The Nexus Q will bomb. $299 for a very confused offering. From the Guardian:
> So yes, Nexus Q is a "small Android-powered computer that's designed to live in your home", connecting to speakers and the cloud, as well as the Google Play store. It's controlled from a smartphone or tablet, but not to stream content from the device to the Nexus Q.
Nobody cares about how the streaming is achieved technically, and I think the "social" aspect is massively over-sold. If I want to show someone content on my tablet wouldn't we just sit next to each other and look at the tablet?
The Nexus 7 apparently already has HDMI out (I think) so I just can't see anyone forking out $299 for some bizarre social content streaming concept party.
To be fair: the "TV thing" market is a huge mess, and none of those devices are making much real progress replacing the cable and satellite boxes users already have. We're still waiting on the proper innovation here.
It seems like the Q (despite the pretty blatant mispricing -- I agree that they'll move essentially zero of these at $300) has at least a new mix of features to try. The built-in amp makes it an attractive audio box at least. The idea of driving content from the handsets in the room seems better to me than the (IMHO ridiculous) idea the TV vendors have of making handsets into "remote".
The lack of storage isn't really a problem if everything is sourced from the cloud (which it is already for most of those gadgets anyway). And the "no apps" is silly -- it's an android box. Though I didn't see much about a UI metaphor. Obviously the HDMI display isn't going to be a touchscreen, but you can always plug in a keyboard and mouse (this works today on your GNex if you have the right cable).
>We're still waiting on the proper innovation here.
I disagree. I think there's lots of interesting and cool tech in HTPCs and HTPCs in tiny TV boxes. I just think it's hard to supplant the cable company's box that contains crappy DVR when it is required to watch television anyway. Most people don't want to go through any more layers than they have to.
As far as I know, "innovation" to break that chokehold would result in massive legal battles with uncertain outcomes. One way around it would be to put a Blu-ray drive in Boxee et al and slip the boxes in as Blu-ray players, but then you still can't decode cable signals and use DVR features for TV. Even if the set-top boxes can somehow get approval to decode Blu-ray media, there is no way the media companies would let you e.g. rip your movies onto the box, making them effectively expensive Blu-ray players with worthless, empty hard drives.
We've switched to AppleTV. We don't watch TV at all. In practice this means we miss seeing most CBS shows, see HBO shows about six months late, never see a single ad, and save a buttload of money (even after paying for a lot of content). Oh, and we can use any iOS device and any remote as a remote.
All of our content is on demand.
The only reason we can't see CBS shows is that CBS chooses to spurn AppleTV for strategic reasons that will probably prove wrongheaded. Similarly HBO is probably bound by contracts.
Comcast minimal cable TV (we don't use the TV except for the bundle cost) bundled with cable is $60/month. Verizon FiOS (which we'll be getting at our next place) offers phone with Internet for $50/month.
Either with a basic digital cable supporting two TVs would be north of $110 even with special offers.
Sure, I'm not saying there's no value here. But the glitches you posit (spotty coverage of some content, delayed access), combined with the general hassle of getting your internet working before your TV works, are simply keeping these devices out of homes right now.
What you have is "cheaper TV with a few holes", and that's great for you. But that's not what the market wants -- believe it or not they want to pay that $100/month, because that's what they're doing already, and it works for them. The winning product needs to take that $100 and do something better for the consumer (or conversely, produce a cheaper product with no visible disadvantages at all).
I disagree. Most of my peers own an Xbox360 or PS3, and those that don't have some kind of Roku / NAS / whatever setup. I think fewer and fewer young people have cable boxes, they are fine with just a solid internet connection. There is, of course, a huge existing install base that is not going anywhere soon.
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that your peers are early 20's tech people living in shared urban apartments. That's not representative. Outside the geeks in the cities, people have satellite dishes and cable boxes. Just check revenue numbers for Comcast or Dish.
Obviously these devices "could" replace the legacy content delivery systems. But they aren't yet, and frankly their grown numbers aren't going to get them there any time this decade. It needs something more.
Yes, it needs the legal privilege to decode the cable stream. This is likely not legal under the DMCA; I would guess it constitutes the distribution of a tool intended to circumvent "copy protection", and I would further guess users of such a device could also be held legally liable for actually using a tool to circumvent copy protection.
Besides that, I think that almost all of the set-top boxes blow away the boxes of the carriers on practically every front.
The difference between an Xbox say and a NAS is one of power. Low power set top boxes are a must. The amount of electronics piling up in people's houses is just ridiculous.
The consoles are guzzlers - with the exception perhaps of the Wii.
Work just bought me to experiment with one of those Android 4.0 Mini PC's with HDMI, USB, and MicroSD on them the size of a thumb drive. Just got it a few hours ago and was only around $75. I know it has Netflix, not sure what else at the moment since this is my first Android device of any sorts.
Don't forget you can also get a cheapo laptop/netbook for $299 that does all of the above as well, and is easy to find other software for (fun little emulation machines paired with a 360 controller), that you can easily toss in a bunch of usb external drives and get terrabytes of storage.
That's true. An old net book or second hand laptop could be re-purposed as a NAS. I've found though that getting smooth HD out of older hardware, isn't that good. And the desktop OSs are pretty crappy on a TV. There's certainly a gap in the market here. Currently this is a very confusing landscape. It's bad enough trying to find a machine that will handle multiple codecs.
I loved how he said something to the effect of, "Now, your friends can play music in your living room." Then, the dramatic pause as he waited for the audience reaction. Honestly, it seemed like the audience felt bad for him and bailed him out by clapping unenthusiastically.
The reason cloud streaming is so important is because wireless streaming from a device eats the battery alive. Amazon recently announced that battery and then price are the primary drivers for users buying tablets, and battery is amazingly import for phones as well.
Cables are a little iffy, a lot of non-techies simply aren't going to go plug their cable in to show off their pictures or music. A simple enough UI, though, can bring them in. Successful consumer mobile products generally prize being ridiculously simple because that's the only thing many people will use and media oriented, because that's the thing most people do with the smart part of their phones, nothing more.
> So yes, Nexus Q is a "small Android-powered computer that's designed to live in your home", connecting to speakers and the cloud, as well as the Google Play store. It's controlled from a smartphone or tablet, but not to stream content from the device to the Nexus Q.
Nobody cares about how the streaming is achieved technically, and I think the "social" aspect is massively over-sold. If I want to show someone content on my tablet wouldn't we just sit next to each other and look at the tablet?
The Nexus 7 apparently already has HDMI out (I think) so I just can't see anyone forking out $299 for some bizarre social content streaming concept party.