One of my favourite TV programmes was Casualty. I didn't like it for the acting, though. I liked it because of the hilariously protracted accidents in each episode. "I'll just hammer this nail in with an UNEXPLODED BOMB!" this week's trolley fodder would announce, with the inevitable explosion following shortly afterwards.
"I think I'll leave this really sharp kitchen knife sticking out of the steering wheel as I drink and drive!" another would say. "I think I'll attempt to combine the worlds of TV and computers!" a third would offer.
Oops. That last one wasn't Casualty. That was Google.
Google wants to bring its super search'n'ads systems to the humble television, transforming the way we consume content from the couch.
We've seen this programme before, and we know how it ends.
For cutting-edge technology firms, television is the electronic Afghanistan: all the major powers have attempted to tame it, and all the major powers have ended up in protracted, painful and ultimately pointless conflicts.
Microsoft tried it with Media Center, and latterly with Xbox 360. Apple tried it with Apple TV and the new! Improved! Apple TV. And now Google's going to have a go.
To its credit, Google is attempting to throw absolutely everything at Google TV. It will let you see statistics as you're watching sports. It'll have a web browser. It'll give you YouTube. It'll be controllable from Android handsets and iPhones and it'll have voice search and Twitter and Flickr and Android Market and a customisable home page and a free horse.
It'll be rubbish.
There are several reasons for that. For end users, the problem is that Google's adding complexity, not taking it away. TV's pretty simple: turn it on, press up to change channels up, and down to go down.
DVR stuff like pausing and resuming live TV's pretty simple, too, and even Sky's horrible HD interface is fairly easy to navigate. Adding the entire internet into the mix - something that apparently requires a QWERTY keyboard in your remote - takes that simplicity away. It's yet another box, yet another remote, yet another thing for your partner to get annoyed about when he or she can't get the TV to work properly.
The second issue is that Google may not get the content. Apple's TV rentals only come from two US broadcasters - Fox and ABC - because broadcasters worry that Apple could become as powerful in TV as it currently is in music.
It seems that Google is finding a similar lack of enthusiasm: the Wall Street Journal reports that TV networks "remain reluctant to partner with a service they believe encroaches on their turf." The WSJ suggests that some networks are investigating ways to block Google TV, not to support it.
It's the same over here. First of all, there's the BBC: do you think licence payers want ads around their iPlayer? Rupert Murdoch just stuck his newspapers behind a paywall and charges £35 per month for his Sky Sports iPad app. Reckon he'll want Google sticking its ads on Sky?
The BBC, BT, Channel 4, Channel 5, ITV and others are working on Project Canvas, a single standard for UK internet-delivered TV. Reckon they'd rather Google built the platform and made the money?
Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think I am. If this were an episode of Casualty, Google would be planning to chainsaw a tree from a pogo stick.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liked this? Then check out Google TV: all you need to know
Sign up for TechRadar's free Weird Week in Tech newsletter
Get the oddest tech stories of the week, plus the most popular news and reviews delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up at http://www.techradar.com/register
Your comments (9) Click to add a new comment
bradavon
September 10th 2010
9. Microsoft's Media Center is a success but it's not a mass market success because you have to be technical to know how to install it. It's too tied to a regular PC.
Google TV will come preinstalled in TVs and STBs (the latter crucial because not everyone wants to buy a new TV) and should be much simpler to start using.
Whoever wins, we need something too. The TV platform whilst simple yo use, is very outdated. There's next to no interactivity and the EPG table layout is dated.
Alert a moderator
garymarshall
September 9th 2010
8. Mattdoc30: you might be right, but I think smart phones are different: accessing email, web, video etc on the move is something there's an obvious need for, whereas most homes already have computers - so why bring those features to the tv?
I can see the benefit of apps, certainly, but I doubt I'd buy another box to have them. That may be a generational thing though, and maybe today's teens will want Google TV or similar. For now, though, their parents are the ones buying the home entertainment kit :)
Alert a moderator
garymarshall
September 9th 2010
7. Techclicker: that's a really good point.
Alert a moderator
garymarshall
September 9th 2010
6. Sanderton: I agree on both counts. I think tablet/phone tweeting etc while watching is probably the way it's going.
Alert a moderator
techclicker
September 9th 2010
5. The reason GoogleTV (and Apple TV amongst others) face an "uphill struggle" is because existing content providers, the cable and satellite companies, will eventually copy the successful features of these early services and incorporate them into their own branded devices. It happened with DVR and it will likely happen in this situation as well, especially since most cable companies are also ISP's. They have a better market position to market these devices to their existing paying customers.
Alert a moderator
bolomkxxviii
September 8th 2010
4. A separate set top box has almost no chance. Google needs to push the TV manufacturers to include Google TV in the hardware. It will still be an uphill battle.
Alert a moderator
sanderton
September 8th 2010
3. The main reason it will fail (and all such things will fail) is that they are designed by young singles who have the weird idea that TV is watched by you, along, on your sofa. My wife gets enraged enough with my fiddling with the remote, the idea that she's going to let me shrink the TV show to picture-in-picture while I check something on Google or chat on Facebook is ridiculous.
The internet-and-TV-at-same-time "problem" is real; and it has a solution - iPad.
Alert a moderator
kaveet
September 8th 2010
2. @mattdoc30 I think you're right about specially designed apps for TV, but what sort?
You see I don't think you're right to draw an analogy between mobile phone use, and watching television. One is an active task, and the other is a fundamentally passive one. I'm not sure that people sitting in front of the TV, want 'interactivity' like they do on a computer or mobile. I think they just want to relax-which is why they're sitting in front of the TV in the first place. If 'Smart TV' is ever going to take off, I think its UI will have to be highly suggestive, while still unobtrusive.
Maybe when TV is capable of reading our minds, or more likely, learning our traits, will we finally be happy with 'Smart TV'.
Alert a moderator
mattdoc30
September 8th 2010
1. I think you're probably right about content and the content providers [rightfully so] paranoia being the end of Google TV. If you cannot access the content then you're not going to bother buying the box. But as for being 'complicated' being it's undoing, I think you're wrong. That's like saying that the iPhone will never take off because all people want to do is make phone calls and send text messages!
What Google really needs is some excellent 'designed for TV' apps - and now Google (master of the consumer cloud) has a gaming boss, who knows what that might be!
Alert a moderator
Tell us what you think
You need to Log in or register to post comments