6 ms·

Google TV 2.0 – a look into the Android 3.1 “Fishtank”

18 points by ukdm 15y ago

nextparadigms 15y ago
Oh, not an Intel Atom CE again! Google better get their partners to release some cheaper (under $150) ARM based Google TV's this fall. That ridiculous $300 price was probably the main reason Google TV failed last year. I was also hoping for Tegra 3 in some of the TV's or set top boxes, and that Google would take advantage of this to try to turn Google TV at least a little bit into a gaming console platform. Developers are already starting to port their PC or PS3 games to Android phones or tablets, and Honeycomb 3.1 is getting gamepad support. I think it would be a good idea to have some nice console like games in the Android Market for Google TV. But it needs Tegra 3 to really push this console idea, because the games would actually have console-like graphics. EDIT: Side note: I know that Google doesn't make the devices themselves, but they have a very close relationship with the launch manufacturers. So how is it that Google fails again, and again, to grasp what the right price would be for the product launch? It's happened 3 times already. 1) Google TV set top box was $300, instead of $150, or even $100. 2) Xoom started at $800, instead of having a wi-fi only version at $500 at most ($400-$450 would've been the sweet spot) 3) Chromebooks at $430, when it should've been $250-$300 at most. What happened to the "disposable machine" idea? I mean it's irrelevant if it had even a quad core i7 in it, and you'd think the price would be justified. But it wouldn't be. At the end of the day it's an "Internet-only machine". There's a price threshold you can't pass. Google seems more inexperienced in the consumer market than I thought. Price is such a critical factor in gaining market acceptance, especially for a new product category. They should first ask themselves "What is the right pricing for this type of product" and then try to squeeze the most powerful specs they can in it.
- foobarbazetc 15y ago
  Google TV failed because no one wants to hook up a keyboard to their TV. The model is 100% wrong.
  - nextparadigms 15y ago
    I completely agree with that, too. Like what were they thinking? I won't even go into explaining why that's such a bad idea, because I think it's obvious to most people that was a stupid idea. They have Google Voice Search, and they didn't even use it for Google TV. They could use that for saying commands and doing the searches on Google by speaking to it.. But I don't even think that should be the main way to interact with Google TV. I know they've been working on Kinect-like stuff for Android and that they hired I believe the former tech lead from Kinect, so I think they should be using Kinect-like technology to allow you to use the Google TV interface with your hands. Would those 2 be the perfect interaction models for Google TV? I don't know. But I think it sounds a whole lot better than using a full QWERTY keyboard. I think the lack of content hurt Google TV, too. Did they even have Netflix at launch? I think they didn't. I know Hulu is up for sale. It might be a good idea to buy them. I also think video chatting on TV is pretty revolutionary and might be a huge thing in the future, so they should take advantage of that with GTalk. The only problem I see here is that people will have to buy cameras for their TV's, too, so adoption for that might be a little slow, but it would get there.
    - mikeryan 15y ago
      Hulu is not up for sale, Yahoo may have made an unsolicited offer. Hulu also does not have long term content deals (which are their only real asset). Right now Hulu is mostly owned by the content owners which is why it gets content at all, if Google bought it a lot of the quality content they currently have would very likely go away. I do know that there are a bunch of people playing with the Kinect controller for navigating TV but I think you'll see this with a future Xbox rev first. Microsoft has TV platforms in the past (Media Center and traditional cable style guides etc). I think its much more likely to see this type of innovation come from MS in the Xbox, since they can do a lot of this with software and already have millions of boxes already hooked up in peoples living rooms.
    - johnyzee 15y ago
      > I also think video chatting on TV is pretty revolutionary and might be a huge thing in the future, so they should take advantage of that with GTalk. The only problem I see here is that people will have to buy cameras for their TV's, too, so adoption for that might be a little slow, but it would get there. I just bought the add-on camera for my Sony flatscreen, which has a Skype application built in. It is in fact a very convenient way to video chat, compared with using a laptop. I am sure cams will be built into the TVs from the next generation or two.
- rmrm 15y ago
  I have the Sony TV and in general have no problems with either the price or the remote/keyboard. I have been displeased with the state of the SW, and the lack of bug fixes. I anxiously await 3.1 and a more modern version of Chrome.
  - stitchy 15y ago
    Seriously! I love my Google TV, but one of the best parts about Chrome is the rapid update schedule. I'd almost prefer the stock Android browser to the version of Chrome that is on the current Google TV boxes. I believe that Google TV is running Chrome 5, while the latest Chrome stable build seems to be 12. Does anyone know what version of Chrome is on Fishtank?
- kaylarose 15y ago
  For most consumers a internet set-top box for TV is a completely new type of technology purchase (similar to a tablet purchase). Set-top boxes don't have the "cool-factor" of other technologies (smartphones/tablets) to drive sales, and TV === Cable mentality is already ingrained, so the barrier to adoption is price. The price needs to be low enough that the consumer is willing to take the risk of adopting a new (possibly dust-collecting) gadget. E.g. I really wanted a GoogleTV, but the price-tag was high for something I was sure I'd use a lot. Instead I got an Apple TV for $99. It doesn't have everything I want, but it suits my needs 90% of the time. (also see eBook readers)
mark_l_watson 15y ago
This looks good. I scored a free Google TV (from Google) last year and have been enjoying it as a consumer item, but customer work has soaked up all of my time since then and I have not been able to do much (at all) as far as customizing web apps for the platform, experiment more with Android development, etc. Also: re: keyboard: I like having a keyboard. It is unobtrusive and generally nice to use.
bryanwb 15y ago
I really like my google tv but it could be so, so much better. I see huge potential as long as Google doesn't lose interest in it, but that may be asking too much.
iqster 15y ago
Google TV broke my heart. I try not to set high hopes for technology ... I made a mistake with Google TV. If they had released an app store from the get-go, maybe that could have saved it. The crappy controllers, the fact that many content providers blocked them, the price tag were all nails in the coffin. Here's the thing ... building a consumer product is very different from releasing code on the Internet. Google does the latter extremely well ... I am shocked at their performance on the former. When you pay a few hundred bucks for something, you want it to work properly. I don't care if it will work great after a year's worth of update. I paid for it now ... I want it to work now. Also, I don't care if they aren't the ones making the badly conceived hardware ... from the consumer's standpoint, the product = software+hardware. End of rant. Btw ... this is pent up rage from having a Nexus One phone die on me in less than a month as well as Google TV. I use a Nexus S phone now ... far superior, but I feel I simply burned the $$$ for my other product purchases.

18 points by ukdm 15y ago

Oh, not an Intel Atom CE again! Google better get their partners to release some cheaper (under $150) ARM based Google TV's this fall. That ridiculous $300 price was probably the main reason Google TV failed last year. I was also hoping for Tegra 3 in some of the TV's or set top boxes, and that Google would take advantage of this to try to turn Google TV at least a little bit into a gaming console platform. Developers are already starting to port their PC or PS3 games to Android phones or tablets, and Honeycomb 3.1 is getting gamepad support. I think it would be a good idea to have some nice console like games in the Android Market for Google TV. But it needs Tegra 3 to really push this console idea, because the games would actually have console-like graphics. EDIT: Side note: I know that Google doesn't make the devices themselves, but they have a very close relationship with the launch manufacturers. So how is it that Google fails again, and again, to grasp what the right price would be for the product launch? It's happened 3 times already. 1) Google TV set top box was $300, instead of $150, or even $100. 2) Xoom started at $800, instead of having a wi-fi only version at $500 at most ($400-$450 would've been the sweet spot) 3) Chromebooks at $430, when it should've been $250-$300 at most. What happened to the "disposable machine" idea? I mean it's irrelevant if it had even a quad core i7 in it, and you'd think the price would be justified. But it wouldn't be. At the end of the day it's an "Internet-only machine". There's a price threshold you can't pass. Google seems more inexperienced in the consumer market than I thought. Price is such a critical factor in gaining market acceptance, especially for a new product category. They should first ask themselves "What is the right pricing for this type of product" and then try to squeeze the most powerful specs they can in it.

foobarbazetc 15y ago
Google TV failed because no one wants to hook up a keyboard to their TV. The model is 100% wrong.
- nextparadigms 15y ago
  I completely agree with that, too. Like what were they thinking? I won't even go into explaining why that's such a bad idea, because I think it's obvious to most people that was a stupid idea. They have Google Voice Search, and they didn't even use it for Google TV. They could use that for saying commands and doing the searches on Google by speaking to it.. But I don't even think that should be the main way to interact with Google TV. I know they've been working on Kinect-like stuff for Android and that they hired I believe the former tech lead from Kinect, so I think they should be using Kinect-like technology to allow you to use the Google TV interface with your hands. Would those 2 be the perfect interaction models for Google TV? I don't know. But I think it sounds a whole lot better than using a full QWERTY keyboard. I think the lack of content hurt Google TV, too. Did they even have Netflix at launch? I think they didn't. I know Hulu is up for sale. It might be a good idea to buy them. I also think video chatting on TV is pretty revolutionary and might be a huge thing in the future, so they should take advantage of that with GTalk. The only problem I see here is that people will have to buy cameras for their TV's, too, so adoption for that might be a little slow, but it would get there.
  - mikeryan 15y ago
    Hulu is not up for sale, Yahoo may have made an unsolicited offer. Hulu also does not have long term content deals (which are their only real asset). Right now Hulu is mostly owned by the content owners which is why it gets content at all, if Google bought it a lot of the quality content they currently have would very likely go away. I do know that there are a bunch of people playing with the Kinect controller for navigating TV but I think you'll see this with a future Xbox rev first. Microsoft has TV platforms in the past (Media Center and traditional cable style guides etc). I think its much more likely to see this type of innovation come from MS in the Xbox, since they can do a lot of this with software and already have millions of boxes already hooked up in peoples living rooms.
  - johnyzee 15y ago
    > I also think video chatting on TV is pretty revolutionary and might be a huge thing in the future, so they should take advantage of that with GTalk. The only problem I see here is that people will have to buy cameras for their TV's, too, so adoption for that might be a little slow, but it would get there. I just bought the add-on camera for my Sony flatscreen, which has a Skype application built in. It is in fact a very convenient way to video chat, compared with using a laptop. I am sure cams will be built into the TVs from the next generation or two.
rmrm 15y ago
I have the Sony TV and in general have no problems with either the price or the remote/keyboard. I have been displeased with the state of the SW, and the lack of bug fixes. I anxiously await 3.1 and a more modern version of Chrome.
- stitchy 15y ago
  Seriously! I love my Google TV, but one of the best parts about Chrome is the rapid update schedule. I'd almost prefer the stock Android browser to the version of Chrome that is on the current Google TV boxes. I believe that Google TV is running Chrome 5, while the latest Chrome stable build seems to be 12. Does anyone know what version of Chrome is on Fishtank?
kaylarose 15y ago
For most consumers a internet set-top box for TV is a completely new type of technology purchase (similar to a tablet purchase). Set-top boxes don't have the "cool-factor" of other technologies (smartphones/tablets) to drive sales, and TV === Cable mentality is already ingrained, so the barrier to adoption is price. The price needs to be low enough that the consumer is willing to take the risk of adopting a new (possibly dust-collecting) gadget. E.g. I really wanted a GoogleTV, but the price-tag was high for something I was sure I'd use a lot. Instead I got an Apple TV for $99. It doesn't have everything I want, but it suits my needs 90% of the time. (also see eBook readers)

mark_l_watson 15y ago

This looks good. I scored a free Google TV (from Google) last year and have been enjoying it as a consumer item, but customer work has soaked up all of my time since then and I have not been able to do much (at all) as far as customizing web apps for the platform, experiment more with Android development, etc. Also: re: keyboard: I like having a keyboard. It is unobtrusive and generally nice to use.

bryanwb 15y ago

I really like my google tv but it could be so, so much better. I see huge potential as long as Google doesn't lose interest in it, but that may be asking too much.

iqster 15y ago

Google TV broke my heart. I try not to set high hopes for technology ... I made a mistake with Google TV. If they had released an app store from the get-go, maybe that could have saved it. The crappy controllers, the fact that many content providers blocked them, the price tag were all nails in the coffin. Here's the thing ... building a consumer product is very different from releasing code on the Internet. Google does the latter extremely well ... I am shocked at their performance on the former. When you pay a few hundred bucks for something, you want it to work properly. I don't care if it will work great after a year's worth of update. I paid for it now ... I want it to work now. Also, I don't care if they aren't the ones making the badly conceived hardware ... from the consumer's standpoint, the product = software+hardware. End of rant. Btw ... this is pent up rage from having a Nexus One phone die on me in less than a month as well as Google TV. I use a Nexus S phone now ... far superior, but I feel I simply burned the $$$ for my other product purchases.