GoogleTV, AppleTV and the Battle For The Living Room 226
Posted
by
CmdrTaco
from the can-someone-win-already dept.
from the can-someone-win-already dept.
An anonymous reader pointed us to an article talking about Google TV and AppleTV challenging the major networks and taking their place in your living room. It'll be a tough battle, amusingly waged on cable company wires in many major markets.
with net neutrality not going to happen (Score:4, Insightful)
they won't get far off the ground. when it takes money out of the cable company mouths (the ISPs), they will throttle down google tv and apple tv so that you will have to use their services instead and there will be nothing we can do about it because enforcing net neutrality is big government intervention - just go ask the tea party people - they are adamant against net neutrality
Re:with net neutrality not going to happen (Score:4, Insightful)
As I've mentioned before, this will give the ISPs an excuse to switch to per Gb billing.
Re: (Score:2)
Fine, as long as it says that when i signup, great. Too bad i'm not about to be renewing a contract with an ISP any time soon.
Re: (Score:2)
They'll gradually reduce the included allowance or just stop offering that package.
Its all part of their pay-twice-per-view plan.
Net neutrality (Score:4, Insightful)
And when the cable company says you can't use our lines for that... the guantlet for net neutrality will be thrown also.
(or when the cable company says, "look we have tv over the internet now too" like they did with phone service)
Re:Net neutrality (Score:5, Insightful)
(or when the cable company says, "look we have tv over the internet now too" like they did with phone service)
So? Let them, then there would be three TV over IP services vying for my money instead of just two (actually between Netflix, Amazon, and the possible multitude of Android based players there will be many more than three but you get the point). Though I suspect rather than "you can't use our lines for that" it will be a computer nerd shacked up in his workshop doing tests on each of the devices that discovers that the cable company's offering magically gets better bandwidth and latency than their competition. Though which cable companies will be stupid enough to pick a fight with the likes of Google and Apple at the same time remains to be seen (but you just know there will be at least one of them that thinks they can get away with it).
Re:Net neutrality (Score:4, Insightful)
I doubt many cable companies, when faced with a loss of TV subscribers, will turn around and alienate their ISP subscribers with limitations on their service. I'm betting they'd like to have a hand in the delivery of TV content, even if it is only as the ISP over which someone else's digital service is delivered.
As to the Net Neutrality issue, my answer to the question has been and will still be "labeling laws". Doesn't bother me one bit if my cable company wants to say "services X, Y, and Z are not allowed on our network", so long as that's clearly stated up front.
And no, I don't expect the ever-shrinking population that only has one ISP option (or doesn't know how to find the other options) to be driving industry practices WRT network management.
Re:Net neutrality (Score:5, Insightful)
I get tired about hearing about great old capitalism and choices in a market that essentially HAS NO CHOICES. I'm all for letting the market decide, but some people seem determined to fit a square peg in a round hole. It doesn't work in every single market. Stop parroting that crap and think about it for a minute. I mean seriously think. It's entirely possible that BOTH companies offering these services are simply going to dictate to you what you're allowed to do with their service and there is not a single thing you can do it. In other words, you can't vote for your wallet if there's no one there to vote for.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"I get tired about hearing about great old capitalism and choices in a market that essentially HAS NO CHOICES"
And if you were even remotely correct that there are NO CHOICES, I would agree with you.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So if two services offer the same speeds, that's evidence of collusion; but if a service offers different speeds, that excludes it from consideration because it doesn't meet your arbitrary definition of "broadband". Interesting.
Well, I'm going to address all of your comments in the context of your claim that broadband is necessary for access to government services, in spite of the fact that such a claim is nothing but an oft-repeated lie.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You can't call it fair competition when the players in the market have forced monopolies. I don't know if you're dense or just being facetious.
Re:Net neutrality (Score:4, Informative)
Oh no, cable companies would never do such a thing! [gigaom.com]
I hope you're being sarcastic.
Re: (Score:2)
People are much more willing to pay $100/mo to their cable company for TV shows than for Internet access it would seem.
If cable companies just bundled TV access with Internet and only chaged for the Internet part, they might make a boat load of cash.
Re: (Score:2)
As to the Net Neutrality issue, my answer to the question has been and will still be "labeling laws". Doesn't bother me one bit if my cable company wants to say "services X, Y, and Z are not allowed on our network", so long as that's clearly stated up front.
And no, I don't expect the ever-shrinking population that only has one ISP option (or doesn't know how to find the other options) to be driving industry practices WRT network management.
Dial-up, satellite, download capped "3G" wireless, and cable company that says "services X, Y, and Z are not allowed on our network"
What wonderful choices I have.
They haven't challenged anyone (Score:4, Interesting)
Is it just me or it's all hype and nothing to show for. Just because it has "google" and "apple" in it doesn't mean squat. They aren't relevant at all when it comes to TV.
Re:They haven't challenged anyone (Score:4, Informative)
Yet. Apple wasn't relevant in the music market, mp3 player market, tablet market, smartphone market and at one time not even relevant (anymore) in the computer market.
Re:They haven't challenged anyone (Score:4, Informative)
Apple has already failed at this "hobby" of theirs and all they've really done this time around is release a less capable device.
This is the same old AppleTV as before. The only real change is the addition of a service that is already being bundled in nearly ever other consumer video device out there (netflix). ...that and a decreased ability to play non-Apple content.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They're still not relevant to me in any of those markets.
Re:They haven't challenged anyone (Score:4, Informative)
And Google wasn't relative in the video market until it bought YouTube, since when it's been synonymous with "Internet TV". TV even has a whole show replaying YouTube clips.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't matter (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Grow a pair man....get it back!!
Youtube better (Score:4, Interesting)
This is good news for both Google and Apple. Bad news for the networks. But lets face it, when YouTube with its piano playing cats, hyperactive teenagers and snippets of prime time TV manages to outperform the major networks, the major networks have only themselves to blame!
Cats? I use Youtube for instructional videos and things like that. Reading about something, anything, and don't understand it? Somewhere there's a video that shows you how to do it. Want to know what is the real deal that Wall Street cut with the Congressmen [youtube.com]? Go to Youtube.
Because network TV just rehashes the same shit.
PBS turned into the Antiques, Beatles, Wayne Dyer, Suzy Orman, Ken Burns network.
Re: (Score:2)
HASHAHAHAHAHA... You use youtube to get political info? Yeah, enjoy your echo chamber, chump.
Lesser evil (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, who am I kidding, I want them both.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, give credit where it's due. The Apple one watches you as much as (or more than?) the Google one.
And the "locked down" bit is a red herring. Apple devices can be jailbroken, and it's really a rare person who will load something other than official firmware on his device.
I think the differentiator you're looking for is which shiny piece of crap is Jobsified. There's a degree of polish and reassuring smugness that doesn't grow anywhere else but Apple. Not to mention the value of Apple as an attracta
Re:Lesser evil (Score:4, Funny)
As for me, I will only interested in one that plays well with my other media components.
Doh! Not to mention my interest in a device that helps me avoid posting broken grammar in this intellectually rigorous forum.
UI? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:UI? (Score:4, Informative)
From the demo, Google TV requires some sort of keyboard/mouse interface. From the FAQ [google.com], it doesn't appear that it will be a standard Bluetooth one. Other the other end, Apple has a simplified remote but will allow for control through one of the iOS devices. I think where the battle will be won is how consumers will like the UI.
At the demo in Berlin they said there will be both Android and iOS apps for controlling Google TV. They even mentioned voice search integration.
Re:UI? (Score:5, Funny)
I can just see it now. I'm watching a Star Trek episode, and Picard gives the shipboard computer a prompt, such as "Computer! Find all Starfleet regulations on personnel transfers." Suddenly my television starts playing a completely different program in my video library. Hopefully not something I put in the "embarrassing" folder.
Re:UI? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not that Star Trek is embarrassing (seriously? This is slashdot), the real problem here is that Speare's just indirectly admitted to having Wil Wheaton porn. *That's* embarrassing.
Re: (Score:2)
Minima is plural.
Re: (Score:2)
And not even the good Star Trek.
Google Instant Search (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apart from the "control through the iOS devices" (which just uses the same "Remote" app you can use to control iTunes or the old version of AppleTV today), the whole "AirPlay" thing is potentially quite interesting. From what I've read, it sounds like a random buddy can come over with an iPhone that has a video loaded on it, start playing it, and transfer the output wirelessly to the TV. Yeah... I have a use for that.
Re: (Score:2)
yeah, because i want to go find my phone and drain the batteries just to flip channels. real convenient.
Shake up (Score:3, Interesting)
I pretty much basically watch public television (PBS) and Netflix. I don't have cable or satellite service.
The media is prime for a shake up. But I'm not sure anyone can deliver us from hundreds of channels of crap. I mean, if Hollywood is already out of ideas, now banking on remakes, neither Apple or Google can help much, but only serve us classic reruns with a better user experience. :/
I dont spend much time watching TV (Score:2)
as far as network television goes like american idol or any of that other brainless crap goes i would not watch it to save my soul from hell.
Re: (Score:2)
Got that right, I feel like not watching is the way to save your soul.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't spend much time watching TV either, but not because I think it's brainless crap. I just don't have enough time. Honestly, I think TV is fantastically good these days. There are some extremely well written and produced shows on TV and I really do wish I had more time to watch.
Like you, I very rarely watch live tv though. I use the DVR and Netflix for most of what I actually do watch.
BTW, I would put local news and weather in the pile I label crap. They are poorly produced, sensationalist, consultant
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is, the weather bozos go into panic mode if there's weather within 500 miles. I've seen them cancel shows for hours to talk about a tornado in some town I've never heard of, while outside my window the sun is shining and the birds are singing.
TV is so 20th century (Score:3, Informative)
I can't help wondering if they're fighting over the best deck-chair seating on the Titanic. I haven't turned my TV on in months.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So you don't watch any shows or movies at all? No DVDs? No Netflix? No ESPN3 or Hulu or abc.com?
Or do you watch it on your LCD monitor instead of a 42" HDTV in the living room on the couch?
Re: (Score:2)
Don't know about the GP, but most of my TV really IS 20th century, literally. Much of what I watch is old reruns from the last century. Most of the new stuff is crap.
Re: (Score:2)
In the last few months I've been to the theater several times (which I admit is really 20th century), but I haven't rented any DVDs lately. ESPN3... are you kidding? No Hulu or other streaming substitutes for network programming: for the past few months there has simply not been anything on that I want to watch.
Granted, I'll be firing up the TV again shortly now that the few series I'm interested in watching will have new episodes again. But I don't know of any new ones that I want to watch. The trend i
Re: (Score:2)
Yes..assuming the titanic consists of just you.
Please, 100s of millions of people watch TV in the US
Also XBox / Windows Media Center in fray (Score:2)
I used Media Center to stream to my TV for quite some time before the novelty wore off.
MCE is great because you can stream any media (some with additional addins).
My TV watching hours have gone down to zero.
Nowadays I just use XBMC whenever I need the 10-foot experience.
Re: (Score:2)
Nowadays I just use XBMC whenever I need the 10-foot experience.
That what she s---aw I just can't bring myself to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Nowadays I just use XBMC whenever I need the 10-foot experience.
XBMC on a $200 (or less) Acer Aspire, $1.69 (dealextreme) bluetooth dongle, and $20 used PS3 remote... Keep it running Windows so you can launch a web browser for stuff like Netflix, run CoreAVC if you want any PVR functions (CUDA acceleration of H.263 FTW) and whether you're on Windows or Linux you get video decode acceleration, HDMI output, lots of USB inputs, GigE... why would someone buy a purpose-built unit again?
mythtv... (Score:5, Interesting)
Wife Acceptance Factor is pretty high.. In fact, she hates LiveTV now... My son has grown up not really knowing what a commercial is.. When we visited the inlaws this summer, he was watching TV with his grandfather... A commercial came on and he was looking for the skip button.. Our livingroom at home sports a moderately sized LCD with an Acer Revo bolted to the back on the VESA mount. No cables are visible and the remote is a wireless keyboard. No stereo cabinet...
If I could get all of the shows I watch in reasonable quality (720p) automatically sent to a local storage device where I can play them back any time, and as many times as I want, I'd happily pay $70-$80/month (plus price of internet connectivity) for the privilege... I'm dubious that this is going to happen however. It'll probably be substantially more expensive, limit the number of times I can view a show, and if my hardware ever fails, I will have to repurchase all of my content.
If only they'd focus on giving consumers what they want; they'd make a ton more money.
Re: (Score:2)
And that (what you just described) is the competition. Everyone ought to be fighting over your $70-$80 per month instead of saying, "We don't want your filthy money." If Google and Apple are gunning for "the big TV Networks" then that's pretty sad, because it means their products are already obsolete even before they've come out.
Re:mythtv... (Score:4, Insightful)
If only they'd focus on giving consumers what they want; they'd make a ton more money.
They'd have a ton more happy and satisfied (loyal) customers but I don't know if they'd make more money. I'm sure they've done the math and figured out that nickle and diming us at every turn results in more dollars in their pockets, despite annoying the crap out of us on a regular basis and, since happy customers aren't their goal, they've followed the money.
It would be nice if a content provider was able to build a viable business model based around happy customers but, thus far, it seems to be the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow - a nice dream but never gonna happen.
Re: (Score:2)
The networks have finally caught up with demand and get some revenue from me through Hulu and Netflix and iTunes. My issue with iTunes, AppleTV, or GoogleTV for that matter, is
Re: (Score:3)
I'm nearly there with you, but my experience has been somewhat different.
I rolled out my own MythTV backend (First as a VM on my workstation then promoted to an MSI Wind (Atom 330, 2GB RAM, 500GB disk)) connected to a HDHomerun which is connected to a large OTA antenna mounted in my attic. Picture quality has been really good on channels that have decent video sizes and bit rates, and most of the TV transmitters are located on one mountain top, so I don't have to move the antenna to pick up different channe
blogspot? (Score:4, Insightful)
An article on a unknown blogspot, telling us what we already know, that Apple and Google are battling for the living room and that Youtube is popular. Shouldn't this be in Idle?
Re: (Score:2)
How did this get to
AppleTV? I'll pass. (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple will seriously have to convince people that their service is worth it considering how locked down, even for apple, the appleTV is. No web streaming (aside from youtube) means no hulu, no network websites, no thedailyshow.com. As a cable replacement it just might be viable on a per-show basis once more networks sign up, but as of now it's a $99 box that apple's selling to let them sell you stuff you most likely can get legitimately on the web for free.
If it wasn't so damned restricted I might give it a look, but it would take some heavy convincing. And this is coming from a Mac user of almost 2 decades now.
Re: (Score:2)
TW is Already Gone (Score:3, Interesting)
Apple is out to hunt bigger game than cable (Score:5, Insightful)
Which leads to the question .. so what role do the networks play in the grand scheme of things ... NBC / ABC / CBS / FOX are not all developing their own content, they buy that content from a show producer. If Apple develops enough mindshare and living rooms, you don't need NBC to order the episodes of a new show, Apple can buy it directly from the show's producers.
This could be a great play to cut out all the middlemen, not just the cable company or the satellite monthly fee, but the entire tv network system as well ... it's possibly the biggest change in the business of TV in 50 years, and frankly none of the TV networks seem to notice yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Vetting shows, and letting me find similar content that i may like. Say a "things that go boom" network. I would expect action movies/shows/etc there, but no "little house on the prairie". Ensuring a certian level of technical polish, no skipping/poping audio for example. clean camera work as a second example.
Re: (Score:2)
This could be a great play to cut out all the middlemen...
I think you mean... "replace the middle man" I doubt it but maybe we'll get lucky and be able to buy the content from the producers ourselves. It is already happening with music to some degree.
Re: (Score:2)
it's a lot more expensive to produce a TV show or movie than a song. and until itunes and digital revenues catch up to advertising and cable revenues don't bet on apple
lady gaga and kings of leon still signed with the big labels
Hulu (Score:2)
it's possibly the biggest change in the business of TV in 50 years, and frankly none of the TV networks seem to notice yet.
Uh, I'm pretty sure that NBC noticed. Hulu.
As Usual, I Don't Get It (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Because there are multiple ways via Internet to get all the content you want WITHOUT needing cable. ESPN3, Hulu, Netflix ondemand, even abc.com stream their shows.
Wouldn't it be cool if you could just aggregate all those services into a single interface, plug it into your 38" HDTV in the living room, and be able to drop your cable or satellite TV? And wouldn't it be cool if you had a Google search interface on top of all that content to find what you want?
And wouldn't it be cool if you could just do this
Re: (Score:2)
As for dropping cable in this Brave New World, ha! And again I say "ha!". I'm married. It'll never happen.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not a reasonable price. Most TV is single consumption. Charging the same as something that is used over and over again is a laugh.
Mac Mini (Score:2)
What about live sports? events? (Score:2)
What about live sports? events?
ESPN 3 does not have all sports and there are ISP limits as well.
If they battle for the living room (Score:3, Interesting)
they will loose.
Look, the living room is a conduit for sales, not a sale in and of itself. all these companies would do far better to cooperate and have a good standard that lets the consumer decided on how it uses the media. Then each individual company can try to capitalize on that. No company is going to win over enough people that will want to hand over all media channel to them.
Re: (Score:2)
Get off the computer mom.
Re: (Score:2)
I used to feel like that, but I started watching youtube a lot a few months ago for random tutorials and Parkour videos. For certain things, quality really doesn't matter.
For music, TV shows and movies, hell yes I want decent quality - though I'm generally happy with DVD quality for TV series, and only bust out the blu-rays for big action movies.
Re: (Score:2)
And how much are you willing to pay for that bandwidth? Unlimited, of course...
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Seriously, WHAT is your problem? For every Slashdot article, there's always some nitpicking asshat who makes a comment like this. NOTHING will make you happy. When Apple released a Macbook Pro : "Until Apple decides to offer a DA-15 game port, I'm not interested". Google introduces gmail: "Until Google decides to offer regular expressions in the text box, I'm not interested"
Give me a break, the whole point of the article has nothing to do with 1080p and 5.1 surround. It's about major players changin
Internet service bundled with cable TV (Score:2)
I don't have cable because I'm a pirating bastard who hates commercials.
Where I live, subscribers to Xfinity Internet by Comcast get limited basic cable TV (locals and public access) at pretty much no extra charge. So how do people where you live get Internet without cable TV?
Re: (Score:2)
I subscribe to cable modem service, but my provider puts a filter on the line that prevents basic cable reception. So, there ya go!
Re: (Score:2)
I subscribe to cable modem service, but my provider puts a filter on the line that prevents basic cable reception.
How much do you pay for your cable modem service? More importantly, how much more would you be paying if you also subscribed to limited basic cable TV service?
Re:Internet service bundled with cable TV (Score:4, Interesting)
I also only pay for cable internet access but not TV. I think it'd only be like, $20 a month more to get basic cable TV, but I'm not $20 worth of interested in television and won't pay for it.
Bundle discount (Score:2)
I also only pay for cable internet access but not TV. I think it'd only be like, $20 a month more to get basic cable TV
Where I live, it's $60 a month for cable Internet and $20 a month for limited basic cable TV, but there's a $17 per month discount for having both.
Included STB leases (Score:2)
Don't forget to include the cost of the mandatory leased cable box, if applicable.
Comcast has big and little cable boxes. The big ones can get video on demand; the little ones (Digital Transport Adapters) can't. The monthly price for cable TV service includes the lease for one big and two little cable boxes.
Re: (Score:2)
I've never seen a mandatory cable box. You can still get analog cable through your coax. The cable box is generally only for upper tier / pay channels, digital cable, and dvr service.
Re:Bundle discount (Score:4, Informative)
The assholes at Comcast are using their digital switch* as an excuse to force cable boxes on their customers. Sure, they could just send unencrypted QAM like all digital TVs are designed to receive, but why do that when the FCC and FTC are too spineless to stop them from encrypting everything and charging $5 per TV for boxes?
*Note: Comcast's switch to digital is not the same as the broadcast TV switch and is not mandated by the government, even though Comcast representatives will consistently and blatantly lie by telling you that it is.
Re: (Score:2)
I pay $45 a month for my cable modem Internet service. I believe the cheapest cable package offered is $20 a month, which basically gives you OTA channels and a few foreign language channels. After that, for any package with real "cable channels," the price jumps fairly dramatically. I believe the cheapest bundled service is $79.99 or $89.99, and that includes no cable box. The only HD content you receive at that price point are the OTA channels.
Needless to say, I pay for the Internet and and watch all
Re: (Score:2)
You probably also think the only safe drinking water comes from a bottle, too, right?
Re: (Score:2)
So how do people where you live get Internet without cable TV?
You probably also think the only safe drinking water comes from a bottle, too, right?
That analogy would be easier to understand if there were an ISP counterpart to tap water. Are you thinking of dial-up?
Re: (Score:2)
Naked DSL [wikipedia.org] (or dry loop DSL): no phone, just DSL. Cheap, fast, easy. Verizon has plans from $20 to $40 per month.
Naked DSL (Score:2)
Verizon has [DSL] plans from $20 to $40 per month.
Verizon's list of home Internet plans [verizon.com] states that the $20/mo plan includes a $10/mo discount available only to Verizon POTS subscribers, which makes it less attractive to people who use VOIP or a postpaid cell phone. But the faster plans are price-competitive with cable, at least when purchased on a 2-year contract. Thank you for the suggestion.
Re: (Score:2)
I switched from Comcast ($67/month for just internet) to Clear ($70/month for one home router and one mobile router). I get all my content over Netflix and Hulu (plus a little bit of PlayOn for Mr. Stewart and Mr. Colbert.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Still can't beat a console. (Score:5, Interesting)
The fly in Apple's pie is that they can't get all the content brought together in a cohesive manner which allows the phobe to just watch what they want. Apple's walled garden is to blame. Apple would have to sign with everyone, and that's just not possible. As it stands it has two. ABC includes Disney, but two isn't enough to make a success.
Google on the other hand can partner with anyone without forcing them behind a walled garden. Google is about open access to all web video. Apple is about closed walled garden content that they can sell. In the long run Google wins. Google's TV and Apple TV are correlate directly to the Android's open nature vs. Apple's iOS which is closed and will never be opened.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem for Apple doesn't have anything to do with their "walled garder." That's an issue for users, not content producers.
I do agree that Apple (and Google) won't get good content deals. The movie/TV industries have realized how badly the music industry got raped by iTMS. Digital downloads are way up, but they just aren't making very much money. Why on earth would movie/TV industries want any piece of that pie. Decreasing prices is certainly good from a consumer POV, but from a producer's view it's bad
Re: (Score:2)
A DOLLAR for a TV show? that's what Apple wants! If you ask me (and you won't) that's just stupid.
Or you can use this (Score:2)