Google TV – So What?

I can’t get excited by Google TV because no matter how fine the box is, no matter how great the wired and wireless connectivity, or the user interface, at the end of the day it’s all about how good is the content and not about how good is the box.

Who controls the best content? It’s the distributors. It’s the major TV and cable channels.

Do people rave about how great their TV is? They rave about “Lost,” “American Idol,” they rave about content first. The geek community is the only community that raves about the specs of a box. That will only get you to “on” then what?

Take a look at what happened at Hulu, the Comedy Channel pulled its popular The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. There’s still plenty of content on Hulu, but it’s long tail stuff, old reruns of once popular shows, etc.

You can now watch HBO online, but only if you are a cable TV subscriber.

The organisations that control distribution control where it can be seen and they can change their preferences whenever they want, it has nothing to do with the box. Even Hulu controls where it can be seen, we’ve seen the problems Boxee had with Hulu.

The distributors control what you can and cannot watch online.

This is why Apple has described Apple TV as a “hobby” because it’s a limited platform, it’s limited to what you have on your computer or that can be downloaded from iTunes.

Will things change? It would be great if everything were online, everything ever created, every film, every TV show, everything we see on cable TV could be just an IP address away from our couch.

But that would be incredibly disruptive since we would only pay for what we wanted and nothing else. We wouldn’t be subsidising sports channels, for example, if we never watch sports.

Pick-and-watch would dramatically lower our bills and it would be disruptive. And that’s why we won’t get to that utopian world because the TV and cable distributors don’t want to be disrupted.

And who can blame them? I certainly don’t like the way that the newspaper industry is being disrupted but I’m not in a position to do much about it — they are.

Follow @memeburn

email article

print article

Burning hot

The ticking tax-bomb: is Google good for your country?

6 predictions for the future of tech from Google exec Eric Schmidt

Google Knowledge Graph and the future of voice-activated intelligent search

Read the transcript of Julian Assange's 'secret meeting' with Google's chairman

[ advertising enquiries ]

http://twitter.com/matthewncube Matthew Ncube
Interesting Tom but… unlike you, I am excited. Very excited. I don't own a TV for the very reason you mention – “it's all about how good the content is!” I find terrestrial, cable and satellite programming very drab and limiting don't like the fact that I have to be pigeon-holed to viewing bundle with a host of channels that I will pay for and probably will not watch. Video streaming provides a much wider choice and I don't have to set reminders to record a program or hurry home to catch it. The selection and content is very good. In the UK, I'm a huge fan of youtube.com/shows, bbc.co.uk/iplayer and itv.com/iplayer. And if I really want a season pass for Lost, iTunes will deliver.
TV aggregation is the future. There may be setbacks now, Hulu's loss of some shows and it's UK service is now off the cards, but there is no denying that it has been a huge success in the US and could top $100 million in revenue this summer.
http://www.famebook.com famebook
I think there is a fundamental issue here which FB/ Google et al are constantly coming unstuck trying to resolve. (Privacy, Integrity, Monetization, Scale, Purpose etc.) – As far as brands are concerned, if they want to stand out from the crowd, they can't afford to become part of it. So these 'bottom up' built co's perceived only hope is to create the mother of all big brother targeting systems to try and gain the ad dollars and restrospectively in Facebook's case, also trying to poach Wikipedia's data in a vein attempt to commercialize those pages within Facebook and attempt to force attention from brands to their highly presumptious community pages. (That action is highly suspect imho on the basis they are currently using those brand references within Facebook and selling ad space against them without explicit permission from the brands as they did to several of mine. I still question the legitimacy of using Wikipedia data provided by people as a public contribution to a public asset, now bent to Facebook's favour in such a manner. I think Creative Commons has a lot to answer for here…)
In any event, in all cases, they forget that they simply run platforms not a media company and in fact all that data is ours. In terms of public identities on the net, they are the 'long tail' or the 80% of the 80:20 rule and no matter how hard they try they cannot re-invent themselves to resolve that. The 'head' or 20% is the final realisation of the migration of traditional media online and elegant platforms where brands can engage at a level of sophistication concomitant with their hard fought images. IMHO all roads lead to Famebook, where all that will come together!
It is also amazing though to see how much power Facebook and Google to a degree have created over some sections of the media who have bowed in the face of such amoral actions and behaved like Facebook's own PR departments. That's scary. Glad to see you impartial and roughing it up as always Tom!
http://www.travisnoakes.co.za Travis Noakes
Never say never disrupt, Mr Formeski. Remember what happened to an intransigent music industry; much to the benefit of us end-consumers!
Like Matthew, as a fairly selective TV-viewer, I want to get value for what I pay for. I too am willing to pay for a service that disrupts the current broadcasting model: Google TV, Apple TV, YouTube and any other services I can access locally are good steps in that direction. I agree that they are unlikely to create significant impact in the short-term and won't overturn the status-quo anytime soon, but a journey of a thousand miles always begins with a step. Imagine if the music industry had not been disrupted by Napster, the iPod and Apple iTunes? It took a long time for the music industry to realise it serves the consumer, not the other way around! The same will happen in the print industry, etc. There should be no immunity from disruption, where the economic freedom of the consumer is rightfully served.
I am excited that these innovations are occurring in the broadcasting industry. Perhaps, as a fellow consumer, you should be too? Yes, GoogleTV won't give you the content you crave anytime soon, BUT the service will improve competition in a heavily-monopolised environment and may contribute to making broadcasts more easily accessible in the future. Here's to hope!

Topics for this article

Apple TV, Google TV, IP TV

[ advertising enquiries ]

Google TV – So What?

Related articles

Topics for this article

Jobs

Subscribe via email

MORE HEADLINES

news

interviews

future trends

entrepreneurship

social media

facebook

twitter

google

advertising & marketing

online media

design

mobile

Services

Feeds

About us

Mind your Google language