Google I/O 2012
developers.google.com
developers.google.com
> 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.
Or for $299 I can get an XBOX with lots of apps, Netflix, Hulu, and 250GB of space.
Or for $99 dollars I can get an Apple TV with Netflix and iTunes rentals.
Or for $79 I can get a Roku with USB, and buy an external drive with 250GB at $100 ($179 total) and get Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu.
Or for $299, I can get Google Nexus Q with 16GB of space and no apps yet.
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).
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.
Besides that, I think that almost all of the set-top boxes blow away the boxes of the carriers on practically every front.
The consoles are guzzlers - with the exception perhaps of the Wii.
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.
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.
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).
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.
Sergei Brin walks on, and they hold a LIVE Google Glass demo with skydivers in a hangout, and bikers, and you see them falling and cycling to the studio.
Wow.
It was really awesome!
Can I nominate "buttery" (and related phrases) as the most annoying tech buzzword that's caught on recently? Particularly as it never really means perfectly smooth - even iOS on the latest hardware has the occasional stutter.
Edit: THANKS SECRET MODS. The original title was "Google I/O 2012 Keynote begins in 10 minutes".
(That said, there is a playful back/forth between the guy running the demos and the speaker that is, at least to me, something that makes it more fun.)
Ever tried any of their location based features in europe?
Because without asking it used my calendar, the GPS, Google Maps and calculated how long it would take for me to get to my next meeting.
This is pretty sweet tech. This is above anyone else on the market right now.
Sell one thing at a time, don't try to sell a new tablet AND an as-yet-unsuccessful content platform at the same time, I think.
Obviously this device will run the Kindle software too, so the whole Amazon library is available to you - in addition to the Google Play library & app store.
If that's their intention, they want to show that they can match the amazon media ecosystem.
http://gopotato.co.uk/grabs/Screen%20Shot%202012-06-27%20at%...
I'd be a bit surprised by that.
To me this seems like one of those features that you wouldn't want until it becomes available, almost like Bill Gates saying how we'd never need any more than whatever ridiculously small amount of ram he mentioned. Whatsmore, It sounds like a very interesting feature to be designed around to me, and keep in mind that the same idea of instant one-to-one sharing is one of the selling points of the galaxy s3.
almost like Bill Gates saying how we'd never need any more than whatever ridiculously small amount of ram he mentioned.
https://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9101699/The_640K_quo...
Seriously, Google?
Also, Hangouts is G+ best feature but sadly it is really hard to get people together on it. Why when I invite someone do they not get an email or IM?? They only get notified within g+ itself and it isn't easy to find the invite. On recent jobs several times I've tried to get meetings together on g+ only to resort back to conference calls (!!? WTF??) every time because people couldn't get on the Hangout. That is a real shame.
In any case, 99% of the designers I work with and 75% of the developers have iPhone/Mac and don't use either Android or gchat although they all have gmail/google accounts. So if they got an email they would be notified, otherwise, they never know.
Without the link it is also really hard to just tell people to go to G+. The way to join the hangout if you don't have a link is hard to find
This is not just an opinion, like I said, I actually tried to set up hangouts several times and these are the reasons it failed. Just my experience.
(I worked for a guy who was doing this in the 1980s, with ~50 pounds of equipment in a backpack, a 5W radio transmitter on his head, etc.)
Isn’t that the description of any smartphone available for a few years now? Remove the screen and you can shrink it almost at will.
Project Glass is interesting, I’m curious about the display tech, but this demo didn’t show anything new.
Then why hasn't that happened yet for a few years now, you think? Maybe your assumption "you can shrink it almost at will" is a bit simplistic?
I have been doing that with my phone for a few years.
Also, look at the part of the glasses behind the ear, now look at any recent smartphone teardown and see how they compare in size.
I’m sure Project Glass will eventually be interesting, this demo was really cool, but hardly a technological achievement. You can do the same thing by strapping a phone to your helmet.
> I’m sure Project Glass will eventually be interesting, this demo was really cool, but hardly a technological achievement. You can do the same thing by strapping a phone to your helmet.
Yeah... you don't see any technical challenges going from the latter to the former? Sounds like you made up your mind a "years ago" when this apparently already existed.
You don't sound like someone interested in having a conversation. Have a good day.
But when Apple copies Android's notification center (which has now been massively bumped in JB) that is a huge thing and everyone is up in arms about what sort of geniuses the people at Apple are.
Sure.
Live, two-way audio/video-streaming from AR computer glasses during a freakin' parashoot jump over regular cellular networks however, that is not really that much of a big thing?
Excuse me. What standards are you applying to whom where?
Met with GOOG employees today who were testing newer versions, better resolution & new comms. I wasn't allowed to wear it but it looks bulkier than I imagined.
The odd thing is, during a meeting with an employee who was wearing Glass, it was hard to figure out where to focus my eyes on their face -- it was like talking to someone with a lazy eye.
Also, I don't know what you found boring. Did you want more faux wood and plastic or more fancy words? I mean, I cringed enough at "buttery", I couldn't have handled the "magic" of alternative presentation styles.
I feel pretty safe in saying that IO is... pretty geeky.
They need to hire the TED guys as consultants and institute the same sort of preparation that Apple puts into their conferences.