LIVEdigitally

Tag Archives: google tv

The Only Two Ways People Watch TV

Posted on by

Over the past 30 years we’ve evolved the television experience from something where everybody watched the same shows on the same channels on the same devices in the same rooms at the same time to a world where that’s almost never the case.  Today, with the exception of appointment TV, it’s such a fragmented landscape that it’s almost a challenge to find other people watching the same stuff you do.  But with all the variance in content, services, devices, location, price, etc, there’s still really only two ways people choose to watch TV.  This is a subtle, but extremely important concept to anyone in the business of changing television.

Deliberate viewing: you go to the TV with a specific piece of content in mind.  This includes live TV (“let’s watch Idol at 8pm tonight”), your DVR (“I need to watch last night’s 30 Rock”), and any VOD/OTT platform such as Comcast OnDemand, Netflix, Hulu, etc (“I’m going to watch the first season of Breaking Bad”).  We could also include a deliberate type of content in this category (“I’m going to watch a comedy” – not necessarily something you’d say out loud, but if you are in the mood for something funny, that’s a pretty deliberate concept).  I also refer to deliberate viewing as “search mode” for TV, since you will specifically search for the piece of content you want, whether by changing the channel, navigating your OnDemand menu, or going to your DVR library.

Random viewing: you go to the TV with no idea what you want to watch.  This includes simple channel surfing (“nope, next!”) as well as direct channel changing (“I wonder if anything good is on TNT now.  Maybe Shawshank or Blues Brothers??”).  It also includes browsing the OnDemand options (“I wonder if there’s anything new on Netflix?”) and even your DVR (“Maybe we recorded something we haven’t watched yet?”).  I also refer to random viewing as “browse mode” for TV, since you are just perusing lists of stuff until you find something you are content to watch.  Note the last phrasing here, as random viewing is less about the “excitement” factor of watching something deliberately, and more about the “good enough to pass the time” factor, with the potential for excitement.

Now for the cold, hard fact: any “future TV” service or product which doesn’t account for both types of TV viewing, will fail. This includes OTT services, smart TV apps, second screen apps, third screen apps, eighth screen apps, widgets, websites, gadgets, platforms, and everything else under the hood.  Again, if you cannot service both primary needs of a viewing audience, your system is a goner – unless, that is, you are specifically aiming to replace an existing component of those services (in other words – if your live TV service is designed to replace another live TV service, that’s viable, since the consumer’s ecosystem will still include whatever else it had before).

How do I back this up without cold, hard facts?  Because people don’t really change much, and TV, specifically, is not merely “another” activity up there with Angry Birds, Facebook, Pinterest, reading books, etc.  Watching TV is a very specific type of activity, one about entertainment and more importantly, escape.  Life is hard, TV lets you escape for a period of your day – why on earth would Americans spend 4-8 HOURS per day in front of it otherwise?

So if people don’t change, and people need escape (especially as they age – I’m not talking about 13 year olds here, for the most part), they need some version of deliberate and random lean back TV watching.  Could this include YouTube videos? Sure. How about an all-on demand lineup?  Doubtful.  How about a “TV is just an app” concept? Doubtful. It’s why most cord-cutting theories aren’t holding water.  It’s why #SocialTV is still mostly just a fad. It’s why most “second screen” apps are just barely gaining traction. It’s why Google TV is such a mess right now.  It’s why Apple TV is still a hobby.  Sure, these things work absolutely great for some, but absolutely don’t for most.

The future of TV involves a lot of change.  And the more things change, the more they stay the same.  Long live TV.

Data Confirms: Apps + TV = :(

Posted on by

Research firm Xyologic released a bunch of statistics about Google TV today.  And those statistics point squarely at the amazing lack of app installs on the platform.  Granted, these aren’t official numbers from Google or anything, but they seem quite believable (except for the whole Napster as #1 app thing, which is just bizarre, but then again, so are apps on your TV).  Here’s the top 10 chart:

Source: RWW

So, people don’t want to download apps on their TVs eh?  I guess I’m going to go with the whole “I told you so” as my commentary (and I wrote that piece well over a year ago).

TV isn’t about apps.  It isn’t about technology.  It isn’t about “interacting.”  And most tech startups seem to want to make it a lot more about apps, technology and interaction.  Which is probably the leading indicator of why most TV-related ventures crash and burn – unfortunately too many of the folks involved are far removed from the typical TV audience.

I’d go so far as to say “TV isn’t about entertainment” when push comes to shove.  I think the best word to use to think about TV is “escape.”

There’s a reason channel surfing still beats out DVR usage, and why cord cutting is still not really a mainstream behavior.  Using your DVR or browsing content lineups is not about “escape”.  It’s about “work”.

The more the industry tries to get people to “work” for simple, enjoyable TV viewing, the more the industry will be littered with failures.  The same is true in the Smart TV space, the Social TV space, the Connected TV space, etc etc etc.  Keep in mind, as it is so very relevant, the concept of the paradox of choice: the more options and “power” you give a consumer, the more you will probably just be frustrating them.  It’s pretty hard to beat the experience of good ol’ TV today, period.

So if you are building a platform, an app, an experience, a gadget, a whatever to “improve” TV, think about the concept: “are you helping people escape?”  If not, it might be time for a “pivot.”

Why Smart TV User Interfaces Suck

Posted on by

Please don’t look at the following images on a full stomach:


Ok, sorry I had to do that, but it’s important.  And to my friends on the TV manufacturing side of the world – it’s not your fault!  It’s not your fault! Most “Smart TV” user interfaces, suck, and you’re doing your best.  But fundamentally they violate so many rules of user experience design. But why are they so bad?  In a nutshell, its for the same reason you don’t expect loggers to sell fancy high-end furniture (think about that one for a second).  The products are being built from the wrong end of the production team.

For the dining room table, what do you think, arrow foot or ball foot?

Let’s agree that user experience design is a challenge to begin with.  Apple does it great, everyone else, not so much – and even Apple products have flaws.  Further, virtually everything about a “ten foot” user interface (the terminology we use to describe what happens on-screen on your TV) is a broken interaction model, so this is going to be crippled no matter what.  I’ll write about this more in the future, but I believe there’s a fundamental breakdown on the limitations of what you can do with any 10′ UI and a remote control, regardless of gestures, speech, etc.

Next, per my logger analogy, effectively the teams building these products have absolutely no experience nor expertise at this kind of design.  The world of consumer electronics has (barely) evolved from dials, knobs, and switches to doing highly complicated interfaces on screens.  Not only that, every year the requirements are changing!

And since this is a new field (despite almost 20 years worth of ten-foot UIs), there are very very few folks out there who have dived deeply into this problem (the Wikipedia page on the topic barely even requires a scrollbar to read everything).  So the same people who are used to just getting the TV to work right, are now also in charge of creating “an experience”.  I think this is a guaranteed to fail situation, and it’s unfortunate for everyone involved.

The last "easy" TV user interface.

I do have some tips and thoughts for these UIs, since I can’t effectively get everyone to just up and stop making them (pretty please?).  First, you can read my comments a while back on designing better Boxee and Google TV apps.  Now, here’s three more things to think about:

  • Stop making things look like Commodore 64 graphics.  Seriously, I understand the graphics processors inside the TV platforms are low powered inexpensive solutions, but people have a natural (bad) reaction to seeing such low quality graphics on their beautiful HD sets.  If you can’t match them up, find ways to cut down on the overall interface and use the scarce resources to make things prettier.  See Boxee, Google TV, and Apple TV for the “prettier” 10-foot experiences.

Now in beautiful Full 1080p HD

  • Understand a 2D “grid” of options.  Many of these UIs create multiple planes of interfaces, yet fail to recognize the user has to navigate with a simple UDLR remote control (or wand or whatever).  This creates unpredictable experiences, and makes your user less naturally comfortable with the interface.  You should be able to look at the screen and always know “what happens if I push the Up arrow button”.
  • Reduce button clicks.  At no point should the user have to click more than 3 times to get from one part of the screen to another, and you should never create an internal scrollable region.  For example, my VUDU service (which I love) has me scroll through long lists of movies when browsing a category (such as Comedy/Drama, which, let’s face it, really means depressing movie with some funny moments).  But, as a result, if I want to change the category,I need to scroll all the way up to the top of the screen again to choose a new option.  This is too much work!

Ultimately, this again reinforces my belief that anything new coming from Apple will be highly based on AirPlay concepts, and the 10-foot UI will one day be a thing of the past.  And what will replace it?  This.

If AppleTV is 1/3 of the market, who's selling the other 2/3?

Posted on by

A few blogs are reporting about Strategy Analytics’ recent claim:

Strategy Analytics projects that the market will reach almost 12 million units globally this year, with Apple alone predicted to sell nearly four million devices.

Wow. Pretty bold claim.  Let’s deconstruct it.  Let’s assume it’s a correct prediction:

AppleTV will sell 4 million units, leaving ~8 million for “the rest”.

what do you mean "and the rest"?

Here are “the rest”: Roku, Western Digital, D-Link (Boxee), and… er… I don’t know, how about Logitech? Maybe a few other smaller players, but nothing you and I are buying in a Best Buy, Target, Walmart or Amazon – the only places that matter at all for moving these kinds of numbers.  Yes, there are some other odds and ends in the bizarre category known as Internet Set Top Boxes, but they aren’t mustering up sufficient sales to count here.

Roku: I’ve heard all sorts of things, but lets use publicly available information: as of last January, Roku hit 1 million devices sold.  I’ll assume they’ve at least doubled that in 2011, possibly as much as tripled, due to new products, more viability, and lower prices.  That said, they are now up against an ever-improving AppleTV product.  Even so, let’s assume they can hold pace against the world’s largest marketing machine for digital lifestyle products, and sell another 3 million units in 2012.

Western Digital: You probably haven’t heard of it, but that little gadget your buddy has for watching photos on his TV is called the WDTV Live, and they’ve sold somewhere in the 1-3 million unit range (I know that’s a big range, but it seems pretty fair based on some poking around).  Not a bad showing for a company known for making hard drives.  But in the presence of both Apple and Roku, it’s a pretty fair bet that they aren’t edging out of third place for future market share.  I’ll again be kind with 1.5 million units sold in 2012.

From these guys, only for your TV. Perfect.

D-Link (Boxee Box): Disclosure: I was a core part of the launch teams for both Boxee and the Boxee Box by D-Link, and wish to see them extremely successful, though I am no longer professionally engaged with either company in any way.  And that said, I don’t think they’re anywhere close in numbers yet, and don’t see them hitting the million unit mark any time soon (specifically in regards to unit sales, this has nothing to do with downloads, active community, or positive thoughts). Optimistic high end prediction in 2012: 750K units.

Logitech: $100 million loss.  Let’s move along shall we?

Have the factory spin up about a bajillion of them, nothing will go wrong.

Everyone else: I’ll generously band them all together, and predict they maybe move 500K units.

Unknown entry by traditional consumer electronics brand: Look, anyone can make a media streamer, in fact you can make an adequate one by buying off the shelf parts and licensing open software platforms.  But even the formerly mighty Sony and the young stalwart Vizio is going to have a tricky road in getting a product out in this category that doesn’t include a full end-to-end solution.  And there just aren’t enough to go around.  Maybe Amazon could have some kind of Kindle Fire: Home Media Edition or something, but something tells me they are still getting their feet wet in hardware and aren’t going to jump too rashly into the space (though I’ve been known to be wrong about Amazon and hardware in the past).  Top guess: 250K units.

Grand Total Units Sold, Highly Optimistic Prediction Mode: 6 million units.  Giving Apple TV, with 4 million sales, a 40% market share.  And that’s me being *quite* optimistic, and I’d wager it’s more like a grand total of 4 for the rest.  Or less.  Giving Apple TV a significantly larger potential – and by the way, it’s not exactly Apple’s strongest product.

But their math was so good!

This whole story just reminds me of the time when I was reviewing an analyst report for the *exact same space* back in 2003 when we had just shipped the HP Digital Media Receiver (the first mainstream Internet Set Top Box, by the way).  This was, by the way, before consumers had Flips or other simple video recording devices, digital cameras were mostly a novelty, and there was no YouTube, Netflix streaming, or pretty much anything else to watch on the darned thing.  But still, the potential!

The analyst predicted hundreds of thousands of “streaming video boxes” sold in 2003.  The only snag was, we were literally the only game in town, and we had predicted tens of thousands at best.  When I spoke with the analysts, they said they predicted several years forward, based on consumer interest, to arrive at several million units a year.  Then, they backtracked it into 2003 and, boom, hundreds of thousands.  What could possibly go wrong with this kind of logic?

They sold literally dozens of them

Smart TV: Not Dead Yet!

Posted on by

I'm Not Dead Yet!

There’s a post on Wired entitled “Smart-TV Space May Never Take Off as Predicted” in which the author quotes a comment from ViewSonic:

“’Smart TV’ has not achieved the consumer acceptance or market expectation… that was forecasted over the last couple years. In addition, consumer spending for Smart TV’s in general has experienced a significant slow down as the economy has slowed. Our current strategy is to stay involved with the various technology developments and consider them in the future as they become available.”

Now with all due respect to ViewSonic, the last time I checked they didn’t rank in the top 5 TV manufacturers, and based on looking at prior years reports, my hunch is they represent somewhere between 0-3% of TVs sold (they do well in monitors, not as much in TVs).  So when they predict Smart TV to have a problem, perhaps they aren’t the voice we should be using, as compared to companies such as Samsung, who has over 2 million Smart TVs in homes already.

Q2’11 Worldwide Flat Panel TV Brand Rankings by Revenue Share

Source: DisplaySearch Quarterly Advanced Global TV Shipment and Forecast Report

As Michael Wolf, of GigaOM, tweeted: “Folks, Viewsonic is not the bellweather company by which to judge success of embryonic sector on #smarttv.” Now that said, I completely agree with James McQuivey (Forrester analyst who is hitting Smart TV issues squarely on the head):

“What’s happening in the connected TV space is it’s not really about what consumers want, it’s about what manufacturers are making,” Forrester principal analyst James McQuivey says. “Simply having a connected TV doesn’t mean you’ll actually use it.”

According to all the analysts and manufacturers I’ve spoken with personally, and that’s virtually all of them, the industry is pretty well agreed that somewhere between 1/4 to 1/3 of all Smart TVs actually get connected.  Further, the vast majority of them are just using them for Netflix, and just about everything else is getting pretty well ignored (stats show the #1 Smart TV app is Netflix, #2 is YouTube, and #3 is “other”).

The Wired author goes on to cite failures of the Google TV Revue box as more evidence to why the market is stuttering.  The truth is, the Revue box is failing because it’s a lousy product with a poor customer value proposition, and Kevin Bacon commercials aren’t enough to pull the wool over it.  But this would be like saying there’s no SmartPhone market because the BlackBerry Storm wasn’t so hot.

BlackBerry Angry Birds

Wait a sec, that's not a touch screen!

Last January I wrote a piece for Mashable called “5 Reasons Connected TV Could Flop in 2011” and in my opinion, all 5 of those problems are happening.  And I don’t see anybody really emerging out of the pack to do it any better – yet.  In fact, I’d wager we’re going to go a full calendar year from now before seeing signs of change.  And here’s why:

The TV UI (aka “ten foot user interface” aka “lean back UI” aka “onscreen display”) is simply unable to scale to meet the demands of convergence.  I’ll write more on this topic in the next couple of weeks, but mark my words: we have utterly reached the apex of functionality of all forms of TV-based user interfaces/experiences.

I believe TiVo pushed the concept to the breaking point with their original UX back in 1999, and I’ve seen nothing push it further since.  Yes, there are some prettier looking things out there, with beautiful icons/etc, but from a UX standpoint, we’re well past the zenith of what you can do with a remote.  And no, I don’t believe gestures are going to cut it either, and I’ll go into depth on that topic in an upcoming post as well.

I'd change the channel, but honestly my arms are just too tired.

The last point on Smart TV I have is this – the biggest “thing” that’s going to slow down all forms of growth is replacement cycle consideration.  If you buy a device once every 7-8 years, yet know intrinsically that the technology inside that device will be outdated long before that, you are less likely to buy it.  The only way manufacturers can solve this problem, as far as I can see it, is through a modular component that will enable future-proofing of the set.  Hm, yup, time for a blog post on that.

So is the Smart TV world fragmented? Yes. Confounded? Yes. Faced with turbulence? Yes.  Full of shoddy products that are causing backlash and poor word of mouth due to radically complicated living room experiences when all we want to do is kick back, turn on Bear Grylls, and have a beer? Absolutely. Dying? Nope, not even a tiny bit.

Speculating On Motorola + Google TV

Posted on by
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.

Roku vs AppleTV smackdown

Posted on by

I don’t have cable. But I watch a lot of TV.

For my birthday I got a Roku and after tooling around with it for a couple of weeks, I cut the cable cord, much to the wife’s chagrin. Then, last Christmas, I found under the tree an AppleTV (although it is small enough it could have gone in the stocking.)

AppleTV and Roku essentially inhabit the same space. Both are around (or under) $100, both are solely media streaming devices and, unlike the mythical GoogleTV or the enigmatic Boxee, neither offer web access.

So with no methodology and no experience in product reviews, here is my official, unauthorized, David-vs-Goliath head-to-head streaming media device smackdown. In one corner, Apple, the single greatest human accomplishment in the history of the universe; the company that proves Intelligent Design is real. And in the other corner, Roku, which means “six” in Japanese.

Design

OK, this isn’t really fair because this is where Apple has always excelled. When I first got my Roku, I thought it was a pretty slick device. Black plastic, pleasing angles and the size of a turkey club sandwich (hold the mayo). Then I unwrapped the AppleTV and…. My God you’re beautiful! So small, so sleek…

I looked at my Roku, what is that hideous oversized slab of a streaming device currently attached to my TV?

Point: Apple

UX

I won’t even go there. Apple’s is amazing… Roku’s has always sucked.

Point: Apple

Content

So this is where it gets interesting. The gateway drug for both of these is Netflix and Pandora, which are both awesome services and the reasons why the sun still shines in my world. But what’s there beyond that?

With Roku, yes there is MLB if you like baseball (I don’t) and HuluPlus if you’re able to figure out why you would want it (I can’t). Where Roku really shines is access to all the weirdo webTV shows on Koldcast, Blip.TV, Revision3 and so on. You have to really like web-only TV and fortunately, I do. The wife doesn’t so I end up watching a lot of it by myself. You can also watch Al Jazeera streaming live on Roku in the event you need more proof as to how f-ed up the world is.

With Apple TV, your channel flipping will lead you to YouTube or to all the various audio and video podcasts on iTunes. That may sound lame, but it really isn’t. There is a ton of great stuff there and most of it is pretty bite-sized. So in 3-5 minute increments you can flip from news to comedy to movie trailers… unless you land on the “This American Life” podcast, in which case you’re stuck on the couch listening to your TV for an hour.

Winner of this round? I’m going to give it to Roku. I love all the cheese that webTV has to offer. My big complaint is again the UX… it is hard to find content and then to remember which channel it is on if you want to go back to it.

Reliability
So here’s the knock-out blow… this goes to Roku. Yes, it is close, but Roku wins it. I found a better picture and fewer artifacts when streaming from Roku. Also, surprisingly, AppleTV hung up and crashed more than the Roku did. Not by a long shot, mind you, but enough to notice.

Final Verdict

If you like design, UX and more mainstream content, you’ll love AppleTV.

But this is my smackdown and I’m giving the prize to Roku. They’ve got the edge in reliability and I love the goofy webTV access… but that is just me.

My Analysis of Google TV’s Ten Foot UI in Nikkei Electronics

Posted on by

I recently had the opportunity to critique the Logitech Revue’s ten foot UI for Nikkei Electronics, a Japanese trade magazine that “offers prompt reports, to-the-point commentaries and in-depth analysis on advanced technologies.”

Phil Keys, US Correspondent for NE, approached me for this project. He wanted an expert opinion on how to build a better interactive user experience for the home theater. I have known Phil since my days at Sling and Mediabolic and working with him was a real honor and privilege.

I applied user-centric design principles to grade the Logitech Revue and point out its strengths and weaknesses. My review was then translated and printed up, along with photos of the Logitech UI. Here is a small sample of the article.

Thanks to Nikkei Electronics for the opportunity to deliver Smart TV best practices to a global audience.

Quick Hits: Sony Remote Monstrosity, Early Revue Reviews, Android #1?, iPhone-to-TV, Congrats Foundry Group!

Posted on by

Sony Remote Monstrosity
Engadget got a sneak peak of the Sony/Google TV remote control.  It’s either hideous, or simply an internal prototype used for them to develop with.  I wish it was the latter, but bet it’s the former.  Over on the Stage Two blog (I’ve been doing a lot more blogging there recently, it’s not just us pushing client work, give it a read!) I go into specifics of what’s wrong with it, and also tangible steps on how to improve it.

Early Revue Reviews
Saw a quick hit on CrunchGear today, I’m in complete disagreement with everything they say that makes it “good”.  My highlight nitpick is their closing remark: “As we said before, the real initial value will come from the camera that Logitech is selling for video chats on the TV.”  The real value of a $299 device is that you can hook up a $149 camera to it to do video chat?  Really?  That is going to move the needle on Revues?  Hint: no way.

Elsewhere, my friend Harry calls it the Swiss Army Knife of Internet TV products.  I’d say that’s a great analogy, but follow up with my biggest concern: the TV is the one place we don’t want something like a Swiss Army Knife. See, those Knives are handy to have around in a pinch, but in every way fall short of being really useful for a long period of time.  Yes, it’s cool to have a philips head screwdriver in your back pocket when camping, but I wouldn’t put together IKEA furniture with one, that’s when you need the actual screwdriver – aka the single purpose product that works really really well.

I’m maintaining my position that Google TV 1.0 is not ready for consumer primetime, and neither the Sony nor Logitech solutions are compelling to the mainstream.  Sorry to my friends who work at those companies, but this just isn’t what it needs to be for a big win.

Android #1?
I saw one of those big flashy attention-grabbing headlines today “Android Most Popular Operating System in U.S. Among Recent Smartphone Buyers”.  Beyond my general disdain for Android (though I will freely admit the HTC Incredible running Android 2.2 is leaps and bounds ahead of my old Eris, but still has lots and lots wrong with it – for another time), I hate headlines like these.  What would be MORE interesting?  What is the popularity of Android specifically on AT&T?  That’s at least apples-to-apples comparison (pun fully intended). Of course Android is going to hit the top spot, this is inevitable, not interesting.

Now what would be interesting?  Well, since this is arguably all about a landgrab for developers to adopt platforms, how about an analysis that talks about which platform is making the most money to developers? Until Android/Google makes the process of buying (and selling) apps easier for everyone, the money is still flowing to Cupertino.

iPhone-to-TV
The newest version of Netflix for iPhone enables watching the movies on a TV, rather than on the phone itself.  Very cool, nice novelty feature.  But when I see a phrase like “Who needs an Apple TV now?” I get reminded of how often people in the industry aren’t thinking these things through very much (no offense to the author of that particular blog post).  To be clear – a phone, even an iPhone, does not replace a TV dedicated device, now or ever.  Wrong device for the wrong purpose.

What if you need to make a phone call mid-movie?

What if your phone runs out of battery?

What if your phone drops the signal (apparently those iPhones are known to do that from time to time)?

What if you want to put the movie on, then sit 8-10′ away from the TV, and, say, pause or rewind the movie?

etc.

Congrats Foundry Group!
Just wanted to take a second to congratulate Brad, Ryan, Jason, and Seth at Foundry Group for raising their latest fund! I’ve had a long history with the guys and a lot of their investments, and since they are one of the few VCs who love the consumer gadget space, wanted to give them a little shout out here.  Keep up the great work, and keep finding the cool gadgets!

Rooting for Roku

Posted on by

Hello,

I’m a longtime fan of LiveDigitally but a first time contributor. Jeremy has been kind enough to invite me to write for the blog whenever the mood strikes and today seemed like the perfect day for my inaugural post.

Picking up on previous posts on what makes a great Google TV or Boxee app, I thought I’d jump in with some thoughts of my own on one of my favorite devices, the Roku box.

I got my Roku about four months ago and I love it, I really do. It gives me about 75% of the content I would want on my TV, which was enough to get me to “cut the cord” and cancel my cable subscription. So for the past few months, Roku has been my rocket ship to the TV universe.

I haven’t seen Roku’s latest offerings, but here are some thoughts on what I have seen and heard about their current boxes:

  1. Roku wins universal praise for its ease and setup, but not so much fanfare for its UI; I can’t disagree. The box is dead-simple to set-up and use, which is great. But the UI is uninspired and doesn’t really encourage you to really delve in to what is on offer
  2. Another piece of high praise is reliability, my box hardly ever flakes and we put it through the ringer. It is hard-wired into my router so I can’t vouch for the wifi capability, which appears to be improved in the new boxes launched today
  3. Content: At the outset, Roku was essentially a Netflix box. That was great a year-or-so ago but now, everyone and their brother is a Netflix box. Roku has some nifty content like MLB, Pandora, Amazon and a few others, but they need to continue to expand with more mainstream stuff.  Apple has Netflix and just scored ABC and FOX. It isn’t a huge leap forward, but it may be enough to peel off Roku users.
  4. Developer community: Related to the content problem, I know from some developer friends that Roku isn’t the easiest platform to develop on. Obviously this is a problem as competitors, both large and small have strong developer communities. Difficult development platform=difficult to get the choice apps/content.

Some of the pet peeves that are missing from my current box have been addressed by the new ones, the biggest being previously a lack of USB. With my current XR, I don’t have USB to view my own content, which is frustrating. Happily, that has been solved with the XDS

But even as it evolves, Roku is firmly staking ground in the low-end market, which I think is a good move.

The big battle around media-streaming boxes will be around price/performance; Google TV seems to be on the highest end, with estimates that their box will be in the $200-$300 range, Boxee is next at under $200, with Apple TV and Roku coming in at the sub $100 range.

GoogleTV and Boxee promise a more active experience, with more features, web surfing  etc., but also with a more complicated remote/UI. AppleTV and Roku look to be more of lean-back experience of just watching content via a simple remote/UI.

My money is on the lean-back experience, which I think is more viable for the short term. A simple box that lets people access most of the content they want will be the gateway drug to media-streaming boxes. Boxee and Google TV look/sound great on paper, but I wonder if they may be too complex too early in the lifecycle of this product segment.

How-To: Make a Better Google TV Site Experience

Posted on by

Over at the Stage Two blog we’ve decided we’ll put up a lot more convergence/usability/experience advice blog posts.  First one went up today regarding 10 Essential Tips to Build Great Google TV Sites.  Kind of a funny start to the series, since I’m not a big proponent of the “1.0” version of Google TV, but since it’s probably coming to market pretty soon, I felt the timing was relevant.  The reality check here is I’m seeing a *massive* repeat of the WebTV era, wherein companies made faux “ten foot versions” of their web sites, but didn’t actually re-orient or re-engineer them to be “TV versions”, which are two very different things…

Summary of the tips:

  1. Avoid Input Fields
  2. Incorporate Animated/Moving Backgrounds
  3. No Tiny Fonts
  4. Use The Entire Screen
  5. Site Navigation Should Be Via Remote
  6. Google TV CANNOT Be Your Website Only Way Bigger
  7. Performance is Critical
  8. Choose Colors Wisely
  9. Do Assume the User Has a Computer
  10. KISS: Keep it Social, Stupid

Click here for the details.

    Party Mode TV: great until the inevitable bathroom break

    Posted on by


    Watch live video from Jeremy Toeman on Justin.tv

    For context, one of the “grand visions of the future” is how people from around the world will be able to watch TV “together”. It’s a wonderful idea except that the visionaries behind it seem to forget the pragmatic realities of how people actually watch TV…