For the past couple of years now, when talking about the Apple TV product, Apple likes to throw out the word “hobby.” It’s as if they’re ashamed of the device. And considering sales are anemic next to Macs, iPods, and iPhones, it’s no big surprise that they talk this way.
But there’s actually nothing to be ashamed of. The Apple TV is a good product. Apple just needs to put some proper time and energy into it, to expand it to its full potential. And news today about the so-called “Google TV” should do just the trick.
Apple and Google are on the verge of war. The formerly close allies are increasingly competing in key spaces for both, and the living room is likely to be a new battleground because it’s still very much up in air. As the New York Times reported yesterday, Google is working with partners including Intel, Sony, and Logitech to bring a Google TV experience into the living room. This is, of course, where the Apple TV resides. And Apple would be foolish to simply cede any ground it does have to its new favorite rival just because it’s focused on other things (*cough* iPad *cough*).
That’s a Microsoft move.
As Nick Bilton points out, this Google TV would be based around the Android platform. This means that the key idea is likely to have third-party developers work on it to make applications built for a television set. That’s easier said than done, but Android’s open nature should yield some interesting results rather quickly.
Apple, meanwhile, is of course anything but open with regard to their devices. In fact, the Apple TV is entirely closed right now, as only Apple is able to modify its software (without hacking it, of course). I suspect that will change, following this revelation.
The idea of running iPhone-style applications on the Apple TV has long been a sexy one. Hell, people have even ported apps over to a TV screen to show how well it could work. The main problem with developing iPhone apps for the Apple TV seems to be resolution. With the iPhone (and iPod touch), Apple offers only one screen size/resolution, ensuring developers have an easy time making great-looking apps — while at the same time, making sure end users have a great experience.
But the iPad has already changed everything. With their new device, Apple has kept things as simple as possible by making iPhone apps scale up two times to work on the bigger display, but it’s still shows a willingness to move beyond the one screen size. Unfortunately, with the Apple TV, it can be attached to a screen that could be a huge variety of sizes, so it would be hard to control that.
Google doesn’t care about that because Android already runs on dozens of phones with different screen sizes. But Apple clearly cares about how apps look on its devices (so much so that the iPad itself was likely designed at a strange ratio simply to make scaling apps look as good as possible). So does that mean they start offering an actual Apple TV (as in a screen)? Rumors of that have been around for a long time. Or maybe they black-box apps to a certain resolution — similar to what they’re doing on the iPad when an app isn’t scaled up?
Who knows. But what I do know is that upon hearing this Google TV news, the Apple TV became a little less of a “hobby” yesterday.
Aside from calling it a hobby, Steve Jobs has referred to the Apple TV as being a potential “fourth leg” of a chair Apple is building. Leg one is the Mac, leg two is the iPod, leg three is the iPhone, and Jobs had hoped the Apple TV would complete the chair one day. But it seems clear now that he thinks the iPad could be the fourth leg instead.
Screw that. I think it’s time for Apple to build a whole dining room set of furniture. We, as consumers, need a living room arms race between Apple and Google (and Microsoft, TiVo, Roku, Boxee, and the rest) to kick the cable companies’ shitty television user experience to the curb.
As a mass market proposition it failed. That’s all there is to it really.
By all accounts, AppleTV has sold at least as many units as KIndle, for example, although no one really knows, since neither Apple or Amazon have ‘fessed up on the exact numbers.
However, AppleTV isn’t a high risk/high maintenance product. Apple is simply leveraging a simplified version of OS X, iTunes and the iTunes Store all of which are being developed for other purposes, AppleTV or no. And of course the hardware is all off the shelf stuff. Apple almost certainly isn’t losing money on the AppleTV like Sony and MS did for years on the PS3 and X-box 360.
That said, it seems like there many simple thing Apple could do to goose up the AppleTV. Just look at all the TVs coming out now with internet options, i.e. Netflix, Pandora. Just make AppleTV with 1080p resolution part of the iPhone SDK and use the iPhone/iPod touch as the remote, for example. Basic internet surfing and email on a 1080p HDTV would be fine.
Hi,
There was a decade-long gap between the Newton being abandoned publicly and the iPhone launching.
Apple/Jobs invest until they are happy, knowing the advantages of both proprietary models and open-source, whereas Google is almost wholly about getting others to do the things for them.
As the console companies previously did, only those with their own platforms will have the power to contract better access; ironically, Googles aggressive encroachment on others areas of business, will lead to faster application of the loss of net-neutrality.
It was apple that was able to instigate the revenue-share and inclusive unlimited mobile data with the network-providers, not any others, using the old “open” model.
Also, for those who constantly complain of the cable companies and the impatience for the likes of Google, Microsoft, etc., there’s something I don’t understand: you do realise that you’ll simply be transferring one supplier/gatekeeper, with another, right?
- And then, who’ll be getting you the physical pipe into your house?
Kind regards,
Shakir Razak
This can be great, if Goog can dissemeniate the Apple TV’s mistakes and put all the ‘good stuffs’ on their new TV.
On the other hand, I could use some fast and good youtube syncing with this google tv!
Reactions: http://bit.ly/google-tv-reactions-impressions
Interesting. I wonder how well it will work if they contine the model of only using Open Source codecs for video? I don’t believe anof them support DRM, and I am sure the content providers would prefer a DRM based codec any day. For various apps and widgets it seems fine, but I am skeptical of a Hulu or Netflix app appearing.
I guess the next obvious question now will be, “what’s the price?” Opinions: http://bit.ly/google-tv-reactions-impressions
+1
Dear MG,
On what friggin’ planet is Apple TV a “good product”? Both the PS3 and XBox360 are cheaper and do far more.
On Planet MG orbiting Apple Prime. There are also a couple of small moons, Twitter and Foursquare.
That’s the Ziegler universe.
it’s the content that’s the issue, not the product itself. for streaming itunes content to my tv, it’s great, super simple.
I don’t think Apple has anything to worry about. If there’s one thing Google has proven time and time again is that don’t follow through. They’re good in launching products, but if they don’t catch on the day after launch, they move on to their next big idea.
Somehow the whole living room thing seems like something that requires marketing and a lot of follow through…
oh ~~~~ testing!!
If they can have this on tivo premiere series tv’s, then that will be the coolest! Details: http://is.gd/a60kU
For what it’s worth, Google owns youtube, if they can manage to stream it directly with their new TV, I must say it’ll be the sweetest thing.
Apple TV runs youTube just great, it’s sweet.
Plus it holds all my home movies and photos, they look great on a 46 inch Sony!
Downloads movies and TV shows so well I got rid of Netflix.
Apple has a lot to worry about. The Apple TV is crippled because Apple wants revenues based on relationships with content providers. Google does not care about this and will provide a device that consumers want.
The biggest single failure of the Apple TV is it depends on Itunes and won’t play one of the most popular video formats Divix AVI’s.
My $99 Western Digital TV box is more functional than the Apple TV. Apple TV is another example of how the obsession with profits can kill a product.
My Apple TV plays avi files-it took about five minutes and a patchstick.
Ah, the ever popular “you’re wrong, my device CAN do that because I hacked it to do so” — a point that is always irrelevent when discussing the mass market success of said device.
Instead of mass market success we consider devices based on what we can do with them? Specifically you can run EyeTV (the best DVR available), hulu, boxxee, play avi files and so forth. My mom couldn’t nor would it be a factor in the mass market but roughly speaking I don’t care. I care what I can do with a device. That determines its value to me.
Wait, I thought daddy Jobs created perfect devices that needed no tweeking (nevermind hacking! the horror!) from the dumb-hipster consumer?
Ins’t that the whole excuse for the “premium” pricing of Apple products?
Indeed…just like the iPod and the iPhone!
Just use Handbrake to convert Divx files to h.264. It’s free and if you are geeky enough to be downloading Divx files it won’t be a problem.
Too lazy. Converting takes a very long time, even on a fast machine.
That’s why I got the WD TV. Also the AppleTV is only 720p, WD TV can do 1080p. WD TV is cheaper too.
Why Apple, inventors of QuickTime, can’t have proper codec support is one of those things I simply don’t get. QuickTime player won’t play any files downloaded from the internet, at least not without Perian.
a favorite of mine, for sure.
movie and TV studios and publishing won’t make the same mistake that the music labels made.
music labels thought the ‘Apple experiment’ was going to be isolated and instead ended up with another head on the beast that they couldn’t control.
publishers already figured out they can play distribution channel off against each other, and that’s how they figure to retain leverage. They’d rather die behind the paywall. You bet the studios will do the same.
you can expect content providers to twist the screw hard in the next few years.
Screw the publishers. Make a device with open standards that will play any video file like people want.
The publishers are the reason why the Apple TV is a failure. If the music companies were allowed to throw their weight around like this with the original iPod we would never have the iPhone.
How is the profits of a corporation more important than the evolution of technology for everyone?
the profit part may not be important to you, but it sure the heck matters to them.
what do you think this is? a communist country?
sadly, probably true. today brings more news of studios dragging their feet.
oh ~~~~~~ testing!
Since when does the iPhone have a good screen res ? Are you kidding ?
163 ppi. Many would consider that resolution quite good. My own experience with it (iPod touch 3G) is quite favorable.
One question. what does google think it is? Let’s see how this pans out.
“what does google think it is”
Haha, good one.
Google thinks it’s a media company, and their platform is Android. The more developers use it, the more content they can index. Ultimately, their goal is to have access to ALL web/mobile content and maintain there lead in search.
Google should just acquire Boxee.tv.
I don’t think Boxee has anything that Google wants.
“apple tv is a good product” lmao
“The idea of running iPhone-style applications on the Apple TV has long been a sexy one”
yea, fart apps and up-scaled crap designed for a phone resolution sounds sexy from your tv.
If you’re going to make a hackneyed and boring attempt at trolling, at least try to do it with a bit more originality than with the tired “fart app” line.
Your name doesn’t help either. There are examples of subtle and talented trolls all over the internet; perhaps you should sit back, watch and learn a little. Or alternatively just stop behaving like a petulant 12 year old and wasting everybody’s time.
Strangely, your comment is the only one here that has added nothing of value to this conversation. Your post has nothing to do with the topic that everyone else is discussing. Criticizing others in an immature manner makes YOU out to be the petulant 12 year old. As for the iPhone having a great screen resolution for apps, I would strongly disagree. My iPhone 3g was terrible. I would never consider an iPhone again….unless they can outdo my Nexus One AND adopt open source.
So “lmao” and an out of date comment about fart apps adds value to this conversation? Does it really?
This is value I can live without.
Care to elaborate on why your 3G was so terrible?
The fact that you even mention open source reveals that you are nowhere near a typical customer. TechCrunch nerds and tech writers don’t drive mass market technology trends nearly as much as they think they do. The average customer could care less about open source… even less about high priced unlocked phones that you can only buy online. This is why the Nexus One has been a sales failure. google needs to grow a substantial marketing arm if they want to take on markets directly…. or they could continue using the shotgun approach and let their partners do the marketing/battling.
I guess its not just tech nerds that torrent videos, judging by the traffic online. and xbox360 supports Xvid, streaming, renting and games. and its cheap.
Mass appeal, is not where the apple tv is.
Oh, be real. The iPhone design is so boring that the Fart apps are the only thing that keep you awake. Its how many years old? And don’t tell me its timeless (BORING!)
stillerwinter… What a dork you are.but I’m sure everyone around you already knows that.
If Google, in fact, open sources the platform, Apple stands no chance. Just look at how fast the Android is catching up to the Apple platform in the smartphone arena, where Apple has been a leader.
Apple the leader? Ever heard of the blackberry? it has double the marketshare of the iphone. Ever heard of Windows Mobile? it has TRIPLE the marketshare of Android. Android isnt even close to catching anyone.
Why the hate, Microsoft? You sound so angry.
Nokia actually has the double the market share worldwide, blackberry has a smaller share and iphone android is catching up to blackberry. Blackberry's share is dropping. Iphone and Android have already surpassed Windows Mobile.
Resolution Independance.. XAML.. Microsoft.. Thats where its at.
I heard Apple have been working on that for years. They need to release what they’ve got in order to unify all their platforms.
First time MS has been ahead of the game in a long time…
As much as I hate programming in XAML, I kinda have to agree. XAML and Flex are by far the best technologies to deal with fluid layouts. WPF is getting more mature with every year and would outperform flash in terms of speed.
Actually, both Mac OS and iPhone apps are easily built resolution independently. As a developer you can use all the ‘default’ controls and make them ‘stretch’.
It’s mostly games and other bitmap intensive apps that cause problems. This is no different with any other platform (XAML and Flex are not platforms to create games with ;-))
I work with XAML almost daily, it Blend gives you a real hard time staying truly resolution independent! Flex on the other hand has a lot more mature IDE.
Google TV already exists, doesn’t it? Youtube? Don’t tell me you guys still watch network tv? Pfft.
.
.
.
as predicted 8 months ago… http://bit.ly/jpwr8
.
.
.
You should use more colour in that blog. People like that.
This seems that Google is going to explore each and every aspect where this Internet giant can put up Ads and earn revenue. http://www.technoden.com/?p=627
Screw cable. Come on Google, let’s see what you got.
I guess everyone has forgotten Windows Media Center. The Windows 7 version blows the socks off anything commercially available with all the features and abilities.
You can use a small form factor PC like http://us.shuttle.com/X100.aspx.
Tivo features, Netflix, Internet TV, Music, Push technology, and some nice plugins, too.
MS has not marketed it well. But, there really is nothing like it.
so true. where’s the love for windows media center. it does way more than stevie will ever let you do on that POS atv. cablecard, mounting .iso’s, codec support, the list goes on and on… it’s funny people don’t know it’s supported most all of these things for 3-5 years now.
What’s funny is most people don’t even realize that they already have this for FREE on vista home premium.
That gave me WTF look… Do i have it then? No wonder i dont know, using ubuntu 90% of the time, but i will take a look on MS thing. :)
Uhm, “If google Open Sources this…” and “Google should just acquire Boxee.tv”
No. You have all left out one of the best and strongest Living room applications on the interwebs. Myth Tv. It’s a DVI / Browsing / App engine with a front-end and back-end that are both completely open.
If Google does nothing more than port Myth to their Andriod system, they will blow apple (and a lot of the rest) out of the water.
On the other hand, my worry is that Android is becoming ever more the Frankenstein monster of the technology field. There are many flavors of Android out, and this would add an entirely new dimension to the fray.
“Apple just needs to put some proper time and energy into it, to expand it to its full potential.”
You mean market the shit out of the crappy product like it usually does.
+10
Google and Apple are just going to keep going at it.
Yep, they will. Even if this isn’t the most important market, it becomes just that after the other gets into it.
Fun to see how this goes.
Apple? Google? I don’t care which one “wins” the arms race because I think it will be us, the overly-charged cable and satellite customers, who will truly get the win from this. My HD LCD TV is just a dumb monitor anyway…it’s not like it has tuned in to anything other than accepting S-video and HDMI inputs. Give me a network-based equivalent to cable or satellite and I’m gone! My expectation is that the cost differential should be no less than 25%. The TV as a unique household appliance is heading the way of the telegraph: http://tinyurl.com/yewp9tt.
I’m all for pushing cable/satellite and their prices out of the way as well. But how do you get past the fact that Cable and Telcos own the vast majority of broadband connections into our homes, and have their own content aspirations?
When their overpriced content offerings start to dry up, they can alter the game by metering/capping/raising prices on “plain old internet access”.
How do we get around that?
Exactly.
Cuban has written extensively on internet TV and bandwidth issues and why he doesn’t think it’s a great idea.
It’s a lot bigger issue than simply building a set-top PC and calling it a day, especially when the pipes are owned by those you’re trying to put out of business.
Well written post. I think it summarizes well the current situation and where this might go
I can’t believe Apple has not thrown more resources and energy into Apple TV. The baseline product already is a solid foundation for doing some great things, including simply adding a great web browsing experience. The TV, especially now with high definition displays, is still the center of the entertainment universe. At least for most folks
My Cablevision set top box is archaic. It takes literally 10 minutes to boot. The UI is horrible. And, I’ve paid hundreds of dollars over time for the privilege of renting their POS
“The baseline product already is a solid foundation for doing some great things, including simply adding a great web browsing experience.”
That would indeed be a simple and powerful step… but it will never happen because Steve Jobs won’t support Flash. I’ve been testing an unreleased touch screen tablet (not iPad) for the past couple of weeks and I love the form factor of the device but the Web experience is terrible without Flash. It’s like going back to the Web of 1998.
Your understanding about Apple’s resistance to Flash is misinformed. It is about how processor greedy Flash is and it’s battery usage on portable devices. The AppleTV is not a portable device so that does not apply here.
If you are going to make negative comments, be correct about your facts first.
Since I already have a laptop/desktop, I’m not sure I see the value of being able to run applications on my TV. I can already buy a huge monitor and I don’t think I’d want to share screen space between a movie and an app when I can do it on 2 separate screens now. I’m not saying that the Google TV (or Apple TV) shouldn’t run apps but I wouldn’t use that as my key selling feature. The compelling features of my Apple tv are being able to play music through my TV’s sound system and watching shows through Boxee from channels I don’t subscribe to on cable. I think the winner of this race is going to be whoever can get all the big content distributors to support their platform at a consumer-friendly price first. Kinda like iTunes.
So I read the article. Nobody from any of the companies is willing to go on the record. That’s not a sign of a good story. Nevertheless, let’s press on.
AppleTV doesn’t play back TV. It plays back files. It doesn’t stream online content. It doesn’t even have a web browser.
So what will the rumored Google TV hope to accomplish? “The partners envision technology that will make it as easy for TV users to navigate Web applications, like the Twitter social network and the Picasa photo site, as it is to change the channel. ”
That doesn’t sound like anything AppleTV does now nor likely do in the future. It sounds more like what Boxee, Roku, and the others in that space do. The article also states that Android doesn’t even have Chrome browser running on it yet. If true, and the rest of the article’s slant that the GoogleTV’s goal is to have internet on TVs, then I don’t think Apple has anything to worry about; Apple and Google’s partners are building devices with little in common other than both playing back AV files.
I think this article and the one on the NY Times site are not thinking things through. At least the NY Times article doesn’t seem to relegate this Google TV as another Apple vs. Google story.
I disagree that focussing on the iPad means apple is focussing on other things. I think that in the next few years a lot of tv watching will be moving to the internet. Tablets will be a great way to watch and interact with online tv.
This will be awesome if Sony incorporate with the PS3. Some I doubt they will though.
As much as I love my PS3, will never happen. Sony is committed to a closed ecosystem, just like Apple. They have been since the beginning of time. Maybe they’ll see the light at some point, but I doubt it.
Ugh. We just don’t get it in the valley.
TV is not about whiz-bang technology, applications, or even user experience. It is first and foremost about access to CONTENT,
and then getting out of the way.
Google does not have the content relationships to make the cable companies lose sleep over Google TV. Nor do they have a meaningful business model to support TV content. If they did have 75% of the content relationships that Comcast has, and were successfully extracting monthly bills from its users, then I would bet Brian Roberts (Comcast CEO) would become very concerned. But right now they aren’t even close.
Continued here: http://tvnewsstream.com/silicon-valley-doesnt-understand-tv
The only resolution the AppleTV supports is 720p. If you change the settings to 480 or 1080, it’s only scaling it’s 720p image.
My hunch is that the iPad (plus iTunes and the upcoming cloud version of iTunes) will obliterate ‘Google TV’ as well as Apple TV. Oh, and cable TV.
Without Flash, the iPad sucks.
This is perfect. I’m working with a wireless broadband startup that will deploy a network making IPTV possible ( as well as the same killer apps Google is talking about with its massive fiber rollout .. which a waste of time. The last mile should be wireless. and we have the speed on this wireless network to make that possible… !@)and we see IPTV as the crown jewel. We’re going to need to a good partner and I keep going back and forth as who my good partners are and then I go back to the fact that what is going to make IPTV awesome is apps .. its not about the damn box.. its the apps that are going to make the box important.. and of course .. we want some of that application revenue. Whoever we would partner with would have to share.. The argument against that would be.. “well why would they share it with you??” and then I would say ” Because we can build the network to support the killer apps that will bridge the divide between TV and internet and everything in between” . anyway if I don’t have a good partner .. we will need someone to design a box that would be suitable with all this in mind or have a partner design one specifically with us in mind. I’d rather not have to do all the leg work. Get it ??? Apple .. 4 legs .leg work.. You guys don’t have a sense of humor.. I am going to have to come and liven up Silicon Valley !!
I have been a long-time supporter of the Apple TV, and we have four of them in our house, and im begging to get fed up with Apple calling it a hobby.
As MG quite rightly points out, this IS a good product at doing what it was designed to do. Work with purchased iTunes content. The only people that moan about it are the people that want it to do more than it was originally intended to do.
E.G, incorporate netflix, boxee blah blah. Im not interested in it incorporating any of that, i just want Apple to take the project seriously and invest a bit of time and money into it.
Yes, sales have been slow, but the people that have got Apple TVs have bought into the product / concept, which shows theres a market. It wouldn’t take too much time and investment for Apple to improve the device more (larger HDD etc), put some money into marketing it and it could really take off.
And it could also be a valuable platform to drive more App Sales too. I mentioned in yesterdays article about the Google TV that I hoped Google DID get into this field, NOT because id buy the product, but because i feel Apple would be forced to invest in the Apple TV and treat it more than a project.
Right on, mother trucker!