• About

LIVEdigitally

Speculating On Motorola + Google TV

Posted on August 17, 2011 by Jeremy Toeman
Googorola!

Googorola!

Google is planning to acquire Motorola Mobility, which is a deal about patents and Android, but also one to raise questions on quite a few existing product lines.  What will happen with Moto Droids and the Google Nexus line?  Where do Android tablets go from here?  Is MOTOBlur dead?   (my answers: bye bye Nexus, tbd, and yes).  The other interesting area is Google TV, particularly interesting because the Motorola Mobility dept is the one that makes the set-top boxes (which are, next to refrigerators, one of the least likely products to be mobile in my house, but maybe that’s just me).

I’ve seen tons of speculation this week about what the deal means, as it pertains to Google TV, and have batched together some of the perspectives that are floating around.  Most common theme: now that Google owns the STB business, they can just sprinkle Android into all the next-gen cable boxes…

That gives Google an attractive footprint to leverage on a number of different fronts within the digital home, perhaps with a Trojan Horse strategy of pushing Android-based middleware out to shore up its lacklustre connected TV strategy.

Source: With Motorola, Google gains a big TV strategy | News | Rapid TV News http://www.rapidtvnews.com/index.php/2011081514335/with-motorola-google-gains-a-big-tv-strategy.html#ixzz1VEtbiUZe

Also surmised by Apple Insider, Robert Scoble, CNET, Business Insider, NewTeeVee, and Lost Remote (and others).  Here’s the thing, this isn’t even a topic/issue/option in play, at all.  It’s not exactly like Motorola’s been unable to acquire operating systems to power their set tops, and could easily have chosen Google TV prior to now.  Further, there’s simply no such thing as “sneaking” technology into the cable infrastructure, not even a tiny bit.  We’ve seen (and I’ve worked for) many companies try to accomplish some set of these tasks, and not one shred of success.  Why?  Because the cable industry commissions the hardware and features they want, and not the other way around.

Burger King creepy guy

You Can Have it Your Way. aka 7' tall and creepy.

Another widely spread philosophy is that the only reason Google TV hasn’t caught on yet is due to not having had the right chance/opportunity:

“Google TV has not caught on yet,” wrote AOL journalist Saul Hansell on his personal blog. “This could be the wedge to get it in millions of living rooms.”

Source: http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-20092451-261/motorola-could-help-cure-ailing-google-tv/#ixzz1VExC7Dqg

Shared feelings from Zatz Not Funny, Lost Remote, NewTeeVee, and more, but not by myself (nor my friend Dan Frommer, though he’s much nicer about it than I would’ve been).  Google TV hasn’t caught on with consumers because it’s the wrong value proposition for consumers, period.  In my ten-plus years of building “connected TV” products, the thing I’ve learned is that the more interaction you throw on the screen, the less you engage and benefit your users.  While there are moments for “lean-forward” activities, they are fleeting.  Google TV is built on the opposite premise.

Maxell dude + Venom

This isn't exactly the lean-back experience I was expecting.

One last comment that I’ve seen making the rounds was that Google just gained a bunch of knowhow regarding building boxes.  This doesn’t much pass the sniff test either, as other than Apple, everybody builds boxes the same, and there’s very little secret sauce here.  If anything, they should consider offloading all hardware production that still gets done internally or dive in deep in fully integrated software/hardware solutions.  More on that in a bit.

So that’s enough about everybody else’s theories, time for a few of my own.

  1. The acquisition was entirely about the patent portfolio, the synergy (or not) between Google TV (G-TV) and Motorola’s STB division (M-STB) is positive, but was coincidental.
  2. Google must demonstrate to current M-STB customers that they will not disband nor change the status quo there in the short term (let’s call it 2-5 years).  If this doesn’t happen quickly, we could see an exodus to the numerous viable competitors.
  3. Google would be better off moving G-TV inside M-STB than vice versa.  M-STB has the requisite business practices savvy for dealing with the cable industry, which is significantly more vital to longevity than any software platform.  In fact, gaining this type of business experience is quite a boon for Google, as its an industry they have historically (dating back pre-YouTube days) not well-understood.
  4. The other massive obstacle that seems underreported is the complete lack of fit between M-STB hardware platforms and G-TV software architecture needs.  One of them will need a rewrite, and that’s costly.
  5. Without a major improvement to the platform itself, this acquisition does not change G-TV’s fate.  No cable company on the planet is simply going to allow technology into their boxes (yes, they buy em, they rent em to customers) without a) control and b) a clear path to revenue/profits.  Granted, there are indications those profits could come, but not with the current platform.

Ultimately, I think this is a fascinating topic.  The nuance of industries involved, the hugeness of capital in play, and the clearly disruptive horizon for the TV business is more exciting than virtually anything I can think of.

Chile Volcano Lightning

Well, almost anything.

Share this:

  • Email
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • Reddit

Related

Posted in Convergence | Tags: android, Connected TV, droid, future of tv, google, google tv, motorola, nexus, set top box, smart tv, social tv, stb, television, TV | 2 Comments
« Eating Some Words – a Smartphone's a Pretty Sweet Remote After All
12 by 2012: SXSW panels on the Future of TV »

2 thoughts on “Speculating On Motorola + Google TV”

  1. tivoboy says:
    August 17, 2011 at 1:24 pm

    Honestly, I’d rather see google just sell off the LOW MARGIN hardware business and get back to the business of making money in advertising, and moving to MOBILE as the OS developer and provider. As a cash rich tech company, this move only makes sense from an ACCESS TO CASH standpoint, and not from a “get into the handset business” At this point, google could just SELL the HW business to HTC, SAMSUNG, TIVO, all of the above for about 5-8 Billion total, LEND them the money at about 375bps, and get a nice little return on cash and just KEEP the patents – which were clearly the target of this move.

    The reason there isn’t bette adoption of the google TV product (and trust me, i’ve used it since the beginning) is that it just DOESN’T work very well. It crashes, it’s slow, it actually gets BETWEEN you and YOUR TV in an inelegant way – cumbersome. There is no remote (other than using ones android or maybe iphone now) there is just the keyboard and that is a bit cumbersome. Personally, I think a product like boxee (note to readers the OP and owner of this blog I THINK has some relationship with boxee so fair warning) fits better into the tv/media center ecosystem. I LOVE being able to pull up info ad-hoc about STUFF, maybe related to the show, maybe related to something else but honestly, my IPAD 2 does it a lot faster with more detail with more EASE and doesn’t interfere with anyone else watching the show – now relegated to anywhere from 10%-30% of the screen real estate!

    While several years ago the idea/concept of truly integrated TV was quite appealing, at this point with the table introduction i’m happier with that solution. Honestly, if TIVO could get their act together and make access to alternative media universal across content provider and site (like comcast xfinity and all the online content sites like ABC, FOX, CBS, Hulu and integrate that into what I have ON THE DVR as well, this would go a long way to providing the integrated CONTENT experience that I want.

    Reply
  2. Elwood Anderson says:
    August 19, 2011 at 4:25 pm

    The niche you didn’t consider is a cablecard box like Tivo or Moxi. I have a Moxi and love it, but it comes up short on the internet side. It doesn’t have a decent browser and the other internet services are very limited. If Googorola is smart the will come up with a cablecard box that has full Chromebook style computer support along with the usual cable TV support. Such a box will be a niche product. The great bulk of people subscribing to cable services are not interested in having a computer on their TV, and this, together with a premature release of a flawed operating system, is the main reason for Google TV’s lack of market penetration.

    Cablecard services are mandated by the government, and aren’t likely to disappear anytime soon.

    I agree with your conclusion that the cable companies will never buy boxes from Googorola that they don’t have complete control over.

    Reply

Leave a comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

About

Jeremy Toeman is a seasoned Product leader with over 20 years experience in the convergence of digital media, mobile entertainment, social entertainment, smart TV and consumer technology. Prior ventures and projects include CNET, Viggle/Dijit/Nextguide, Sling Media, VUDU, Clicker, DivX, Rovi, Mediabolic, Boxee, and many other consumer technology companies. This blog represents his personal opinion and outlook on things.

Recent Posts

  • Back on the wagon/horse?
  • 11 Tips for Startups Pitching Big Companies
  • CES 2016: A New Role
  • Everything I Learned (So Far) Working For a Huge Company
  • And I’m Back…

Archives

Pages

  • About

Archives

  • January 2019
  • April 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • May 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • June 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004

Categories

  • Convergence (81)
  • Gadgets (144)
  • Gaming (19)
  • General (999)
  • Guides (35)
  • LD Approved (72)
  • Marketing (23)
  • Mobile Technology (111)
  • Networking (22)
  • No/Low-tech (64)
  • Product Announcements (85)
  • Product Reviews (109)
  • That's Janky (93)
  • Travel (29)
  • Video/Music/Media (115)
  • Web/Internet (103)

WordPress

  • Log in
  • WordPress

CyberChimps WordPress Themes

© LIVEdigitally
loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.