Comments on: With Motorola, Google TV just got a huge shot in the arm

By: Harry Hawk

Harry Hawk — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 17:53:02 +0000

Gogole needs support from the Networks, but the ACE in the whole is a promise to help them keep and expand their monetization stream; they can also point out what happened to he music industry when they fought the technology and lost their business model.

Motorola makes enough STBs that Google will have impact here no matter what, and JAVA a core aspect of Android was designed to run on STB so technology is only coming around full circle.

Finally if Google can get PACE or Cisco to also adopt it’s Android/Google TV then the future is very bright indeed.

By: joe talin

joe talin — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 10:27:11 +0000

Android, because it’s open source(partially), gave carriers more control on their handsets. But google still was able to inject it’s ads into the platform.

If Google could find some similar arrangement, of open source google-tv device, with some closed, really attractive features that help the MSO’s , things like better ad matching and google+ Hangouts it might interest the carriers.

In parallel ,google could talk about selling a disruptive google-tv as the stick in this equation.

By: Clinton Mayer

Clinton Mayer — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 09:38:32 +0000

I seriously doubt this is going to bring GoogleTV back from the dead. The companies can easily jump ship to a new hardware provider, my current boxes are Cisco.

By: Ben Nash

Ben Nash — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 05:58:51 +0000

I’m very happy with my $99 Logitech Revue Google TV. After a week of solid usage, I’d love a second one in the bedroom. The platform did not fail. It’s simply the first version. I am looking forward to the Honeycomb update.

I use it as my main music source now. The Pandora app is works as expected. Turntable.fm in the living room really does rock, and plays nice in the browser.

By: marksigal

marksigal — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 05:57:00 +0000

Color me dubious. Google TV is a dual case of lack of Hollywood content (or any media catalyst) and a non-intuitive user experience, not to mention the lack of cost-competitiveness. Google is persona non grata in Hollywood specifically because they aspire to disrupt and commoditize Hollywood. The Motorola tie-in doesn’t address either of these dynamics.

Moreover, all of this gets back to the nut of the acquisition itself. Does Google really want to deeply integrate 19K old-world hardware types into their 29K person new-world software business, and take both the culture and margin hit that goes with that?

Better to remain loosely coupled, be a good listener (with Motorola’s MSO customers) and try to emulate what they learn to a broader ecosystem — than to try and integrate, thereby polluting their cultural core, and affirming their hardware ecosystem’s worst fears.

I wouldn’t confuse the tail with the dog on this one, and I am doubtful that Google will either.

By: fanfoot

fanfoot — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 03:54:34 +0000

Well, this is certainly interesting.

Will Google keep the STB division? Or spin it off as peripheral to their mobile interests?

If Google does keep it can they actually come up with a strategy to get MSOs to take Google TV the feature on some Motorola STBs? Or will it get ignored like all the other features Motorola or Cisco developed over the years that didn’t fit with the MSO’s ideas of what they wanted from a hardware partner (identical cheap hardware from multiple partners they can pit against each other, all running their software). Or will Google try something ham-fisted only to be ignored like they should expect to be?

Will they do the obvious and go retail with a Motorola/Google DVR/Google TV product? Will it sell? Given how moribund Tivo is they can certainly replace them, but that’s barely enough to keep Tivo alive, let alone Google’s ambitions.

Can Google spend the right amount of money to get what they want out of the FCC or Congress in the area of cable cards, DTAs, AllVid, etc and actually redefine what TV means in North America?

They can certainly make some nice products for the rest of the world even if they can’t, don’t forget that…

It’ll certainly be interesting to watch.

By: fanfoot

fanfoot — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 03:48:15 +0000

No that’s not quite true. They could sell a RETAIL product (bypassing the MSO’s who might toss the Google TV software on the floor, or force it to submit to restrictions by the media companies who they are slaves to) AND they could fight the good fight against restrictions. Remember when Boxee was updating their software in a running battle with Hulu TV to make sure Hulu (free) ran on Boxee? Before they gave up? Google could do that. Make it impossible to distinguish a Google TV box from a laptop running IE say (video doesn’t work? push this button and we’ll lie to them and try again). Force the media companies to either play video over IP or NOT.

By: EvilSwampRat

EvilSwampRat — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 01:17:38 +0000

my ATV, or is it aTV, appears to have been laying in development, I welcome the competition!

By: Tim F.

Tim F. — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 00:57:13 +0000

As others have mentioned, MMI’s customers are the MSO’s who hate the idea of Google or any other app/service cutting them out of the loop, not the end consumers. The GoogleTV will always be a flawed consumer device; they will never be greeted with open arms into the MSOs’s world of settop boxes. Not a help at all.

By: KenG

KenG — Mon, 15 Aug 2011 23:34:10 +0000

They didn’t need an Intel chip to run this box. That was their choice, but it made the product too expensive. They could have used a cheaper ARM or even MIPS device, as there is nothing this box has to do that can’t be done on single chip media players. Also, 2 GB of flash would be plenty, and even when this product was introduced, that wouldn’t have cost more than $5 (now a lot less).

The $99 Roku and Apple TV boxes have enough power to do what the Google TV does, and they aren’t losing money on them. Even if it was another $30, it would have been in the ballpark, since it came with a keyboard, but Logitech wasn’t even close. Making inappropriate design choices doesn’t invalidate the market, unless you are saying the product is possible without those components. I am certain it is.