pdemul
Things that I find interesting.
If this is the big news that everybody is discussing I find it rather small. The only interesting tidbit in this is that it is Google. Everything in this video already exists, has existed for years, and is not changed. It is like Apple coming up with a Nokia 1110 instead of an iPhone. Youtube, catch-up TV, time-shifted browsing? There are a myriad of solutions from almost every TV manufacturer and a lot of start-ups that offer this already. The plain and simple fact is: it is not that interesting.
What Google just puts aside is the fact that a TV is a shared device, which means there will always be some planning and negotiation involved. When have you ever watched YouTube together longer than 5 minutes? Browsing for content on YouTube is just as painful as watching someone zap through the guide. This is the painful point of negotiation. A TV schedule is not ideal, but it is a way to make an agreement with who you share the TV with: on Tuesday night we watch House. No discussion, no awkward finding of content, no negotiation on what to watch.
Google does nothing to solve this negotiation pain. It only makes it worse. Imagine watching somebody type in the Google bar (What will they type with? T9-style on the remote? Or will I need to have a full keyboard?). The only thing more painful than browsing YouTube together is searching Google together. This does not translate to TV.
Sure, having more games on TVs is great, and openness ensures that there finally will be some innovation, but I don’t even expect much of that. The resolution of a TV is not miles away from that of a Smartphone. In the prime target market for Google TV, everybody will prefer to use one of those.
I am disappointed that Google did not get any further than a big screen laptop. Something that is great for the tech-loving singles that work at Google, but is unsuitable for the normal family that makes up the rest of the world.
I am truly hoping that the rumors are true and Apple is also working on this: they have a standard of amazingness to uphold, and therefore need to come up with something that solves the negotiation issue as well as the typing issue. I expect that this will involve browsing on the iPhone/iPad in private, and then being able to launch the result on the big screen. It may also involve improving the content with additional information - either on-screen or on the iPhone/iPad. And it may include social features to share your experience with a wider audience (again, on the iPhone/iPad - I don’t want Twitter messages during my films). These are all things that Google did not launch. They may still come, either from Google or from independent Apps, but for now this looks more like a Nokia 1110 than an iPhone.
As expected, Google is playing its full advantage in the battle for Smartphone supremacy. By leveraging its advertising capabilities (built through acquisition of AdMob, earlier acquisition of Doubleclick Mobile and it’s own AdWords Mobile Ads) it can offer mobile operators a kick-back for selling Android phones.
Can the others follow? Well, they all have some income to share from their App stores, but not in the region of what Google can share. Nokia acquired Enpocket in 2007, but not much has been heard of that since. Microsoft has Adcenter as well as the Microsoft/Yahoo! search alliance. Apple and Blackberry will have to rely on their Apps and media incomes if they want to follow.
Will they need to follow? Apple probably not - they rely more on consumer pull than operator push. But Nokia, Blackberry and Microsoft really need the operators unless they start making phones that are more attractive than Apple’s. That is a long shot.
This all points to a surge in Android phones being pushed by operators, and a reliance from Apple on the iPhone’s cool factor. Not good news for BlackBerry, Nokia and Microsoft!
Finally, some innovation in TV!
Biggest hurdle is not the price of the add-on: compared to the price of the $3500+ TVs (which will be the start of this cooperation), a bill-of-material add-on of some $100 should be possible. Especially if it is done in a slick, marketable way; and especially if it is back-funded with advertising.
However, there is a very powerful content chain to TVs that was honed over 50 years: content owners, channels, studios, cable companies are not the easiest companies to work with. These are controlling companies with very large interests. They will want to protect their interest, and any change to the status quo is a risk. The same goes for Sony: are they willing to loose such a key component of the experience to Google?
YouTube, maps, twitter are great properties to have on a TV. Not so for mail and browsing - laptop/iPad is more suitable for that. Maybe NetFlix is the killer, but that is possible in many other ways already.
But all in all this is a great step: although it may not be the killer innovation, it opens up the channel for innovators to come in with killer Android apps on the biggest screen in my house. That is worth the wait.
(thanks vtauzia for the link).
(via Hitwise)
