Google Nexus Q: The social streaming media player | Hacker News Reader

Google Nexus Q: The social streaming media player

play.google.com

61 pointsboh62 comments

I'm not quite sure why it's $300. Apple sells their Apple TV for $100 and it's nearly the same device. The Nexus Q comes with a 25-watt amplifier with traditional audio ports (rather than just optical) and a mute button, but that seems to be the large difference. Oh, and it has color-shifting LEDs that coordinate with the music. Apple TV even has a similar "let your guests vote on the music at a party" app.

The direct connection for speakers is nice, but I guess I feel like it could have been accomplished for under $200 - considering that I can order a 100-watt receiver for under $100.

Granted, Google has put in 1GB of RAM (vs 512MB in the Apple TV) and a dual-core processor (vs. the single-core Apple TV), but does that translate into anything? The Apple TV handles 1080p video (including high profile H.264).

I guess I'm just left wondering why it's costing so much - especially considering that the Nexus 7 has a quad-core processor, 1GB of RAM, a battery, and a screen for $100 less.

Optical and HDMI make so much more sense for a processor like this. Amps are slow evolving technology, and if you own a huge TV/speakers, you almost certainly own a home theater amp (HDMI or toslink in), or at least a TV which can accept an input to its speakers.

Real audiophiles are going to be pickier about their amps than Google could ever be. This looks like a case of someone saying "let's kill Sonos" and then copying their spec sheet too literally, but not all Sonos devices have integrated amps.

> Optical and HDMI make so much more sense for a processor like this.

It has those, too.

> if you own a huge TV/speakers

Lots of 18-25 year olds don't have huge TVs and these will be great for their parties. Move this and a set of speakers into place and they're ready for the party. Everyone else can use the optical output and still have the flexibility to move it around for special occasions and directly connect to speakers.

For that use case, it seems like it would make more sense to plug the speakers into the computer they already have, or the mini-hifi they likely already have. I'm in the 18-25 range, and I run my computer sound through my $100 stereo system and computer video into my HDTV. With that and a free media center app, I have remote control, great sound, and a big picture when I have a party. If the party is somewhere that doesn't have a computer or TV already set up, there are plenty of speakers that connect directly to a laptop or smartphone that don't cost $750.

Why anyone would spend $300 on a device, then another $450 on speakers and cables for it, just to play music from their $600 smartphone... just boggles the mind.

It seems like your argument is against the existence of the device. I disagree. I think it's a much nicer experience than anything that involves plugging in a desktop computer. Although, I do think it should be priced <= $200. I was simply saying that being able to connect directly to speakers is a nice feature that doesn't come at the expense of anything else.

Amps and power supplies are expensive. That feature is probably responsible for $100 of the $300 price. Maybe more. (the relationship between BOM, assembled cost, and retail price isn't always obvious).

I'd rather have no amp for $50-100, or amp+speakers for $300-400 (in a single portable package).

Volume is already going to be variable based on speakers and speaker placement, so having an outboard power amp wouldn't really hurt the user experience.

My argument is against the idea that 18-25 year olds would be buying this for $750 even if they don't have a large TV or a stereo system. It's significantly more expensive than an HDTV plus a discrete stereo. It's also more expensive than using the computer you already have coupled with Windows Media Center, MythTV, or the solution Apple has. Launching one program then using your bluetooth/IR remote control isn't exactly an inelegant solution.

There's a market for this. The problem is, it's made nearly inconsequential by the $750 price tag for the whole kit.

> My argument is against the idea that 18-25 year olds would be buying this for $750

I agree but it's only $300. As I said before, I think it should be $200.

> Windows Media Center, MythTV [...] using your bluetooth/IR remote control isn't exactly an inelegant solution

I was using MythTV years ago, so I'm not personally disagreeing but the average person would violently disagree.

You can argue for Apple's solution but that's not really my point. My point is that this thing (especially at $200) is a much better solution than anything involving a desktop computer and that directly connecting speakers is a nice feature. Additionally, look at how easy it is to play a/v from your friends' phone or tablet without any setup; it just works and doesn't require any wires.

@rdl: If it really does add $100, I'd be nice to see it as an optional feature but I stand by the utility of the feature.

I agree but it's only $300. As I said before, I think it should be $200

Unless you want the speakers and speaker cables they're selling with it, the speakers are $400 and the cables are $50 for two.

I don't think 25 watts will provide enough sound for a party. I think it would be fine for lounging around a room, but not for a party.

What you're paying for is the ungodly number of parts needed to manufacture a cable squid that will collect dust within a few years. Did you see that video where they "explode" the device?

The Apple TV is cheap because there's probably a total of five screws inside that small black case. It probably takes all of three minutes to assemble one.

I appreciate good industrial design, but the Apple TV -- for all its software limitations -- is far more beautiful because of its simplicity and reserve.

The Nexus Q "cable squid" is cute, but so was the PowerMac G4 Cube ... and look how well that sold.

What you're also paying for is manufacturing jobs here in the US, as that's where it's made.

As an Australian, I must admit that doesn't move me as much as it does you.

(And I wonder how much of the manufacturing is done in the US anyway. Is it just the chassis and final assembly, or does that include all of the components too?)

According to the NY Times, it "contains almost all American-made parts" but "Semiconductor chips are more of a challenge. In some cases, the chips are made in the United States and shipped to Asia to be packaged with other electronic components."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/28/technology/google-and-othe...

That's adding, what $10 bucks to this devices bill of goods? As was demonstrated with the iEconomy series and Apple manufacturing devices over in China, it's not so much about labor as it is the entire supply line.

This device isn't $299 because it's made in America.

If Google was serious about helping the US economy, they'd pay all of their corporate taxes in America, not Ireland.

maybe they are not Keynesians

If the US was serious about growing the US economy, they'd make US taxes more attractive than Ireland's.

While the Apple TV has one processor, it has two GPUs and each GPU is more powerful than the one Google chose (Apple TV uses the SGX543MP2). My guess is that the chip in this and the Apple TV are very similar prices.

The amp has to be a bit of the price, but I don't really get that addition. Like a lot of people, I have a receiver and speakers in my family room. Is this device aimed at people in dorm rooms and studio apartments that don't have dedicated sound systems? That's all I can think of.

Maybe I'm missing something, but this doesn't even support Netflix, MLB, NBA, NHL, NFL, Hulu or other streaming services that $99 and less devices do (although none support all of those).

For the price of this, a person could buy an iPhone 4S and an Apple TV.

Synchronizing such devices in different rooms across my whole apartment might sound better than turning up the volume on the nice livingroom stereo in an attempt to have it heard three rooms farther. That one is too expensive, but I could imagine littering the apartment with sub-100USD devices.

The integrated 25 watt Class D amplifier wouldn't account for more than $20 of the parts cost. That's about how much it costs to buy one wholesale -- including a case and power supply.

Yeah, this seems quite overpriced to me, although I like the concept of integration. The built-in amplifier is a complete waste of time, though. I have professional powered speakers in my studio space and a nice amp for the TV/surround speakers. Who has speakers but no amplifier? Just give me a clean line out.

Chips are becoming an insignificant part of the total cost, and, increasingly, the overall experience. Nexus Q is made with die cast zinc, has moving parts, and weighs 2 lbs. The Nexus 7 is plastic, has no moving parts, and weighs 0.75 lb.

A consumer will probably replace the Nexus tablet every 1-3 years. A Nexus Q will probably be used much longer. It needs to be more durable. I'm still using my 30 year old Yamaha YST-C10, one of the best audio devices ever made.

Likewise, the materials in an Apple Macbook or an old-school Thinkpad make those laptops a lot more expensive to manufacture than a typical plastic laptop.

I don't get what the point of this product is. Why would I want to have my "good speakers" only connected to one source device? Why would I want it to be connected to a 12.5W/channel amplifier? [0]

It's too expensive as a source device (ala Apple TV), it's too expensive as streaming audio device (ala third party AirPlay speakers) and I can't imagine there'd be a lot of customers who'd want to use it as both.

[0] I own a similar spec Tripath amp, and while 12.5W isn't nothing, it's not party music.

It's a $299 market competitor to the $99 Apple TV.

It's round with several thick cables sticking out of the back with an array of ports -- an odd industrial design to me. The LEDs are really, really cool though.

Or the $50 Roku. Doesn't make sense to get one, at all.

Not really. The Q and Apple TV are more focused on streaming personal content, whereas the Roku is designed to stream content from other content providers. There are ways to use your personal content with a Roku but this is not their focus and is not a no-brainer to set up.

This is actually a pretty weird continuum now between the three set-top boxes.

The Apple TV is really focused on getting content onto your TV. Out of the box, you can stream content from Amazon, Youtube, Hulu, Netflix, etc. without an additional iOS device. With Airplay, you can stream content from your OSX/iOS devices to the Apple TV.

Roku does the streaming half of that equation. It'll stream basically any online service to your TV.

On the other hand, the Q seems to handle the half that the Roku doesn't. It seems entirely focused on streaming personal content to your TV and speakers.

The biggest selling point of the Apple TV is what it looks like: almost nothing. It's easy to disappear the thing behind your TV or above your cable box.

The Nexus Q looks like a cable squid.

I have mine underneath my TV stand/media cabinet. It cannot be seen from the couch or really anywhere in the living room.

The Apple TV's ability to just disappear really is it's biggest selling point.

And its second-biggest selling point is its remote control. Best. Remote control. Ever.

Good product. Terrible price. I think it would be successful at $99 but $299 just kills it.

Its made in the US with parts from US suppliers. Be interesting to see if US consumers will pay premium for that over other devices like the AppleTV.

  "Designed and Manufactured in the U.S.A."

Thats a first!?

It looks really cool. Pausing and resuming across devices is awesome. I just... 300. $300 is a lot. The tablet has a display, and it's less expensive.

That amp must be really expensive.

That's what I thought when I saw it. How does a tablet have a screen, a battery, and more flash cost less than a 25w amp with some plugs on it?

Can we appreciate for a moment that this is a product that is _manufactured in the United States_. I hope this is a step forward in the manufacturing of our consumer electronics, and by doing this, it makes it so doing manufacturing in the United States becomes more of a possibility to more of our companies.

I'll happily shell out an extra $200 to buy a product that is built in any country with halfway decent environmental and labor laws.

>I'll happily shell out an extra $200 to buy a product that is built in any country with halfway decent environmental and labor laws.

Maybe for a laptop, $200 makes sense but three times the cost? That's way too much. Anyway, I have a HTPC hooked up(a 6 year old Dell with Windows 8) so I am not in the market for such a device. but a 200% price increase is just too much for me.

$299 kills it dead. A complete flub in an otherwise great keynote event.

For that steep a price it had better hover in the air like a magic orb.

It has a built in amplifier so it eliminates the need for other audio hardware. Apple TV looks too small to have an amp. As someone who hates audio hi-fi hardware and all the related nonsense, I think I'm sold. For example, it can power a small pair of bookshelf speakers. There's a pair of speakers in the Google Play store.

Or you could just buy one of the many AirPlay speakers on the market?

Have you had a chance to hear the Audyssey Audio Dock Air? That thing kicks some serious musical reproduction butt, and doesn't require any cables other than for electricity.

thanks but i wouldn't go that route for several reasons. i like the idea of simple, normal, default speakers. they are not tied to any standard like airplay and they just do one thing well - make sound. a wireless audio signal may suffer from interference in some situations. i don't like apple itunes at all, but that is just my personal preference. i've always avoided itunes and have used foobar2000, songbird, anything but itunes. i have a lot of classical music in FLAC files and just don't want to deal with Apple and their rule of the month.

Here's what looks like the design inspiration for the Nexus Q (and for its promo video): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xgls9IwWUyU

this is google's answer to the $99 apple tv??

the problem is, even if it is a great steamer, how many of your friends would have android phones or tablets?

I think there are more than enough Android phones out there.

You might have a point on tablets, but while Android tablets aren't even close to the iPad in terms of success, they still sell several million of them.

According to the market share figures from last November (the most recent I've seen), the majority of them will have Android phones. Your point?

"Sorry! Devices on Google Play is not available in your country yet."

Same will probably apply to most of the features for android/play introduced today.

I may be one of the few on HN, but I think this was a great move from Google. If this device is open, you can write games for it (or pull existing games from play) stream music, videos, and other content from your google drive. Its a push to make other Google products more valuable.

I think the HN crowd quickly forgets that not everyone can build themselves an entertainment PC.

Hearing all your groanings regarding price, is easy to understand why we "can't have nice things". To make you happy, everything needs to be disposable, lightweight, made in China using the cheapest components available, wrapped in cheap squeaky plastic which smells like my dog's feet. That, or supported by ads or a giant media/appstore sales like AppleTV or Kindle.

It's the built in amp. It's a risky move to be sure. There will be a market for this for sure, but $299 is a lot. It also has more wireless technology than your average media streaming device. Being made in America is not adding a lot to this price.

I can play all the music from my google play account? What about my iTunes account , spotify account or the random MP3s I have on my system?

Oh , so I can't play any music then?

To be fair, Google will sync your (un-DRM'd) iTunes music (and whatever other music). It takes a while to upload and there's a limit on the number of songs (20,000?), but it does have that utility.

20,000 is a ton. I synced my entire library into it and it was a couple hundred gigs. It also takes higher quality than Apple I believe (320 kbps mp3) and converts down FLAC, OGG, etc.

Aye now, 320kbps MP3 >! 256 kbps AAC. Aurally they are almost imperceptible.

Interesting, I didn't realize that I can't downvote replies to my comments. Not that I was going to here, but I did notice the lack of a down arrow.

It was taken away (I think a few months ago) because some users were using it as retribution. The order of things was useful or inciteful comments should rise to the top and everything will drift down. Now if they integrate a threshold filter ala Slashdot that would be useful. But yeah, the lack of the down arrow doesn't really do anything except to the root comments.

woah, first it's the learning machine, now cable squid, lemme guess they're big fans of the Matrix movies :-D. Can't wait to see the exoskeletons...

Is this a DLNA playback device? If not, Google is really, really betting on Play.

Also, why is no one asking the obvious question? How does this intersect and/or overlap with Google TV? Is this a Google TV device? And if not, why not?

For the same reason no-one asks after Chrome OS much anymore: Google doesn't seem to know why they're making it or where it fits. Until they figure that out for themselves, they're not going to have any useful answers to give us.

I guess?! With the power and OS in the Q, it seems obvious that they would simply make it a Google TV device. If it were cheaper, I could see it as a way of pushing Google Play services, but honestly, I doubt there are enough people heavily enough invested in Google Play services to warrant investing in a $300 standalone device.

I'm using a Raspberry PI now as a DLNA media receiver. I can use a phone or a tablet to stream media from my server to my TV for an extremely tiny cost compared to this.

I don't understand the value proposition. I know people like to act like Google does things willy-nilly, and I don't normally agree, but I do not understand the proposed positioning for this device.

You already recognized the positioning: it's all about Google Play.

Google TV exists/existed because Google wants to be in the living room. But they can't get TV makers on board. They can't get content owners on board. They can't get ISPs on board. They got some OEMs on board and tried to let developers 'solve' the content problem as it was solved for iOS and Android, but that bombed spectacularly.

So now what? Now they've got a fledgling content service in want of players. And now they're going to try to use that to get consumers to put Google devices in their living rooms and dorm rooms.

And maybe, just maybe, they'll flip GoogleTV back into the game as/if it picks up steam an developers start begging for access. (the specs are certainly overkill for a streaming set-top box)

But who really knows? If these things sell without Android apps, and Apple doesn't push the issue by allowing apps on the Apple TV, why wouldn't they carve direct deals that give them veto power as Apple has done?

Anyone else think it's stupid that they've released a supplemental piece of hardware at $299 when the Nexus7 itself is selling at $199?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com