The difference between Apple and everyone else
blog.zachwaugh.com
blog.zachwaugh.com
It's difficult to articulate this properly because most people don't even have a good understanding of what it means to dissent. Being rebellious isn't thinking differently, it is merely fighting the imposition of someone else's will upon your own. Thinking differently is looking at something in the most honest way you possibly can and attempting to refine your vision without allowing undue external influences to distract from the pursuit.
Rarely can you find a single person, much less an organization, that can avoid tunnel vision and approach problems without the taint of past success spoiling new opportunities. It's kind of amazing to watch.
It's on the yogurt container because its lack of vents causes it to overheat if sitting on a smooth surface. It's unplugged because there's no clear power button on its very stylish remote. I happen to know that if you hold down one of the keys long enough it will turn (mostly) off, but I don't think this knowledge is shared by others in the house. It needs to be turned off because of the whine of the harddrive and the aforementioned overheating problem.
Using the remote to enter search terms for Youtube is possible, but is a dreaded chore. Generally one says "Here, let me show you something" and then has to call the other party back from another room when done with the laborious process. This is not attempted as much as when the device was new. A keyboard as a remote may look silly, but would at least make simple things like this possible.
Overall, it's very cute and warm little boat anchor. We'll probably eventually manage to get Boxee installed on it, but the lack of a reasonable means of entering text will really limit its utility. So while I agree that Apple "really gets it", at least in this case I'd apply this solely to their marketing rather than their usability.
The real world use case for a remote involves grasping it in your hand, which is not even remotely comfortable to do with the Apple remote. Meanwhile, I normally can't even find the thing, because it is so irritatingly small, thin, smooth, and tapered that it is constantly lost: it slides under papers, falls into the couch, or even manages to disappear into your own lap.
This simply isn't a remote that a normal person can use.
Frankly, the more I deal with people who insist "Apple is for end users" the more I realize that these people don't even understand what an end user is. Instead, these people are all geeks who happen to be geeky in the same way the product designers at Apple are, and therefore they get turned on by the same ludicrously ineffective-for-actual-end-users design choices that Apple often ends up making.
(By the way, it isn't usually holding one button: the Apple remote has a bunch of "secret" combo pushes that involve holding down two buttons at once for at least 6 seconds and then letting go. Rather than add buttons to a design, Apple prefers forcing users to remember large numbers of obscure gestures and modifiers keys, and the Apple remote is no different.)
This is exactly what Apple is trying to tell: searching on TV is not what consumers want. If you ask me as a consumer, searching on TV just does not makes sense. I would search on my ipod and just tell my TV to show things I found.
This reminds me of reviews when first iPhone was released. One the problems reported was that it does not have all kind of ring levels as Nokia ("meeting", "silence", "vibrate and ring", etc.). And what actually people like me want is just silence and not.
Do you have one of these that you happily use? Are you referring to using the iPod as a remote to directly control it instead of the included remote? If so, and if you've got this working, I can agree with you that this is a much better model for operation.
-- Cory Doctorow http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Cory_Doctorow#Eastern_Standard_...
Apple takes the time to figure out how normal people do stuff.
I'm not sure what Microsoft does, but I'm picturing what some a focus group determines followed by the interpretation by committee (with the necessary compromises) followed by what some engineer implemented, all constrained by years of legacy code.
I've been using Win7 at work (I'm linux-only at home) and expected it to be a smooth experience. After all, everybody says linux isn't ready for the desktop yet. I am surprised at how often Win7 guesses my intent wrong or does stupid annoying things like jumping the list under the mouse when I click on an entry.
I think the blog post doesn't have a point at all, since it compares apples to pears.
Apple's focus is on delivering video. period. They don't need the complexity of an GoogleTV because they're delivering the main thing that people want on their TV. They end up with a $100 box which is very usable and probably delivers the key features that people need.
BTW Vizio has a more elegant solution for a keyboard with a clamshell remote
http://gizmodo.com/5443308/every-3d-vizio-comes-with-this-cr...
GoogleTV's remotes let me do that. A few button presses and I'm instantly where I want to be. While Apple's product design strategy is elegance over any and all costs, with Google I can get shit done. And that's all I care about at the end of the day, not how pretty my remote looks when I'm using it.
1. Go to specific channel
2. Find if a program is playing right now
3. Browse a category of programs
4. Access an existing digital library.
Existing remotes actually do many of these pretty well. A keyboard based search only really helps with 2 and 4 and even then might actually be an ancillary experience unless you are looking for something specific. Text search only helps when you are looking for specific content it helps you find content you know exists. But I really don't think thats the main problem for people watching TV.
I think most people do what I do when I get home, sit down and try to find something interesting and new to watch. I think the problem is that most people have a hard time finding that cool new show or video. Now similar to the web, when I want to try to find something interesting I don't go to Google. I go to reddit or HN or fark or digg or some other source of curated content.
GoogleTV lets me type-in three letters: AMC. I get the channel. I get YouTube videos for snippets from their latest shows. I can type in House and immediately see if it's playing on any of the two dozen channels it's syndicated on, grab some episodes from my network, watch videos online of it, and read the Wikipedia page.
Try using a computer without being able to type actual words. You're only allowed to use the on-screen keyboard provided by your OS and the arrow keys to move around and confirm keys to press. I'll check back in when you're pulling your hair out trying to do anything in 5 minutes. The common computer experiences are merging with your TV. Apple's remote doesn't do anything to solve it. It's simple for the sake of being simple, and it's worthless as a modern computing remote because of it.
Statements like "Apple thought about the entire experience, and realized people don't want to search on their TV and left it out" are offensively condescending and give Apple too much credit. Building any product requires making assumptions. So far Apple has happened to be right with many of theirs, and for that they deserve a ton of credit. But the fact of the matter is that the Apple TV obviously doesn't meet very many people's needs, otherwise it would have sold better.
I think Google deserves some credit for trying a different approach, based on different assumptions. Proclaiming it DOA because the remotes look complicated is more than a little short-sighted.
"No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame." This can go the other way too you know, and might turn out to be just as ridiculous: "No hulu.com. Clunky remote. Lame."
This is not to say that there haven't been rudimentary search capabilities in the Apple TV. It's just not a focus.
If I want a fuller interface, I can use Apple's remote application on my iPad or iPhone or iPod Touch. I don't care for the idea of trying to make one remote provide both the minimal and the maximal interface at the same time.
Disclosure: I do not hack my Unix filesytem for the sheer joy of nerding out. My opinions about usability probably do not map to anyone who reads HN regularly.
This seems like a good direction for Apple to take. Instead of putting a full keyboard on every remote, just allow additional peripherals to be added via USB or Bluetooth. Unfortunately they certainly hasn't made this easy: http://www.hackint0sh.org/f98/77420.htm
I guess I can see why Apple would keep this entirely within their own ecosystem for economic reasons, but this feels like it really limits the utility of their devices. Wouldn't they do as well to have a simple way of connecting standard devices AND provide what they feel is the best experience via custom apps?
So much easier and simpler than trying to make everything do everything. Leave the keyboard to a device that's better used with one, and make the two work together nicely.
I still think that little 'Oh, and I can push stuff to my tv with my iPhone' feature they skimmed over at the Ping event will end up huge.
I love using vim. It's super awesome. But most people don't want to use vim. I'm in the minority of users. That doesn't mean that vim is wrong, or that Notepad++ is 'better.' It just means I'm in a minority.
In this case, the latter is vastly superior (for me) because a TV isn't something I want to screw around with. I want to do two things with my TV: Start playing the game that's currently in my XBox, or flip through my Netflix queue and click play. I've never used 99% of the options on my XBox dashboard, because I don't care about any of that stuff. I just want something super simple.
How do you actually search from that remote? Can you?
That visio remote looks pretty cool as far as solving the qwerty interface obstacle.
I don't know why they don't just implement a simple Apple remote with an annoying on screen keyboard but really kickass voice recognition...
"I haven’t used a Google TV, but based on these remotes, I would bet the rest of the interface is just as clunky." - From the blog
I think that's an irrational assumption. Again, I haven't used one either so I cannot dispute the claim, but I think one should hold off their opinion until they try it.
* TVs are about media consumption, not about interaction in the PC-sense of the word.
* When one wants extra content or information regarding the media they are consuming, they tend to use a secondary device (e.g. iPad, notebook)
* Most devs in the room merely wanted a device that would allow them to better manage and consume the media they wanted
* It's not clear what sort of apps (besides the aforementioned management tool) would be beneficial to write for a Smart TV platform. This is likely a function of not groking what a future with a Smart TV might be like.
* Over and over again, it was noted that the TV is a social device. You watch it with friends, be it in a bar, or a home. It's not clear that interacting with a Smart TV could be a social activity.
I'm interested to see what happens in this sphere, but I frankly can't shake the feeling that it's a dead end. Mostly dumb boxes that enable consumption, and management of media are probably the most likely thing to succeed, a la TiVo.
One of the big gaps here is that most TV App platforms are independent of the video you are watching (they are not content aware). Take the Yahoo! platform which is (very well) designed to be used while watching TV, yet the apps don't know what is being watched. This adds some serious difficulty to app developers who want to enhance existing TV content which is kind of the current holy grail for TV apps (Actually most TV apps right now provide alternatives for delivering video content - and that is the killer app on TV right now. I'm going to try to focus this screed on TV apps whose main purpose is not to deliver video). This disconnect between app and video is currently being addressed. Early next year these apps will be able to be content aware and you will be able to have apps which are sync'd to the broadcast and this will add a lot of value to the chain. Unfortunately enhanced ads will likely be the first area where you'll see this functionality but someone needs to pay the bills.
The second trend is that a lot of TV interactivity will likely move from the TV to your tablet PC. We've already seen a first implementation of this with ABC's "My Generation" TV Show app (show's already canceled unfortunately). This app sync'd to broadcast using audio fingerprinting. I think that at some point these "second screen" apps will be the main type of TV Apps you see. Likely using the TV app platforms for some simple updates. Think a leaderboard or something while playing - or a twitter feed.
With respect to social. I think where the most interesting social aspects for TV aren't "Friend Feeds" via Twitter or Facebook. But using social networks for content discovery. I think we're going to be so inundated with video content that our primary method for content discovery won't be a guide (or search) but some sort of social recommendation system. Maybe a reddit for TV?
Your last point is a pale shadow of a greater problem that PVRs are trying to solve. People are ipso facto inundated with too much content from all angles, period. I sometimes find myself wondering if we as a society are addicted to this constant influx of content and stimuli.
How do you explain console games?
When you have five product managers that have a stake in something and they care more about their little product rather than the larger picture, this is what you end up with.
Apple has the singular vision of Steve Jobs/Jony Ive to drive their products. You really need a (well-qualified and competent) dictator when it comes to product design.
The better question is "what will happen to Apple after Jobs and Ive are gone?"
However, this is only a small (albeit high paying) niche, and to suggest that other companies are making poor business decisions because they aren't targeting the same niche that Apple does is simply wrong. I'm sure entering a URL, for example, on the Sony-Google remote would be far easier and more obvious than on the Apple one - and so I'm sure the majority of consumers would prefer that one over the Apple one.
In summary, all the designs on the page are appropriate for a market segment the brands they are being marketed under target.
Two remotes.
One is a TiVo remote control. Fits nicely in my hand, has the important buttons laid out nicely. Good for watching and selecting and OK for most other tasks.
The other is a remote keyboard with built-in mouse, similar to the Logitech board. I pull it out when I want to search for something or manipulate the system in a more complex way (like firing up Firefox to play a Flash game). The rest of the time, it's propped next to the sofa.
There's no reason not to ship a simple remote and a complex one, and let people decide what they need when they need it.
This does not really detract from the central point of the argument, but then I believe the argument is flawed since the remotes are made for almost entirely different things. You cannot run searches using the Apple Remote, for example. Whether the solution picked by Sony and Logitech is the best solution remains to be seen (although I find it doubtful at best), but the article, IMO, makes a bad point.
AFIK, most phones offer capslock to improve communications efficiency, but YMMV.
Do you realize that adding hardware buttons that duplicate features b/c it's slightly convenient for some small group of people is bad design?
And who can predict all the ways people will use their HDTV's, DVR's, DVD's and PC's in the future.
BTW, capslock facilitates one handed typing while eating a BLT.
Forget remotes, I want the whole UI for my TV to be on a dedicated touchscreen device. I want to read about what's on next, preview what's on other channels and schedule recordings without disrupting what's on the display screen.
The rest of the time, show me two big volume buttons.
The result of imagining rather than testing is a tiny remote that easily falls between the cushions of said couch or gets buried under a magazine on the end table.
I'm not saying one is better than the other (ok, well, the computer is better ;) ) but it should be apparent why the inputs are so different.
Every good IT department attempts to distill computer usage into a few core functions that are reliable and easy to use.
The article doesn't compare like-for-like. It's not a fair comparison.
You can use an Android phone to control Google TV anyway.
I would love to see Apple solving the problem with typing using a remote(especially things like URLs) without using resorting to an iPhone or iPod Touch.
They already solved it; you aren't supposed to be typing URLs while laying on your couch watching TV.
Why not? You have iPod/iPhone in your pocket, or iPad on your coffee table. They can be used to look something up, and with AirPlay you can send content to TV once you find it.
No, I don't. Do I need to buy one to search?
:-P