Google TV Announced With Intel, Sony, and Logitech 224
MojoKid writes "Google's own I/O conference in California is wrapping up today, but not before the company goes out with a serious bang. Google just announced something that has been rumored for a while now: Google TV. Basically, Google is taking the Apple TV concept, but going way overboard by introducing apps, screen customization, and channel searching. Following Google's own announcement, Intel stepped in to provide some backbone to the story. Google is obviously using the big players to move Google TV forward, with Intel, DISH Network, Best Buy, and Adobe firmly on board. Google TV itself is based on Android, runs the Google Chrome browser, and will allow users to access all of their usual TV channels as well as a world of Internet and cloud-based information and applications, including Adobe Flash-based content."
Mainstream (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably 90% of people on Slashdot have a computer hooked up to their TV, one way or another. But more mainstream options are still limited to things like AppleTV. Hopefully this Google offering helps make the usability level low enough that the technologically challenges masses will start to get some of the same benefits. Maybe it will hurt the entrenched content providers enough and provide enough of a market that we will be able to purchase shows ala carte at reasonable prices over the internet; without all the middle men taking our money.
Networks (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Mainstream (Score:5, Insightful)
And they are crippled to hell and back. They are about as much a computer as an ipad is.
Re:Networks (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Networks (Score:4, Insightful)
What your television subscription gets you is tons of channels you do not want to watch and commercials on the ones you do want to watch. This is why I dropped cable and use clicker.com to find shows online to watch. If I am going to watch commercials I might as well not pay for the privilege.
Re:no thanks (Score:2, Insightful)
Hey Google, there's no TV worth searching for (Score:2, Insightful)
Google stated today that too many people are having trouble deciding what to watch. Wrong.
People are watching "monkees washing cats" videos on You Tube because that's more intriguing than the crap on broadcast TV.
and? (Score:3, Insightful)
It looks like the networks will still schedule all the shows I like at the same time on the same night, forcing me to choose which ones to ignore. Don't be stupid. Let me decide what to watch and when; then we can talk.
How about this? Schedule first-run when your generic focus groups tell you, then leave it available so real people can watch whenever we get around to it. I have better things to do than schedule my life around you.
Re:Google TV (Score:5, Insightful)
If it's really open, you'll be able to take out the ads. Not that such behavior is desirable from their PoV of course, but if a user can't do it, then the process will have to be hopelessly crippled and closed at some point. So we'll see about this "open source."
Re:Mainstream (Score:3, Insightful)
In fact, the only thing that's "hard" about my setup is that most people don't know you can even do that. They don't know that you can hook a computer to a TV, they don't know WMC exists, and they don't know that you can get a remote for the computer.
Well not knowing you can do it, not having an extra computer, not knowing where to buy a cheap computer that can hook up to the TV, not knowing how to configure the computer to display on the TV, etc. If you know what you're doing and are a geek, of course you integrate your computer and TV. For everyone else there needs to be a plug and play pre-configured system for them, like what Google is offering.
Re:Google TV (Score:5, Insightful)
"No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame."
Re:What's the point? (Score:3, Insightful)
Think of Google search. "All" it did was make finding things more efficient--but that represented a dramatic improvement in the experience of using the web. Or Gmail--we all had email beforehand, but it provided a much better interface. (Obviously not everyone will agree that the Gmail interface is good, but my point is just that lots of people do like that interface, and thus switched to Gmail.)
If GoogleTV just makes it simpler/more-efficient to watch TV, then that's a sufficient improvement. That is "the point". The idea seems to be that instead of deciding "I want to watch this show at some point, better set it to record on my DVR" or deciding "Oh, that show is starting soon, better head to my TV" or "that show I like is on Hulu, I think, let me go find it"... the GoogleTV will deal will all those details. You will just type in the name of the show you want to watch, and it will get that show for you (either scheduling the DVR, or switching to the channel, or loading the appropriate website, or whatever). This frees the user from having to navigate the arcane TV listings (which are, even in this day and age, just a numerical list!
One can immediately think of other useful things such a box could do (auto-loading the next episode if available, recommending new shows based on ones you already like, etc.). Of course these are all things that the user could do themselves with some effort. But the idea is to reduce the effort, and make the user experience better. (Really, that's what all of technology is: mechanizing labor, automating tedious tasks, hiding away complexity... in a sense these all amount to refining a person's user experience with respect to a given task/action.)
Of course I have no idea if GoogleTV will do all of this in a smooth and effective way. It might suck. But there is at least the potential to come up with something useful. Something that most people would indeed like to have...
There's so many ways they could do this right... (Score:4, Insightful)
And the first of these is by getting in bed with the major cable networks and offering an ala carte subscription service. I can get the big 4 over the air. If I can stream Comedy Central, Sci Fi, Cartoon Network, and Discovery I'd gladly pay them a little of the money that I was paying for hundreds of channels I didn't care about with cable. What do you say, Google? You're the only one who has the backbone to even attempt this. I'll even buy a stupidly overpriced box to buy into it. My only concern is that they'll pack so much content into this that I'll never want to turn off my Plasma...and that would get kinda pricey.
Best news I've heard all day. (Score:2, Insightful)
Bandwidth is really all I need now.
Re:Google TV (Score:3, Insightful)
For most of us geeks, it's inferior to the setups we already have... But for my mom, for example, this would be great. With GoogleTV, she can view all the LOLcats she wants from the comfort of her living room sofa.
Meanwhile, Microsoft wonders why they bothered to buy WebTV [microsoft.com] in 1997 and then clearly not capitalize on it...
Computer vs. appliance (Score:3, Insightful)
Define "a computer."
The consensus in recent articles about iPad and Splashtop is that one way to tell the difference between a "computer" and an "appliance" is that a computer can run a compiler. This includes desktops, laptops, and servers but excludes an iPad and a cable box.
Most DVRs contain pretty much all the components of a modern day computer
Dedicated DVRs made by TiVo also contain one component that makes them not a computer: verification of the digitally signed boot loader [wikipedia.org].
Re:There's so many ways they could do this right.. (Score:3, Insightful)
And the first of these is by getting in bed with the major cable networks and offering an ala carte subscription service. I can get the big 4 over the air. If I can stream Comedy Central, Sci Fi, Cartoon Network, and Discovery I'd gladly pay them a little of the money that I was paying for hundreds of channels I didn't care about with cable
Ala carte channels is an obsolete idea already even though it never existed. It only made sense after digital cable but before widespread On Demand. The same reasons you reject bundling of channels can be extended to why I should reject bundling of shows into channels. If I'm streaming, the whole notion of "channel" is an artificial construct.
Look at hulu for example, you can browse by channel, but it's rare that you'd want to.
Re:Mainstream (Score:4, Insightful)
Ultimately the problems with hooking up a computer to the TV isn't as much about the technology or usability, it's about the content. Most of the big electronics companies just won't invest in building sleek set-top boxes because they need a content feed, and there are only a few options: Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, and iTunes.
All of those services have limited content, and Hulu actively tries to prevent set-top-box support because they don't really want you watching Internet content on your TV. Hulu is owned by the TV networks, and neither the TV networks nor the Cable companies particularly like the idea of shows being distributed via the Internet rather than broadcast networks.
If content owners allowed their shows to be streamed in an open video format via an open protocol, you would see a gold rush of manufacturers building TVs and set-top boxes that supported that format and protocol. Aside from building fast enough Internet access and having big enough datacenters to serve all that video (or using a bittorrent-like P2P technology to handle the bandwidth on the server end), providing TV and movies over the Internet is not a technological problem at all.
It comes down to this: The powerful people and businesses in TV and movies are invested in TV networks and cable companies. Though they may provide some services online, they'll try to make sure they're substandard and crippled in order to make sure you keep paying your cable bill.