Having just found the streaming netflix via blueray experience to be quite pleasant, I’m curious what the early reviews/feeling on google tv will be. I know Mistermix has some issues regarding net neutrality, but was wonder what you all thought…
Google TV
by John Cole| 36 Comments
This post is in: Open Threads
BenA
Sounds like what’s already built into my Panasonic, with maybe a little bit more “interactivity.” *shrug*
Do I really need another venue for me to see GoogleAds?
cleek
sounds really cool, frankly.
i wonder how Time Warner will manage to fuck it up for me…
Nom de Plume
Frankly, there isn’t a whole lot of difference between TV and the internet already anyway. They’ve been closing toward each other for some time, and this was simply the next logical step. Within a couple of years they will be indistinguishable.
mistermix
It’s another set top box, similar to the function of your blueray player, but probably more flexible, like Apple TV, Boxee or Roku. It’s a simple way to connect the Internet to your TV.
The difference between Google TV and the others is that the software is open-source and based on Android, so TV makers can just embed it in their TVs, and software developers will be encouraged to create apps that run on it.
Since these devices are pretty basic, there’s going to be a race to the bottom for cost, and there will probably be $50 boxes available soon that you can plug into your TV to run Google OS and stream content from the Internet over your wireless connection.
And, yeah, if Time-Warner or Comcast has their way, these boxes will be sipping the Internet through a cocktail straw.
TooManyJens
What, no Hulu?
This whole separation where you can only watch some content on your computer but can’t get it to your TV (at least, without getting creative) is such bullshit.
Of course, the whole ad-supported model of TV means that the TV industry has been working against viewers, not with us, for decades. The music industry was finally able to get to a place where it could respond to what its customers wanted, but that’s because both the industry and the customers want essentially the same thing — for people to be able to buy and listen to music. TV viewers aren’t consumers, we’re product, so I don’t hold out a lot of hope that this will get resolved anytime soon. In the meantime, I’ll just keep watching TV shows on DVD and streaming Hulu to my TV via PlayOn and streaming Netflix via the PS3 and various other kludges. It’s inconvenient, but it beats paying $60/month for cable.
jimBOB
In our house about 95% of the value of Netflix is from the streaming option. We have one TV streaming through a Wii and another through a Roku, and while there are some glitches (occasional rebuffering, times when I have to reboot my router), it works amazingly well most of the time. If this is the future of TV, I like it; massive selection of stuff to watch with no commercials and very little hassle.
General Stuck
Since I have taken John Prine’s advice, finally, and blew up the teevee. Well, not really, but it currently has all but a toob or two in the grave, and the others slipping, an old crt analog with no digi converter.
No plans to buy another and will be all broadband only. Have wanted to do this forever, and now that the internets have blossomed into many streaming opportunities, the time has come. Even just a few minutes ago, dragged my disintegrating teevee watching recliner out into the parking lot for the dumpster later. I think a couple of mice were living in it, but they should find new homes okay. If the cats don’t catch em first.
jimBOB
Hulu’s contract with its content providers was that the free version would only work with computers, to avoid cannibalizing their TV audience. You can get Hulu to stream to your TV as well if you want to pay $10/month. Frankly I think that’s fair; TV shows don’t shoot themselves, and the ads on Hulu are pretty much of a joke at this point.
Cat
This TV on the internet reminds me of Pets.com.
We are getting a free lunch right now, its going to start costing money soon and *if* it surpasses regular TV as the delivery method you’ll see a race to the bottom in content.
Dave
If GoogleTV will stream through my Blu-ray player like Netflix, I’m onboard.
Martin
The sense I get is that Google is just aggregating a bunch of existing services, not really adding anything new. I’ve been asking around and that seems to be the consensus.
The winning service is still out there – fully on-demand streaming service right from the networks to the consumer, bypassing the cable provider. Might still be ad-supported, but *everyone* despises the cable providers. Cutting them out isn’t even part of the debate. It’s simply down to preserving revenues and control. Very soon, I think.
Both Google and Apple could do this, but I don’t think the networks trust either one to be the middleman here. Netflix might be the one to get the technology and politics right. TiVo could, but they’re near-death. None of the others are big enough to pull the pieces together, and the networks won’t work together because they’re fucking idiots.
Nylund
I am a very poor grad student who barely has enough for food, much less a TV, blue-ray player, or Netflix. I have no idea what any of you are talking about. I feel like the future has happened and I missed it.
It all sounds very neat though. I wish I could do it too.
Persia
@Nylund: Don’t worry. When I was an undergrad I couldn’t afford cable or internet access. Someday you may well be a monied asshole like us.
General Stuck
@Nylund: You reminded me of that life, lived on Velveeta, canned peas (delicacy) and protein rich cold beer.
Walker
My TV is the thing my X-Box hooks up to. I rarely ever watch broadcast/cable anymore.
Martin
@Cat: Yeah, that’s precisely it. What we have now is testing the waters. It won’t stick.
My expectation is a streaming/download service that gives consumers a choice:
Either stream ad-supported content on-demand, but with ads targeted by device/location/user profile – smarter than cable.
Or download ad-free for a fee. $1.99 or thereabouts for recent shows. $.99 for the back catalogue.
The back catalogues are the goldmine for the networks. They make money selling into syndication, but not much, and they’re massively limited by TV bandwidth (one show per channel at a time). Whoever lets you watch Buffy or Twin Peaks or the 1984 Superbowl from end-to-end fully on demand, with full ad revenue is going to do well for all parties.
I can’t help wondering if this is what Apple’s new data center is planned for. They just launched the hardware to do this, they have the ad network set up, the storefront – all the pieces are there. They just need the contracts.
Martin
@Nylund: You’re not missing much. My TV arrangement is almost exclusively set up for the wife and kids. I hardly watch it.
TooManyJens
@Martin:
I think Comcast and Time Warner and their money might have something to say about the terms of that debate.
Re: Apple: I think they’ll get into streaming in a big way, but the content providers won’t let them offer downloads without DRM-encumbering them to hell and back.
Martin
@TooManyJens: Why? They don’t control the content nor the access to the consumers. The networks can bypass them entirely, as they already have with Hulu, etc.
The only influence they have now is their ability to deliver ad revenue, and their ability to block content access by being the ISP. That’s the front line in net neutrality right now – not political speech. If Comcast gets pissed about Hulu+, they have the power to firewall it from their customers.
TooManyJens
@Martin: That’s just it: they do control access to consumers, because they are also ISPs.
Cat
@Martin:
We watch around 10 shows a week, plus local news and weather and during the first month of the new seasons we watch even more to find new shows.
A pay per view regime would turn me into a Content Revolutionary.
80 bucks plus, another 20 for the local channels, and then $50 for internet seems pretty expensive to me.
Martin
@TooManyJens: They have limited control. Many consumers have non-cable ISPs. They might have DSL or FIOS through their phone company or go to a 3rd party.
More consumers will get connected through WiMax and 4G services over time as well. I’m assuming that if the cable providers start clamping down on online services in this way, which will be very obvious given that there are alternatives, that the FCC will jump all over it.
Dave
@Martin:
Exactly. Who has more stroke: TimeWarner/Comcast or the networks/Apple/movie studios. Of course, what is interesting is that both TimeWarner and Comcast are essentially playing both sides of the line. Comcast has their controlling interest in NBC/Universal. TimeWarner has Warner Bros, HBO, and other media properties.
Ideally, we’d get through streaming what some people (like myself) have wanted from cable – a la carte selection.
Martin
@Cat: The 2 bits that are not yet out there in any meaningful way yet are broad services to provide live streaming – sports, etc. ESPN3 does this, as do some others, but it’s not yet structured in the same way as the other on-demand TV services. And also local TV. Cutting off the cable will nuke both of these. This is part of the cable companies trying to move ESPN up a tier.
Neither of these is insurmountable. Apple (and others) now have infrastructure in place to do live streaming on a large scale – they mostly lack content and a way to monetize it. Apple is doing it with Facetime on the iPhone, as an example. The local stuff (news, primarily) is harder because it requires that whoever is aiming for this market provide an easy way for local providers to send content to an aggregator, and for that content to be managed. Dealing with a few dozen networks is one thing – once you get NBC, you’ll get MSNBC, CNBC, Bravo, etc without much trouble. Dealing with many hundreds of affiliates is a whole other ballgame, however.
I don’t expect that most people will be able to just cut their cable and retain all their service, but they could probably get pretty close. I only watch local news when there’s a disaster – fire, earthquake, etc. That stuff is increasingly accessible by web, however.
There’s a shitload of money tied up in live sports, though. That’s going to be the real battleground, I expect.
Martin
@Dave: I think everyone knows that firewalling internet services directly tied to the cable companies TV revenues is something of a ‘nuclear’ option. I can’t imagine the entire world wouldn’t come crashing down on them if they tried it.
Technically, sure they can, but it’d be suicide, IMO.
Cain
My recommendation is boxee. It is by far the best if you have a mac (or a pc). You can watch hulu through the tv as well, and tv shows are all presented in a single screen regardless of which source it is. If you have an apple remote it works just like any kind of settop box.
You can also use your iphone/android phone as an ip remote as well.
You can find out about boxee here here
cain
Cain
Most young people watch tv on their computers, so only us old folks and sports nuts watch on the big tv. :)
BTW anybody check out those 3D tvs? Awful. Who the fuck would buy one? I also hear that it messes up your inner ear after watching it and can cause driving problems. When the last 3D rage came out there was some study about that, that’s why we haven’t seen more.
Mabye they are taking advantage of it now that all the govt institutions are all weak?
cain
Shinobi
@Cain: I do NOT get the 3D thing.
To me it is just such an obvious attempt by electronics makers to sell more hardware to consumers after the whole HD push. I am appalled that people are falling for it.
Irony Abounds
Google TV is fine if my current blu-ray player’s firmware can be updated to play it, but if I have to buy a new blu-ray player, forget it. The increasingly rapid obsolescence of products is partly to blame for lack of demand. Who wants to buy anything that will be out of date in a year. Cell phones have the same problem. Every three months there is something new and supposedly better. Frustrating as hell.
singfoom
So maybe I’m crazy, but I’ve been cable TV free for over a year now.
It’s a combination of PS3 and PS3Mediaserver/ Netflix over the PS3 and an app called PlayOn over the PS3 to stream the cable I care about and don’t want to bother torrenting and streaming through mediaserver and a Tivo capturing over the air HD. A little complicated, but I prefer my TV setup to be too difficult to use for anyone but me and the wife..
I don’t think GoogleTV will change anything drastically. We’re approaching the point when internet and TV combine into one basically, and my dream of alacarte cable will come true in a functional sense.
cathaireverywhere
What do you guys do about sporting events?
thom
if google tv is anything to do with disk network itd crap
the idea of tv via the net great see netflix but disk network upgrade a joke like two room dvr ho ho ho
i have cable ( crappy charter not my fault) so i have internet phone and tv but think get internet only have skype for phone and an internet tv great if the internet connection is great total tv internet film search posible even instant tv on the net no dvr needed or no limit to whats on your virtual dvr with connections to info about program and talks to fellow viewers maybe multy skipe at the bottom of screen of your friends while you whatch horror or sport
thom
BuffaloWing
This weekend I watched a ton of college and pro football on http://www.channelsurfing.net
It was not HD quality and I had to install some software to make it work but it had free live broadcasts of dozens of games and multiple channels of the big games like Oregon vs. Stanford, Texas vs. Oklahoma and Alabama vs. Florida. It had less popular games like TCU vs. Colorado State.
I was seriously considering buying a Roku but now I might hold out for a GoogleTV if it includes a browser that will let me use this channel surfing web page. I wonder if it will allow you to install those viewer programs? Sports is one of the things I watch most so I might be better off with a computer and a TV card than any of these set-top boxes.
baxie
I think “fuck Google”.
Those assholes already have enough tentacles in the pie.
I’m sticking with my Roku, which isn’t a big enough company to wreck much of anything.
Ben
@jimBOB:
You could pay 10 a month or you could use an HDMI port connected to your laptop to do the same thing. Its klunky but free.
Ben
@BuffaloWing:
I was going to say the same thing but didn’t want to look like a plugger. HDMI to the laptop and local blackouts no longer apply. Unfortunately the quality isn’t quite there yet and the ravens / browns game froze on me.
Another site acutally was streaming redzone for free so I at least got to see the touchdowns.