The difference between Apple and everyone else

Re:The difference between Apple and everyone else by mikeryan on Thursday November 11, 2010 @11:52AM (#1894331)

Actually the article is missing a larger point. Most users probably don't want to be searching on their TV. Maybe a larger cognitive disconnect of Google's Device is that their answer to the problem isn't the right one. At some point Google really needed to try to figure out whether search was the feature that people really needed. I'd say content discovery is still a huge gaping hole as more IP Delivered video gets pushed to the main TV screen in your house. I don't think that text search is how people are going to find it. But hey when your main tool is a hammer every problem starts looking like nails right?

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...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The difference between Apple and everyone else by Pewpewarrows on Thursday November 11, 2010 @01:50PM (#1894762)

Except that Search _is_ the answer to what we need on a TV right now. Whenever I fire mine up right now, I either want to go to a specific channel, find if a particular program is playing right now, browse a category of programs, or access my existing digital library. Existing remotes, including Apple's minimalistic design, are worthless for doing this. It might look sleek and thin, but it's probably the worst user experience for getting to what I want right now. I don't want to have to press arrow keys a hundred times over through menu after menu after menu to get to the show that I want to watch.

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The difference between Apple and everyone else by mikeryan on Thursday November 11, 2010 @02:42PM (#1894960)

Its funny you say the answer is "Search" but of the 4 things you want to do when you fire up your tv, none of them are "Do a text based search for content".

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The difference between Apple and everyone else by Pewpewarrows on Thursday November 11, 2010 @03:39PM (#1895149)

No, existing remotes do this horribly. Modern Cable subscriptions come with 300+ channels. I don't want to have to hold down an arrow key for minutes looking for something. I don't want to have to memorize what damn channel is AMC HD.

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The difference between Apple and everyone else by mikeryan on Thursday November 11, 2010 @04:02PM (#1895229)

I've already conceded that if you know what you're looking for (A&E, House) a keyboard helps. I just don't think that's the primary issue which people have with their TV. 99% of the time I don't need Google on TV - I want reddit and I never use my keyboard on Reddit.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The difference between Apple and everyone else by ZeroGravitas on Thursday November 11, 2010 @05:10PM (#1895505)

But you use a mouse on Reddit to select which story from a list to read, comment to expand, upvote etc which the Google remote has, and the Apple remote doesn't.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The difference between Apple and everyone else by zachwaugh on Thursday November 11, 2010 @12:31PM (#1894511)

I agree, and that is my point actually, the remotes were just an example. But the remotes reflect how they approached the whole problem. Google went with the assumption search was necessary, and had to find a way to fit it in. Apple thought about the entire experience, and realized people don't want to search on their TV and left it out.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The difference between Apple and everyone else by stanleydrew on Thursday November 11, 2010 @02:08PM (#1894829)

This is kind of ridiculous. I do want to be searching on my TV. That's why I have a computer hooked up to it with a wireless keyboard and mouse. Just because Apple designed a product that fits your needs doesn't mean that it fits everyone's.

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."

[ Parent | on HN ]