3 ms·

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 fo

by 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?

by roc 14y ago

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?