3 ms·

I do. "theory" busted. google tv failed because its extra value was extremely quickly killed by the content providers. if it didn't affect anyone, content prov

• Tyrannosaurs 15y ago
  OK, possibly that was an OTT statement but I think it's fair to say that it's questionable whether many people want another large box in their living room and whether a keyboard is something which adds value for them in that scenario.
  • rmrm 15y ago
    I am one of those people that didnt want a box or a keyboard, Google TV integrated into the TV nicely worked as the solution. Pretty much every normal person who sees it in action, pause live tv, bring up wikipedia to look something up to answer a question, or pull up youtube to listen to the original of a song before listening to it on The Voice, pull up a Brian Wilson interview during a Giants game commercial -- all without changing context, just with this same little remote, to a person they have all said "I want this". But the SW just hasn't been fully baked as of yet, it crashes, it halts, it ignores inputs, and the UI is confusing for first time users. All of its problems and issues are primarily SW related. At least for the TV, the paradigm and design are very correct, I think, and quite powerful.
    • glhaynes 15y ago
      I haven't ever played with a Google TV device, but my first thought upon reading that is that I could and would rather do all those things today on my phone (or tablet), not on my TV. E.g. I can separately look up supplemental information on my handheld device and then, if there's something I want to share with the rest of the people in the room, I can: verbally share it, pass the device around, or (with Apple TV, which I'm fairly pleased with, but certainly isn't perfect) beam that info up to the big screen via AirPlay. I'd hate to subject my viewing-mates to watching me fiddle with a UI that overlays and takes screen space/otherwise distracts from the thing they're trying to watch. tl;dr: Why would I want wikipedia on my TV when I've got it on my phone?
      • rmrm 15y ago
        If I am by myself, I agree -- I always have a laptop nearby and use it quite often for this sort of thing. Except in the case of video -- I much prefer to watch any video of any sort on my TV and having full Youtube on my TV in such an accessible way is more or less worth the price of admission for me. But what I have found with viewing mates is actually quite the opposite -- looking something up and verbally telling them/passing the device is I think a much less pleasant and engaging way of doing things -- unless perhaps you are the one looking them up. If you are the controller its fine -- but for the other people in the room I think it can be pretty annoying. I have found it actually more enjoyable for the group to watch the interaction and to be a part of things. It is more communal. I think we underestimate how boring it is to watch someone sitting on a couch with a computer and wait for an answer with no idea where they are in the information retrieval process, unable to suggest they click on some other link, and unable to be a part of it. tldr: I think people actually like the internet, and don't mind looking at it when they have a reason to want something from it. Doing this in the relaxed, living room, communal viewing context is a pleasant, conversation invoking experience. EDIT: I should add -- this must be used wisely and with discretion. The ability to turn your TV into the internet is a powerful thing, with great potential for annoyance, and one not to be abused. I find myself doing it with guests not when I have a question, or remember something on the internet that relates to something -- but when they do. With great power comes great responsibility.
  • stitchy 15y ago
    You may be right about your keyboard comment. I like having my little Sony Google TV controller in easy reach at the moment, but with voice search, I can imagine a day without it. In my humble opinion, the area where Google TV really kills is in media aggregation. I can enter a few search terms, and suddenly video, audio, and who knows what else is available on my big screen TV. Is it on Netflix? Is it on Youtube? Is it on Amazon? It doesn't matter. I just search in one place and press play. Ultimately, this list will include Hulu, ABC, NBC, Comedy Central, Fox, et al. We will have to wait for the content providers to decide that advertising to web viewers is just as worthwhile as advertising to cable viewers. Imagine a TV experience where everything is video on demand from thousands of sources, but searchable from one place. You won't even need a cable subscription.
    • mikeryan 15y ago
      Ultimately, this list will include Hulu, ABC, NBC, Comedy Central, Fox, et al. We will have to wait for the content providers to decide that advertising to web viewers is just as worthwhile as advertising to cable viewers. No it won't, None of the large networks are moving to this model anytime soon. This is not a matter of loss of ad dollars its a matter of loss of subscription revenue. Cable Networks pay the networks to carry their content (ESPN make $4B a year in cable fees) and ad dollars on the web in no way make up for this loss in revenue. You may end up getting everything on demand some day, but you will be paying a subscription for it.
      • stitchy 15y ago
        Point taken, but I'm more than happy to pay them directly. I'll pay for Hulu Plus when it is released for Google TV. I don't like looking through a grid of shows that are currently "on." I don't even like flipping through my DVR. I want to type the name of the show in, and select my favorite video source from the results.