9 ms·

Google Nexus Q: The social streaming media player

61 points by boh 14y ago

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
jfoutz 14y ago
It looks really cool. Pausing and resuming across devices is awesome. I just... 300. $300 is a lot. The tablet has a display, and it's less expensive. That amp must be really expensive.
- freehunter 14y ago
  That's what I thought when I saw it. How does a tablet have a screen, a battery, and more flash cost less than a 25w amp with some plugs on it?
heifetz 14y ago
this is google's answer to the $99 apple tv?? the problem is, even if it is a great steamer, how many of your friends would have android phones or tablets?
- WrkInProgress 14y ago
  I think there are more than enough Android phones out there. You might have a point on tablets, but while Android tablets aren't even close to the iPad in terms of success, they still sell several million of them.
- jff 14y ago
  According to the market share figures from last November (the most recent I've seen), the majority of them will have Android phones. Your point?
adrr 14y ago
Its made in the US with parts from US suppliers. Be interesting to see if US consumers will pay premium for that over other devices like the AppleTV.
bretthopper 14y ago
Good product. Terrible price. I think it would be successful at $99 but $299 just kills it.
runjake 14y ago
It's a $299 market competitor to the $99 Apple TV. It's round with several thick cables sticking out of the back with an array of ports -- an odd industrial design to me. The LEDs are really, really cool though.
- cube13 14y ago
  Or the $50 Roku. Doesn't make sense to get one, at all.
  - runjake 14y ago
    Not really. The Q and Apple TV are more focused on streaming personal content, whereas the Roku is designed to stream content from other content providers. There are ways to use your personal content with a Roku but this is not their focus and is not a no-brainer to set up.
    - cube13 14y ago
      This is actually a pretty weird continuum now between the three set-top boxes. The Apple TV is really focused on getting content onto your TV. Out of the box, you can stream content from Amazon, Youtube, Hulu, Netflix, etc. without an additional iOS device. With Airplay, you can stream content from your OSX/iOS devices to the Apple TV. Roku does the streaming half of that equation. It'll stream basically any online service to your TV. On the other hand, the Q seems to handle the half that the Roku doesn't. It seems entirely focused on streaming personal content to your TV and speakers.
- sjwright 14y ago
  The biggest selling point of the Apple TV is what it looks like: almost nothing. It's easy to disappear the thing behind your TV or above your cable box. The Nexus Q looks like a cable squid.
  - pwthornton 14y ago
    I have mine underneath my TV stand/media cabinet. It cannot be seen from the couch or really anywhere in the living room. The Apple TV's ability to just disappear really is it's biggest selling point.
kpozin 14y ago
Here's what looks like the design inspiration for the Nexus Q (and for its promo video): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xgls9IwWUyU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xgls9IwWUyU
mdasen 14y ago
I'm not quite sure why it's $300. Apple sells their Apple TV for $100 and it's nearly the same device. The Nexus Q comes with a 25-watt amplifier with traditional audio ports (rather than just optical) and a mute button, but that seems to be the large difference. Oh, and it has color-shifting LEDs that coordinate with the music. Apple TV even has a similar "let your guests vote on the music at a party" app. The direct connection for speakers is nice, but I guess I feel like it could have been accomplished for under $200 - considering that I can order a 100-watt receiver for under $100. Granted, Google has put in 1GB of RAM (vs 512MB in the Apple TV) and a dual-core processor (vs. the single-core Apple TV), but does that translate into anything? The Apple TV handles 1080p video (including high profile H.264). I guess I'm just left wondering why it's costing so much - especially considering that the Nexus 7 has a quad-core processor, 1GB of RAM, a battery, and a screen for $100 less.
- rdl 14y ago
  Optical and HDMI make so much more sense for a processor like this. Amps are slow evolving technology, and if you own a huge TV/speakers, you almost certainly own a home theater amp (HDMI or toslink in), or at least a TV which can accept an input to its speakers. Real audiophiles are going to be pickier about their amps than Google could ever be. This looks like a case of someone saying "let's kill Sonos" and then copying their spec sheet too literally, but not all Sonos devices have integrated amps.
  - detst 14y ago
    > Optical and HDMI make so much more sense for a processor like this. It has those, too. > if you own a huge TV/speakers Lots of 18-25 year olds don't have huge TVs and these will be great for their parties. Move this and a set of speakers into place and they're ready for the party. Everyone else can use the optical output and still have the flexibility to move it around for special occasions and directly connect to speakers.
    - pwthornton 14y ago
      I don't think 25 watts will provide enough sound for a party. I think it would be fine for lounging around a room, but not for a party.
sjwright 14y ago
I don't get what the point of this product is. Why would I want to have my "good speakers" only connected to one source device? Why would I want it to be connected to a 12.5W/channel amplifier? [0] It's too expensive as a source device (ala Apple TV), it's too expensive as streaming audio device (ala third party AirPlay speakers) and I can't imagine there'd be a lot of customers who'd want to use it as both. -- [0] I own a similar spec Tripath amp, and while 12.5W isn't nothing, it's not party music.
stevejabs 14y ago
Anyone else think it's stupid that they've released a supplemental piece of hardware at $299 when the Nexus7 itself is selling at $199?
mieses 14y ago
It has a built in amplifier so it eliminates the need for other audio hardware. Apple TV looks too small to have an amp. As someone who hates audio hi-fi hardware and all the related nonsense, I think I'm sold. For example, it can power a small pair of bookshelf speakers. There's a pair of speakers in the Google Play store.
- sjwright 14y ago
  Or you could just buy one of the many AirPlay speakers on the market? Have you had a chance to hear the Audyssey Audio Dock Air? That thing kicks some serious musical reproduction butt, and doesn't require any cables other than for electricity.
  - mieses 14y ago
    thanks but i wouldn't go that route for several reasons. i like the idea of simple, normal, default speakers. they are not tied to any standard like airplay and they just do one thing well - make sound. a wireless audio signal may suffer from interference in some situations. i don't like apple itunes at all, but that is just my personal preference. i've always avoided itunes and have used foobar2000, songbird, anything but itunes. i have a lot of classical music in FLAC files and just don't want to deal with Apple and their rule of the month.
drivebyacct2 14y ago
Is this a DLNA playback device? If not, Google is really, really betting on Play. Also, why is no one asking the obvious question? How does this intersect and/or overlap with Google TV? Is this a Google TV device? And if not, why not?
- roc 14y ago
  For the same reason no-one asks after Chrome OS much anymore: Google doesn't seem to know why they're making it or where it fits. Until they figure that out for themselves, they're not going to have any useful answers to give us.
  - drivebyacct2 14y ago
    I guess?! With the power and OS in the Q, it seems obvious that they would simply make it a Google TV device. If it were cheaper, I could see it as a way of pushing Google Play services, but honestly, I doubt there are enough people heavily enough invested in Google Play services to warrant investing in a $300 standalone device. I'm using a Raspberry PI now as a DLNA media receiver. I can use a phone or a tablet to stream media from my server to my TV for an extremely tiny cost compared to this. I don't understand the value proposition. I know people like to act like Google does things willy-nilly, and I don't normally agree, but I do not understand the proposed positioning for this device.
    - roc 14y ago
      You already recognized the positioning: it's all about Google Play. Google TV exists/existed because Google wants to be in the living room. But they can't get TV makers on board. They can't get content owners on board. They can't get ISPs on board. They got some OEMs on board and tried to let developers 'solve' the content problem as it was solved for iOS and Android, but that bombed spectacularly. So now what? Now they've got a fledgling content service in want of players. And now they're going to try to use that to get consumers to put Google devices in their living rooms and dorm rooms. And maybe, just maybe, they'll flip GoogleTV back into the game as/if it picks up steam an developers start begging for access. (the specs are certainly overkill for a streaming set-top box) But who really knows? If these things sell without Android apps, and Apple doesn't push the issue by allowing apps on the Apple TV, why wouldn't they carve direct deals that give them veto power as Apple has done?
donohoe 14y ago
"Designed and Manufactured in the U.S.A." Thats a first!?
Alcedes 14y ago
woah, first it's the learning machine, now cable squid, lemme guess they're big fans of the Matrix movies :-D. Can't wait to see the exoskeletons...
jiggy2011 14y ago
I can play all the music from my google play account? What about my iTunes account , spotify account or the random MP3s I have on my system? Oh , so I can't play any music then?
- mdasen 14y ago
  To be fair, Google will sync your (un-DRM'd) iTunes music (and whatever other music). It takes a while to upload and there's a limit on the number of songs (20,000?), but it does have that utility.
  - mayneack 14y ago
    20,000 is a ton. I synced my entire library into it and it was a couple hundred gigs. It also takes higher quality than Apple I believe (320 kbps mp3) and converts down FLAC, OGG, etc.
    - yardie 14y ago
      Aye now, 320kbps MP3 >! 256 kbps AAC. Aurally they are almost imperceptible.
      - mayneack 14y ago
        Interesting, I didn't realize that I can't downvote replies to my comments. Not that I was going to here, but I did notice the lack of a down arrow.
        yardie 14y ago
        It was taken away (I think a few months ago) because some users were using it as retribution. The order of things was useful or inciteful comments should rise to the top and everything will drift down. Now if they integrate a threshold filter ala Slashdot that would be useful. But yeah, the lack of the down arrow doesn't really do anything except to the root comments.
old-gregg 14y ago
Hearing all your groanings regarding price, is easy to understand why we "can't have nice things". To make you happy, everything needs to be disposable, lightweight, made in China using the cheapest components available, wrapped in cheap squeaky plastic which smells like my dog's feet. That, or supported by ads or a giant media/appstore sales like AppleTV or Kindle.
- pwthornton 14y ago
  It's the built in amp. It's a risky move to be sure. There will be a market for this for sure, but $299 is a lot. It also has more wireless technology than your average media streaming device. Being made in America is not adding a lot to this price.
rplnt 14y ago
"Sorry! Devices on Google Play is not available in your country yet." Same will probably apply to most of the features for android/play introduced today.
suprgeek 14y ago
$299 kills it dead. A complete flub in an otherwise great keynote event. For that steep a price it had better hover in the air like a magic orb.
twog 14y ago
I may be one of the few on HN, but I think this was a great move from Google. If this device is open, you can write games for it (or pull existing games from play) stream music, videos, and other content from your google drive. Its a push to make other Google products more valuable. I think the HN crowd quickly forgets that not everyone can build themselves an entertainment PC.
cjoh 14y ago
Can we appreciate for a moment that this is a product that is _manufactured in the United States_. I hope this is a step forward in the manufacturing of our consumer electronics, and by doing this, it makes it so doing manufacturing in the United States becomes more of a possibility to more of our companies. I'll happily shell out an extra $200 to buy a product that is built in any country with halfway decent environmental and labor laws.
- recoiledsnake 14y ago
  >I'll happily shell out an extra $200 to buy a product that is built in any country with halfway decent environmental and labor laws. Maybe for a laptop, $200 makes sense but three times the cost? That's way too much. Anyway, I have a HTPC hooked up(a 6 year old Dell with Windows 8) so I am not in the market for such a device. but a 200% price increase is just too much for me.

61 points by boh 14y ago

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

jfoutz 14y ago

It looks really cool. Pausing and resuming across devices is awesome. I just... 300. $300 is a lot. The tablet has a display, and it's less expensive. That amp must be really expensive.

freehunter 14y ago
That's what I thought when I saw it. How does a tablet have a screen, a battery, and more flash cost less than a 25w amp with some plugs on it?

heifetz 14y ago

this is google's answer to the $99 apple tv?? the problem is, even if it is a great steamer, how many of your friends would have android phones or tablets?

WrkInProgress 14y ago
I think there are more than enough Android phones out there. You might have a point on tablets, but while Android tablets aren't even close to the iPad in terms of success, they still sell several million of them.
jff 14y ago
According to the market share figures from last November (the most recent I've seen), the majority of them will have Android phones. Your point?

adrr 14y ago

Its made in the US with parts from US suppliers. Be interesting to see if US consumers will pay premium for that over other devices like the AppleTV.

bretthopper 14y ago

Good product. Terrible price. I think it would be successful at $99 but $299 just kills it.

runjake 14y ago

It's a $299 market competitor to the $99 Apple TV. It's round with several thick cables sticking out of the back with an array of ports -- an odd industrial design to me. The LEDs are really, really cool though.

cube13 14y ago
Or the $50 Roku. Doesn't make sense to get one, at all.
- runjake 14y ago
  Not really. The Q and Apple TV are more focused on streaming personal content, whereas the Roku is designed to stream content from other content providers. There are ways to use your personal content with a Roku but this is not their focus and is not a no-brainer to set up.
  - cube13 14y ago
    This is actually a pretty weird continuum now between the three set-top boxes. The Apple TV is really focused on getting content onto your TV. Out of the box, you can stream content from Amazon, Youtube, Hulu, Netflix, etc. without an additional iOS device. With Airplay, you can stream content from your OSX/iOS devices to the Apple TV. Roku does the streaming half of that equation. It'll stream basically any online service to your TV. On the other hand, the Q seems to handle the half that the Roku doesn't. It seems entirely focused on streaming personal content to your TV and speakers.
sjwright 14y ago
The biggest selling point of the Apple TV is what it looks like: almost nothing. It's easy to disappear the thing behind your TV or above your cable box. The Nexus Q looks like a cable squid.
- pwthornton 14y ago
  I have mine underneath my TV stand/media cabinet. It cannot be seen from the couch or really anywhere in the living room. The Apple TV's ability to just disappear really is it's biggest selling point.

kpozin 14y ago

Here's what looks like the design inspiration for the Nexus Q (and for its promo video): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xgls9IwWUyU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xgls9IwWUyU

mdasen 14y ago

I'm not quite sure why it's $300. Apple sells their Apple TV for $100 and it's nearly the same device. The Nexus Q comes with a 25-watt amplifier with traditional audio ports (rather than just optical) and a mute button, but that seems to be the large difference. Oh, and it has color-shifting LEDs that coordinate with the music. Apple TV even has a similar "let your guests vote on the music at a party" app. The direct connection for speakers is nice, but I guess I feel like it could have been accomplished for under $200 - considering that I can order a 100-watt receiver for under $100. Granted, Google has put in 1GB of RAM (vs 512MB in the Apple TV) and a dual-core processor (vs. the single-core Apple TV), but does that translate into anything? The Apple TV handles 1080p video (including high profile H.264). I guess I'm just left wondering why it's costing so much - especially considering that the Nexus 7 has a quad-core processor, 1GB of RAM, a battery, and a screen for $100 less.

rdl 14y ago
Optical and HDMI make so much more sense for a processor like this. Amps are slow evolving technology, and if you own a huge TV/speakers, you almost certainly own a home theater amp (HDMI or toslink in), or at least a TV which can accept an input to its speakers. Real audiophiles are going to be pickier about their amps than Google could ever be. This looks like a case of someone saying "let's kill Sonos" and then copying their spec sheet too literally, but not all Sonos devices have integrated amps.
- detst 14y ago
  > Optical and HDMI make so much more sense for a processor like this. It has those, too. > if you own a huge TV/speakers Lots of 18-25 year olds don't have huge TVs and these will be great for their parties. Move this and a set of speakers into place and they're ready for the party. Everyone else can use the optical output and still have the flexibility to move it around for special occasions and directly connect to speakers.
  - pwthornton 14y ago
    I don't think 25 watts will provide enough sound for a party. I think it would be fine for lounging around a room, but not for a party.

sjwright 14y ago

I don't get what the point of this product is. Why would I want to have my "good speakers" only connected to one source device? Why would I want it to be connected to a 12.5W/channel amplifier? [0] It's too expensive as a source device (ala Apple TV), it's too expensive as streaming audio device (ala third party AirPlay speakers) and I can't imagine there'd be a lot of customers who'd want to use it as both. -- [0] I own a similar spec Tripath amp, and while 12.5W isn't nothing, it's not party music.

stevejabs 14y ago

Anyone else think it's stupid that they've released a supplemental piece of hardware at $299 when the Nexus7 itself is selling at $199?

mieses 14y ago

It has a built in amplifier so it eliminates the need for other audio hardware. Apple TV looks too small to have an amp. As someone who hates audio hi-fi hardware and all the related nonsense, I think I'm sold. For example, it can power a small pair of bookshelf speakers. There's a pair of speakers in the Google Play store.

sjwright 14y ago
Or you could just buy one of the many AirPlay speakers on the market? Have you had a chance to hear the Audyssey Audio Dock Air? That thing kicks some serious musical reproduction butt, and doesn't require any cables other than for electricity.
- mieses 14y ago
  thanks but i wouldn't go that route for several reasons. i like the idea of simple, normal, default speakers. they are not tied to any standard like airplay and they just do one thing well - make sound. a wireless audio signal may suffer from interference in some situations. i don't like apple itunes at all, but that is just my personal preference. i've always avoided itunes and have used foobar2000, songbird, anything but itunes. i have a lot of classical music in FLAC files and just don't want to deal with Apple and their rule of the month.

drivebyacct2 14y ago

Is this a DLNA playback device? If not, Google is really, really betting on Play. Also, why is no one asking the obvious question? How does this intersect and/or overlap with Google TV? Is this a Google TV device? And if not, why not?

roc 14y ago
For the same reason no-one asks after Chrome OS much anymore: Google doesn't seem to know why they're making it or where it fits. Until they figure that out for themselves, they're not going to have any useful answers to give us.
- drivebyacct2 14y ago
  I guess?! With the power and OS in the Q, it seems obvious that they would simply make it a Google TV device. If it were cheaper, I could see it as a way of pushing Google Play services, but honestly, I doubt there are enough people heavily enough invested in Google Play services to warrant investing in a $300 standalone device. I'm using a Raspberry PI now as a DLNA media receiver. I can use a phone or a tablet to stream media from my server to my TV for an extremely tiny cost compared to this. I don't understand the value proposition. I know people like to act like Google does things willy-nilly, and I don't normally agree, but I do not understand the proposed positioning for this device.
  - roc 14y ago
    You already recognized the positioning: it's all about Google Play. Google TV exists/existed because Google wants to be in the living room. But they can't get TV makers on board. They can't get content owners on board. They can't get ISPs on board. They got some OEMs on board and tried to let developers 'solve' the content problem as it was solved for iOS and Android, but that bombed spectacularly. So now what? Now they've got a fledgling content service in want of players. And now they're going to try to use that to get consumers to put Google devices in their living rooms and dorm rooms. And maybe, just maybe, they'll flip GoogleTV back into the game as/if it picks up steam an developers start begging for access. (the specs are certainly overkill for a streaming set-top box) But who really knows? If these things sell without Android apps, and Apple doesn't push the issue by allowing apps on the Apple TV, why wouldn't they carve direct deals that give them veto power as Apple has done?

donohoe 14y ago

"Designed and Manufactured in the U.S.A." Thats a first!?

Alcedes 14y ago

woah, first it's the learning machine, now cable squid, lemme guess they're big fans of the Matrix movies :-D. Can't wait to see the exoskeletons...

jiggy2011 14y ago

I can play all the music from my google play account? What about my iTunes account , spotify account or the random MP3s I have on my system? Oh , so I can't play any music then?

mdasen 14y ago
To be fair, Google will sync your (un-DRM'd) iTunes music (and whatever other music). It takes a while to upload and there's a limit on the number of songs (20,000?), but it does have that utility.
- mayneack 14y ago
  20,000 is a ton. I synced my entire library into it and it was a couple hundred gigs. It also takes higher quality than Apple I believe (320 kbps mp3) and converts down FLAC, OGG, etc.
  - yardie 14y ago
    Aye now, 320kbps MP3 >! 256 kbps AAC. Aurally they are almost imperceptible.
    - mayneack 14y ago
      Interesting, I didn't realize that I can't downvote replies to my comments. Not that I was going to here, but I did notice the lack of a down arrow.
      - yardie 14y ago
        It was taken away (I think a few months ago) because some users were using it as retribution. The order of things was useful or inciteful comments should rise to the top and everything will drift down. Now if they integrate a threshold filter ala Slashdot that would be useful. But yeah, the lack of the down arrow doesn't really do anything except to the root comments.

old-gregg 14y ago

Hearing all your groanings regarding price, is easy to understand why we "can't have nice things". To make you happy, everything needs to be disposable, lightweight, made in China using the cheapest components available, wrapped in cheap squeaky plastic which smells like my dog's feet. That, or supported by ads or a giant media/appstore sales like AppleTV or Kindle.

pwthornton 14y ago
It's the built in amp. It's a risky move to be sure. There will be a market for this for sure, but $299 is a lot. It also has more wireless technology than your average media streaming device. Being made in America is not adding a lot to this price.

rplnt 14y ago

"Sorry! Devices on Google Play is not available in your country yet." Same will probably apply to most of the features for android/play introduced today.

suprgeek 14y ago

$299 kills it dead. A complete flub in an otherwise great keynote event. For that steep a price it had better hover in the air like a magic orb.

twog 14y ago

I may be one of the few on HN, but I think this was a great move from Google. If this device is open, you can write games for it (or pull existing games from play) stream music, videos, and other content from your google drive. Its a push to make other Google products more valuable. I think the HN crowd quickly forgets that not everyone can build themselves an entertainment PC.

cjoh 14y ago

Can we appreciate for a moment that this is a product that is _manufactured in the United States_. I hope this is a step forward in the manufacturing of our consumer electronics, and by doing this, it makes it so doing manufacturing in the United States becomes more of a possibility to more of our companies. I'll happily shell out an extra $200 to buy a product that is built in any country with halfway decent environmental and labor laws.

recoiledsnake 14y ago
>I'll happily shell out an extra $200 to buy a product that is built in any country with halfway decent environmental and labor laws. Maybe for a laptop, $200 makes sense but three times the cost? That's way too much. Anyway, I have a HTPC hooked up(a 6 year old Dell with Windows 8) so I am not in the market for such a device. but a 200% price increase is just too much for me.