Doubling down on GoogleTV is exactly what they should be doing and I think the device has great potential with the Market.
The Aljazeera and Netflix apps are already a good way to watch stuff on Android, so I'd imagine a small collection of good quality apps will make this a very attractive platform.
I love it too. After years of harassing wife with different tv add on boxes, plain Linux, apple tv, boxee, I came home to find her just using the thig with no input from my self. She just got it. That is why Google TV is so awesome.
Now things are going to get interesting. Games distributed to the Google TV via the Android Market, using an existing Android-powered smartphone or tablet as a controller. Hell, developers have already figured out ways to get the Wii remotes and other console controllers to work with Android.
If Google plays their cards right, especially with some more powerful hardware in their next iterations, they could accidentally become the next big contender in the Console Wars. If nothing else the Wii proved that the casual, indy market was a completely untapped niche that exploded overnight. The machine basically printed money for Nintendo for the past few years.
Remember that (at least on existing Google TV boxen), games that use native code (most of them, including almost anything ported from iOS) will, at a minimum, have to be recompiled to run on Google TV as it's x86 based (unlike all the current ARM-based Android devices). In a small bit of luck, it happens that the particular chipset in Google TV (the CE4100) uses a PowerVR GPU (the SGX535 as seen in OMAP, and Apple's A4) so GPU compatibility won't be as much of an issue as the arch.
Seems to me that the medium is different enough that you'd generally want games specifically developed for the TV, rather than a straight port of a phone game, anyway.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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_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.
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.
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.
There's not a lot of CE manufacturers selling devices with a $100 BOM for $150-$200. Those $200 Smartphones (iPhone 4S is ~$189) retail for $600 assuming the same markup even with your number of $100 your looking at a $400 box. Boxee's box is $200 bucks and is pretty decent so you have to assume a $200 box is possible, but GoogleTV is a significant step up in performance and hardware features to Boxee.
If Boxee can build a $200 set top box with the same processor that Logitech used in their Revue (and sold it for $300), I think $150 price can be achieved with a high-end ARM chip. Just add 4 GB of internal storage - should be enough for most Android games, and a MicroSD slot for expansion in the future.
I like my Google TV, but there was room for massive improvement literally everywhere -- performance, UI, features. I hope they really hit on a lot of it.
They could've done it much earlier, too, if only they didn't waste all that time porting both Android and the Dalvik VM to x86. They should've used ARM from day one. Hoping there will be some Tegra 3-based set top boxes launching with Google TV 2.0.
They really need to think about how to improve interaction with it. Virtual apps? Voice commands? Kinect-like actions? Pretty much any of those is better than a full blown keyboard for controlling it in my opinion. And why do they still have a mouse pointer in there for crying out loud??
As for the virtual apps, it might be best to use a complete interface inside the phone or tablet, rather than a simple "remote app". Stop replicating stuff from other paradigms. Just take advantage of the current paradigm you're working with.
My idea would be to show the complete Google TV interface inside an app on your Android phone, and control it from there. When you touch an element on the phone, it should on the TV. I think that would be even faster than using a "remote app", which means you still have to go from one app to another until you reach your target, rather than simply selecting it on the phone.
That's exactly what I've wanted to build. I haven't peaked inside the API enough to see if anything close is even remotely possible, but the absolute best feature of Google TV is using my phone as the remote. The current remote app sucks, and it's still so much nicer of a way to control my TV. If something can be built to have really solid integration between a phone/tablet and the TV it would really make a phenomenal experience.
It's great except for 2 annoyances: (1) the d-pad just doesn't feel natural to me still, (2) the constant crashing of the app and google TV when connections don't establish correctly. That being said, I use both the iPhone and android tablet versions all the time.
Many people think GoogleTV is pointless, because they can't imagine throwing away their current TV (or blu-ray, or DVR) to buy one.
That's not the point.
The point is that it's a good feature to have, and soon enough it will be silly for you to buy a TV that can't do those same tricks.
It's like a TV remote on old TVs. You probably wouldn't throw away your old TV just because it didn't have a remote. But when you bought your next TV for whatever reason, you probably wanted the one with the remote.
From the comments, I must be the only one that thinks that adding new features to something that is already a complete mess, is just a terrible idea. Google TV is not a real consumer product. It sucks big time. I cannot even gift it to my parents because they (as well as I) dont have a cable box and most (all??) Google TVs use HDMI (reminder: my cable provider doesnt have an HDMI cable coming out of the wall).
So what am I supposed to use this junk for?
- Browsing the web? I guess that is what my cursor and the big ass keyboard on my lap is for.
- Netflix/Vudu whatever other streaming service? My PS3,Wii XBOX 360 do that already.
- Games? That crap doesnt even have decent accelerated hardware support, and did I mention that I have a PS3, Wii and XBOX 360? Any of those devices (which by the way are mostly at the same price point) can do 1000 times better.
- Apps? I like my apps in my tablet or phone. Since I usually have to read to use them and it is a horrible experience to read anything on a TV screen.
I know I am going to get downvoted like crazy, but I dont care at all about my HN score.
Face reality - Google TV is a piece of junk that does several things - and it sucks at all of them.
Just to provide a counter-anecdote... I love my Revue. We don't have cable, and all of our content comes from either Netflix, Pandora or from a media server on my network. The fact that it has a browser was actually a deciding factor in getting a Revue rather than an Apple TV box. I'm also a big fan of the keyboard-remote. It nice having unified control of every device in my media chain (Revue, TV, and sound system) in one place, and it Just Works (TM). If I don't feel like reaching for the keyboard, my Android phone is also a very capable remote.
My parents are in much the same boat, and own three Revues. I realize we're not the common use case, but Google TV meets our needs very well. Perhaps 'niche product' would be a better description than 'piece of junk.'
Please describe to me the process of joining the wireless network. Mine (and my friends) disconnects every three weeks by itself. It is so bad, it is actually a perfect use case for improving UX.
I never have an issue with it. I do have an issue with the ethernet connection (I've actually never gotten that to work), but I've never had to reconnect it to the wireless.
> I know I am going to get downvoted like crazy, but I dont care at all about my HN score.
I downvoted you because this kind of baiting is extremely annoying and is the kind of thing I would expect from reddit but not HN. It also goes against the HN guidelines:
I really like the on going developments around Google TV, Apple TV, Netflix, ... for now the world is not ready yet for such services but will be in a few years. After the mobile, the next battle will be TV.
32 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 75.9 ms ] threadThe Aljazeera and Netflix apps are already a good way to watch stuff on Android, so I'd imagine a small collection of good quality apps will make this a very attractive platform.
If Google plays their cards right, especially with some more powerful hardware in their next iterations, they could accidentally become the next big contender in the Console Wars. If nothing else the Wii proved that the casual, indy market was a completely untapped niche that exploded overnight. The machine basically printed money for Nintendo for the past few years.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
http://googletv.blogspot.com/2011/10/update-on-google-tv.htm...
As for the virtual apps, it might be best to use a complete interface inside the phone or tablet, rather than a simple "remote app". Stop replicating stuff from other paradigms. Just take advantage of the current paradigm you're working with.
My idea would be to show the complete Google TV interface inside an app on your Android phone, and control it from there. When you touch an element on the phone, it should on the TV. I think that would be even faster than using a "remote app", which means you still have to go from one app to another until you reach your target, rather than simply selecting it on the phone.
The only time we use it on our set (we have the Logitech Revue) is for Amazon VOD.
I'll upgrade to the new firmware, but....that keyboard as an HID device for a television is such a pain I can't see this ending well.
That's not the point.
The point is that it's a good feature to have, and soon enough it will be silly for you to buy a TV that can't do those same tricks.
It's like a TV remote on old TVs. You probably wouldn't throw away your old TV just because it didn't have a remote. But when you bought your next TV for whatever reason, you probably wanted the one with the remote.
So what am I supposed to use this junk for?
- Browsing the web? I guess that is what my cursor and the big ass keyboard on my lap is for.
- Netflix/Vudu whatever other streaming service? My PS3,Wii XBOX 360 do that already.
- Games? That crap doesnt even have decent accelerated hardware support, and did I mention that I have a PS3, Wii and XBOX 360? Any of those devices (which by the way are mostly at the same price point) can do 1000 times better.
- Apps? I like my apps in my tablet or phone. Since I usually have to read to use them and it is a horrible experience to read anything on a TV screen.
I know I am going to get downvoted like crazy, but I dont care at all about my HN score.
Face reality - Google TV is a piece of junk that does several things - and it sucks at all of them.
My parents are in much the same boat, and own three Revues. I realize we're not the common use case, but Google TV meets our needs very well. Perhaps 'niche product' would be a better description than 'piece of junk.'
I downvoted you because this kind of baiting is extremely annoying and is the kind of thing I would expect from reddit but not HN. It also goes against the HN guidelines:
http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> Resist complaining about being downmodded. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.
> Please don't bait other users by inviting them to downmod you.