engine and apply it to search video content. Google also has the brand clout to take on Microsoft and Apple. Yahoo has less brand power, but it has enough to leverage itself into this market.

Zot95 16y ago

This doesn't seem to offer much more than TiVo. Based on Google's 2 minute pitch, much of what they promised is already available on the Gen 3 TiVo: record programs, Netflix, YouTube, video on demand, photos. The only things I saw that were new were a "global" search capability and bookmarks. Is that enough of a difference maker? Probably not. Maybe if there was some other benefit thrown in (aka no recurring service fees).

lishevita 16y ago

I just looked at this and thought "Boxee. Yeah, I have that already." OK, so they've jumped into a market that's already got a few players and since they are so big they'll bring it to the masses. That's not all that exciting from where I sit.

brown9-2 16y ago

It's not at all clear from the video, but what are you typing on when you watch to search for whatever it is you're asking the Google TV device to search for? A keyboard plugged into the set-top box?

obelix 16y ago
oh, for the demo they showed a keyboard and an android phone as well. The input device / controller is going to vary based on provider. I can imagine there will be many remotes with built in keyboards something like this: http://www.productwiki.com/upload/images/d_link_boxee_box_remote_1.jpg http://www.productwiki.com/upload/images/d_link_boxee_box_re...
smackfu 16y ago
Bluetooth keyboard that talks directly to the TV/set top box, which is why they had trouble with interference issues.

nickpp 16y ago

And the world yawns...

spudlyo 16y ago

I don't have TV, I have a 30" monitor. My sweetie and I roll the chair away from my desk and sit on the couch a few feet behind. HD content looks great, and I have a variety of sources to choose from, you tube, hulu, USENET, etc.

jk8 16y ago

I am totally confused. Is Google going to sell a box like apple TV and Boxee box?

wmf 16y ago
Not quite; Google makes the software but the boxes will be sold by Sony, Logitech, etc.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

elblanco 16y ago

Cheapo laptop ($500), connected to my TV and surround sound, wireless keyboard + remote control to switch back to my FiOS TV is close enough for all of this for me.

kevinelliott 16y ago

The video was mostly fumes. It's hard to really see the true vision of the product with that they released. But, at least this announcement may actually get Apple to rethink their Apple TV strategy.