4 ms·

Actually, Google TV 2.0 has native support for game controllers and USB host, too. They could really push Android/Google TV into becoming a "console platform",

Actually, Google TV 2.0 has native support for game controllers and USB host, too. They could really push Android/Google TV into becoming a "console platform", too. They could use the same strategy they've used against the iPhone to beat Xbox, PS3 and Wii - just get everyone to make TV's and set top boxes with high-performance ARM chips. Everything is laid out for them. They just need to act on it. So far I don't see them promoting it too hard, which is a shame, because Apple will probably hype it up hard when they launch Apple TV with iOS apps and games, and then everyone will think Google is playing catch-up again. What's sort of ironic, is that Google "TV" might actually be a lot more successful as a console platform than a "TV" platform, meaning that there would be a lot more customers buying it for the "console" promise, than for the "improving TV experience" promise. If they were smart, they would take full advantage of that, get millions of units in people's homes, and then figure out the TV part.

mikeryan 15y ago
They could really push Android/Google TV into becoming a "console platform", too This strategy can be problematic. Google and their hardware partners will have to choose if its going to compete with consoles on the high-end or with cheaper internet boxes (Boxee/Roku) on the low end. Currently its price point (when it was first launched) is the same as the Xbox and PS3 and I have no idea why you'd get a GoogleTV box instead of an Xbox. If they can get down to $200 they'd be closer to Boxee but this wouldn't be a "console gaming" machine. Remember the Consoles (Xbox/PS3 even Wii) are all subsidized platforms and sometimes the consoles themselves are actually sold at a loss since MS/Sony/Nintendo can make up the difference with game license fees. So its not as simple as you lay out.
- nextparadigms 15y ago
  I don't think Google TV set top boxes should be higher than $150 anyway. They can probably make it for $100, too, and it might be possible if Apple is going to put an A5 in their Apple TV, while keeping the price. Android already has quite a few console-like games, that to be honest would be played a lot better with a gamepad than on a touch screen. I'm sure it would open up another market at the $100-$150 price, and disrupt all the other consoles. It doesn't have to compete with them at the "high-end" on performance. All I'm saying is that they shouldn't treat it as an afterthought, when it will still use more or less the same hardware that is going into a set-top box. They just need to show intent and support it, and get developers to modify their phone/tablet games for TV. There's a difference between letting it happen by itself, which Google tends to do in general (unfortunately), and announcing it all at launch, like Apple does, and with many partners.
  - mikeryan 15y ago
    Without subsidizing the price they can't sell GoogleTV boxes for $150 bucks they'd be losing money. Not with any decent sort of processing power. Remember all those Android smart phones out there are subsidized by contracts. Apple's box is subsidized by iTunes sales. I'm telling you a lot of those console like games on Android smart phones aren't going to work on a GoogleTV with a $150 price point. EDIT: I'm not saying the BOM on the boxes are over $150 but total costs involved (marketing/manufacturing/support) would run at a loss. Or even that Apple is selling their box at a loss but the platform is subsidized.
    - mdasen 15y ago
      I'm skeptical. Apple doesn't usually sell things for a loss hoping to make it back in future sales. Do you have a source that the Apple TV costs Apple more than $100 to build? iSuppli estimates that the Apple TV cost Apple $64 to build a year ago (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9189541/_Margin_challenged_Apple_TV_costs_64_to_build http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9189541/_Margin_chall...) and I'm guessing it's come down a bit since then. That would indicate that it is definitely possible to build such a media player for even $100 and make a profit. The Apple TV has a 1GHz ARM processor with decent graphics capabilities. John Carmack has said that the iPhone 4 (same processor as the Apple TV) has better graphics capabilities than an XBox or Playstation 2.
      - mikeryan 15y ago
        Um from your article (I accept its not absolutely proving my point) but the basic premise still stands that Apple has a secondary ongoing revenue stream past the actual hardware sale. "It's hard to say whether the second-generation Apple TV is subsidized," said Rassweiler, noting that iSuppli's BOM doesn't account for software costs, licensing fees, research and development, marketing and other expenses. Nor do retailers -- including Amazon.com, which sells the Apple TV -- pay the full retail price when buying them from Apple.
    - Pewpewarrows 15y ago
      Really? The smartphone bill of sales comes out to about $200 per device. After you take out the battery, baseband, transceiver, GPS, gyroscope, display, and touch-screen components, that price gets slashed in half to around $100. Granted there are a lot of other costs to associate with it, such as additional output and input controllers, marketing, distribution, and profit margin. But still, it's not out of the realm of possibilities to see the new models go for $150-$200.

mikeryan 15y ago

They could really push Android/Google TV into becoming a "console platform", too This strategy can be problematic. Google and their hardware partners will have to choose if its going to compete with consoles on the high-end or with cheaper internet boxes (Boxee/Roku) on the low end. Currently its price point (when it was first launched) is the same as the Xbox and PS3 and I have no idea why you'd get a GoogleTV box instead of an Xbox. If they can get down to $200 they'd be closer to Boxee but this wouldn't be a "console gaming" machine. Remember the Consoles (Xbox/PS3 even Wii) are all subsidized platforms and sometimes the consoles themselves are actually sold at a loss since MS/Sony/Nintendo can make up the difference with game license fees. So its not as simple as you lay out.

nextparadigms 15y ago
I don't think Google TV set top boxes should be higher than $150 anyway. They can probably make it for $100, too, and it might be possible if Apple is going to put an A5 in their Apple TV, while keeping the price. Android already has quite a few console-like games, that to be honest would be played a lot better with a gamepad than on a touch screen. I'm sure it would open up another market at the $100-$150 price, and disrupt all the other consoles. It doesn't have to compete with them at the "high-end" on performance. All I'm saying is that they shouldn't treat it as an afterthought, when it will still use more or less the same hardware that is going into a set-top box. They just need to show intent and support it, and get developers to modify their phone/tablet games for TV. There's a difference between letting it happen by itself, which Google tends to do in general (unfortunately), and announcing it all at launch, like Apple does, and with many partners.
- mikeryan 15y ago
  Without subsidizing the price they can't sell GoogleTV boxes for $150 bucks they'd be losing money. Not with any decent sort of processing power. Remember all those Android smart phones out there are subsidized by contracts. Apple's box is subsidized by iTunes sales. I'm telling you a lot of those console like games on Android smart phones aren't going to work on a GoogleTV with a $150 price point. EDIT: I'm not saying the BOM on the boxes are over $150 but total costs involved (marketing/manufacturing/support) would run at a loss. Or even that Apple is selling their box at a loss but the platform is subsidized.
  - mdasen 15y ago
    I'm skeptical. Apple doesn't usually sell things for a loss hoping to make it back in future sales. Do you have a source that the Apple TV costs Apple more than $100 to build? iSuppli estimates that the Apple TV cost Apple $64 to build a year ago (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9189541/_Margin_challenged_Apple_TV_costs_64_to_build http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9189541/_Margin_chall...) and I'm guessing it's come down a bit since then. That would indicate that it is definitely possible to build such a media player for even $100 and make a profit. The Apple TV has a 1GHz ARM processor with decent graphics capabilities. John Carmack has said that the iPhone 4 (same processor as the Apple TV) has better graphics capabilities than an XBox or Playstation 2.
    - mikeryan 15y ago
      Um from your article (I accept its not absolutely proving my point) but the basic premise still stands that Apple has a secondary ongoing revenue stream past the actual hardware sale. "It's hard to say whether the second-generation Apple TV is subsidized," said Rassweiler, noting that iSuppli's BOM doesn't account for software costs, licensing fees, research and development, marketing and other expenses. Nor do retailers -- including Amazon.com, which sells the Apple TV -- pay the full retail price when buying them from Apple.
  - Pewpewarrows 15y ago
    Really? The smartphone bill of sales comes out to about $200 per device. After you take out the battery, baseband, transceiver, GPS, gyroscope, display, and touch-screen components, that price gets slashed in half to around $100. Granted there are a lot of other costs to associate with it, such as additional output and input controllers, marketing, distribution, and profit margin. But still, it's not out of the realm of possibilities to see the new models go for $150-$200.