10 ms·
> It's also a big statement on Google's ability to succeed in the hardware market, where they've never seemed to be able to gain real success despite their atte
by lotso 13y ago
> It's also a big statement on Google's ability to succeed in the hardware market, where they've never seemed to be able to gain real success despite their attempts with notebooks and phones.
And Google TV. Let's not forget that huge failure.
"By the summer of 2012, the majority of the televisions you see in stores will have Google TV embedded in it."
-Eric Schmidt
- mcphage 13y ago> "By the summer of 2012, the majority of the televisions you see in stores will have Google TV embedded in it." Still could happen. (checks calendar...) Nevermind, then.
- mediaman 13y agoIt makes me wonder how this will affect Google management's willingness to make additional attempts in hardware. For example, will they still push Google Glass? As you suggest, Google TV? Further out, they seem to be pursuing things like autonomous vehicles -- perhaps this could motivate them to limit their ambitions to the software/AI aspects of it.
- specialist 13y agoGoogle just bought Nest.
- ChikkaChiChi 13y agoA year off and the name is different, but Chromecast has redefined the way I think about 'Smart TVs' and HTPCs. Google's long game still looks good in this area, IMO.
- myko 13y agoYeah, Chromecast is pretty amazing. I bought one and everyone in my family who has been over to see it has purchased one as well.
- pgrote 13y agoWhat was their primary reason for getting one?
- myko 13y agoIn mine and my wife's parents cases, Netflix. They didn't even know such a service existed before though, or they might've had a different solution in place already. My sisters, Netflix and for my younger sister mainly YouTube and Google Music (which she rarely used before she got the Chromecast, as she has an iPhone and the app just came out for iOS).
- yetfeo 13y agoWhat are the advantages of Chromecast over something like Apple TV?
- ChikkaChiChi 13y agoI responded above, sorry :)
- adventured 13y agoTwo things. Price, and no lock-in to Apple's ecosystem.
- yetfeo 13y agoAren't you instead locked into Google's ecosystem?
- ajross 13y agoTo some extent. Google has to whitelist the apps that use the API. Right now that means you have access to Google's media offerings (including Youtube and G+) of course, but also Netflix and Hulu. Not Amazon yet or (obviously) iTunes. It will play your local music content, but only recently whitelisted a few apps capable of playing your own video files (even then the codecs and containers supported by Chromecast are a short list, so be prepared to do a bunch of transcoding). It's not open for sure. But it's not bad either; at $35 I'm willing to forgive the lack of hackability (I have a linux box on the same TV for that, this thing is just a convenience). And the UI is basically perfect: pull the phone out of your pocket, play the video using exactly the same apps you're used to, and just click the chromecast button to send it to the TV. No more hunting for remotes; on my TV it will even turn it on and switch to the right input source automatically.
- ChikkaChiChi 13y agoI'll explain my Chromecast experience simply: We are either using Chromecast in my house, or DirecTV. When we want to watch Netflix, HBOGO, or something on Plex, we fire up a phone or tablet, open the app, and Cast it to the TV. The Chromecast automatically switches the input and begins playing what we asked it to. @Loki540 - You might be referring to the still in development Chrome extension. We don't use that much but I hear it has to be on a very solid wireless connection. Chromecast-ready apps do not have that problem. @yetfeo - It only costs 30 dollars, and any app can choose to be a 'Chromecast' app by adding in their API. Our iPads and Android devices all can use the Chromecast and the variety of things we can do with it is superior.
- panabee 13y agoAgreed. We think this approach is brilliant and suggests Google sees the TV as merely another screen. Chromecast combines the web dev model with the processing power of PCs (and mobile devices), making it a more flexible and powerful way to reshape the TV as another computing endpoint. Most importantly, Google innovation no longer is constrained by TV manufacturers and their divergent interests. Here's a Google game console: screen (TV) + processing (PC) + controllers (mobile device).
- ceejayoz 13y ago> And Google TV. Let's not forget that huge failure. Not to mention http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nexus_Q http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nexus_Q
- notJim 13y agoI dunno, the Q was pretty brilliant as a piece of performance art.
- eropple 13y agoI actually, non-ironically like having a Nexus Q, if only as a conversation piece. The thing looks really cool.
- ben1040 13y agoConsidering they never actually exchanged money a single Q (the people who pre-ordered them wound up getting them free, as did I/O 2012 attendees), it doesn't seem to be so much of a failure as it was just market research on how to do it the next time. Notwithstanding the built-in amp, the Chromecast is a pretty narrow superset of the Q at least in terms of features.
- bruceboughton 13y agoConsidering they never actually exchanged money a single Q Seems like quite a failure for a business.
- eropple 13y agoExperiments don't always pan out and they avoided the PR hit of releasing a turd. If the Nexus Q was more than couch-cushion money I'd be surprised.
- adventured 13y agoInstead, by the Summer of 2016, the majority of living rooms will be using Chromecast or something similar running Android. Android will acquire a monopoly share in smart TV, exactly like it did in smart phones and tablets. In fact, the game is already over, the competition just doesn't realize it yet.
- benihana 13y ago>Android will acquire a monopoly share in smart TV, exactly like it did in smart phones and tablets. what.
- clarky07 13y agoperhaps, and Google still won't make a dime on it. incredible really.
- 72deluxe 13y agoIf they intend that, it is foolish. When you use a computer, you sit close to it to read. When you use a tablet, you sit close to it. When you use a TV, it is far away. Yet TV manufacturers seem to think that you want to read on it. It is far away. Seems daft to me.
- jotm 13y agoSmart TVs aren't a failure yet - I hope Google keeps their plans going. It'll be pretty much like Microsoft's Xbox...
- dclara 13y agoI got confused by you mixing smart TV with Xbox. I still think Smart TV concept and architecture is pretty failed from the market. From SetTopBox to Apple TV to Google TV, whenever I saw there is a box attached to the TV which can receive the TV program from the internet, it looks so weird to me. Maybe that's why it's not popular. Eventually we need to get the TV be real smart and be controlled by the PC instead of smart phone which requires the Android to be embedded into the TV box in order to render the graphics.
- jotm 13y agoI meant it as a comparison to how the Xbox was a failure for a pretty long time until it took off. TVs with the ability to show a calendar, play Angry Birds and browse Youtube make sense to me, it seems like a natural progression of the good old set top box. If these new TVs run Google's OS, the company will win sooner or later...
- dclara 13y agoI got your point now. So set top box, internet TV died. Now it's the time for smart TV which is controlled by the smart phone. I'm pretty tired about smart phone, too. If TV is controlled by PC, I can play internet game on it and watch movies with high quality, like in home theater without the high cost.